Happy Atheist forum

Religion => Creationism/Intelligent Design => Topic started by: Dredge on December 30, 2016, 05:23:33 AM

Title: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on December 30, 2016, 05:23:33 AM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.
Title: Re: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: Bad Penny II on December 30, 2016, 08:39:18 AM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.

I too doubted abiogenesis, it just seemed too implausible.
Then one night after a salad, fish and mushroom dinner,
GOD came and told me, "yea that's how I created life."
Then she showed me a few tricks with herbs and butter.
She likes to cook, your attitude is clearly blasphemous.
Title: Re: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2016, 10:09:31 AM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.

I know Christmas is over but I suggest you gift yourself with a copy of the following book:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yOGPJEpJL._SX396_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the subject of abiogenesis.  :reading:
Title: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: Tank on December 30, 2016, 01:13:04 PM
Spit from the original thread and moved to the troll pile.

Dredge.

If you want to promote creationism, and that is what this post does, please put your posts in the correct area of the forum. Your card is marked. This means I will ban you at the slightest sign of trolling or abusing the forum. You have been warned.

Have a nice day.

Tank.
Title: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: Firebird on December 30, 2016, 02:15:34 PM
Let me just leave this right here...

(http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2014/04/slot.png)
Title: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2016, 02:23:39 PM
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder278/57289278.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on December 30, 2016, 03:57:15 PM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.

Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on December 30, 2016, 06:33:24 PM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.


That's why there is no magic.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2016, 08:42:48 PM
The problem with magic is that it can cause, among other things, pigs to grow wings and fly, which makes me uncomfortable because then if enough pigs grow wings and take to the air the probability of me being the victim of a faeces bomb will increase.   :chairhide:


:nu-uh: No, I don't like the idea of magic. It's not that it makes it all seem so random that's the problem - there are stochastic events in nature. :chin: It's that magic makes anything seem possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting that life is impossible without the god element thrown into the equation? That's quite a statement and I also await elaboration on why you think that's so. Just please, for the love of god, don't regurgitate the nonsense you find on creationists sites, they're so full of crap that when someone comes and spews their content all over the forum it's like being hit with a flying pig faeces bomb. Not very nice. 

As a welcoming gift to forum, I give you:

(http://www.petmountain.com/photos/product/giant/114420S593145/dog-chew-toys/lil-pals-latex-pig-dog-toy.jpg)

Warning: toy might suddenly grow wings.

And for your listening pleasure:


Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on December 31, 2016, 02:00:46 AM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability.

If you trot out such a claim, it helps if you know exactly what the "law" states.  The Earth is not an isolated system and even in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase toward equilibrium, not infinitely.

Quote
Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.

I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on December 31, 2016, 03:34:39 AM
...

And for your listening pleasure:


(https://media.giphy.com/media/4jEFaBOIlpovm/giphy.gif)
Oh, my Asmo, that's hilarious!
 :picard facepalm:
 :lol:
 :rofl:
 :hug:

 :postoday:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on December 31, 2016, 06:57:29 AM
So I will tell you why "abiogenesis" makes sense. Shampoo. Why shampoo? Because why not? If you have a primordial soup with all the ingredients needed for living cells then all you need to do is add a little shampoo and you have a clean, healthy environment to sustain life.

Or you can pray to your God-Jesus/Dad-Son to turn your can of Cambell's into living breathing organisms. But I'm telling you it won't happen without shampoo. Although not even I know which shampoo to use of course. Maybe it's Mabelline, or maybe it's Garnier Fructis...take care.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on December 31, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
I don't recall anyone asking, to be honest.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Tom62 on December 31, 2016, 09:53:27 AM
I don't recall anyone asking, to be honest.

We are living a a post-fact world now, which means that opinions are more important than facts or honesty.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on December 31, 2016, 10:42:46 AM
So I will tell you why "abiogenesis" makes sense. Shampoo. Why shampoo? Because why not? If you have a primordial soup with all the ingredients needed for living cells then all you need to do is add a little shampoo and you have a clean, healthy environment to sustain life.

Or you can pray to your God-Jesus/Dad-Son to turn your can of Cambell's into living breathing organisms. But I'm telling you it won't happen without shampoo. Although not even I know which shampoo to use of course. Maybe it's Mabelline, or maybe it's Garnier Fructis...take care.

Shampoo might actually help generate life!

All detergents work becsuse their molecules, shaped a bit like tadpoles, have a "head" that is attracted by water and a "tail" that rejects it. The tail attaches to any "non-water" molecules or particles in the water, eventually enclosing these in packages that stay in suspension and can be flushed away. Energy is needed in the system to "shake" particles loose from the clothing or whatever.

Guess what, the walls of animal cells contain molecules with heads and tails! The heads stay on the surface, in the "aqueous" environment. This keeps the "bits" in a neat package. Of course, there are also many molecular channels to get nutrients etc in and waste out.

(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy67/DaveGlos/LipidBilayer.gif) (http://s778.photobucket.com/user/DaveGlos/media/LipidBilayer.gif.html)

Taken from: http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes1.htm

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Sandra Craft on December 31, 2016, 12:45:18 PM
Only God can perform magic.

I'm not good at science or math, but that above sounds like special pleading to me, which makes the statement completely worthless.  Can you support the idea of magic and supernatural beings without using special pleading?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on December 31, 2016, 01:06:08 PM

Shampoo might actually help generate life!

No, no just no, shampoo kills, it kills.
Conditioner gives life, life, it is known.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 31, 2016, 02:16:54 PM
...

And for your listening pleasure:


(https://media.giphy.com/media/4jEFaBOIlpovm/giphy.gif)
Oh, my Asmo, that's hilarious!
 :picard facepalm:
 :lol:
 :rofl:
 :hug:

 :postoday:

:grin:

Everyone should have a squeaky toy or two by their side for moments of stress and frustration I say, and in the absence of toys sound clips will have to do. ;)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on December 31, 2016, 02:48:55 PM
...

And for your listening pleasure:


(https://media.giphy.com/media/4jEFaBOIlpovm/giphy.gif)
Oh, my Asmo, that's hilarious!
 :picard facepalm:
 :lol:
 :rofl:
 :hug:

 :postoday:

:grin:

Everyone should have a squeaky toy or two by their side for moments of stress and frustration I say, and in the absence of toys sound clips will have to do. ;)

Rather have a squeaky person by my side to squeeze!

 :hug2:

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 31, 2016, 04:02:15 PM
...

And for your listening pleasure:


(https://media.giphy.com/media/4jEFaBOIlpovm/giphy.gif)
Oh, my Asmo, that's hilarious!
 :picard facepalm:
 :lol:
 :rofl:
 :hug:

 :postoday:

:grin:

Everyone should have a squeaky toy or two by their side for moments of stress and frustration I say, and in the absence of toys sound clips will have to do. ;)

Rather have a squeaky person by my side to squeeze!

 :hug2:

:chin: Squeaky people often complain when you squeeze them too hard, others squeak obnoxiously loud. If you find someone who squeaks just right they're a keeper for sure!
Title: Re: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: Asmodean on December 31, 2016, 05:31:48 PM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.  The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability. 

Regarding the latter, the chance of a living, reproducing organism arising from dead matter is so vanishing small that it isn't worth considering.  In any other field of science, such infinitesimally small odds would render a theory dead in the water.  But atheists desperately need to believe that abiogenesis happened, and so they are willing to ignore the rules of science and put their faith in a scientific impossibility.  Such irrational and psychologically-driven reasoning has no place in science, but is mighty useful when it comes to superstition.  Abiogenesis research is really based on belief in magic.

Only God can perform magic.

I know Christmas is over but I suggest you gift yourself with a copy of the following book:

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yOGPJEpJL._SX396_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the subject of abiogenesis.  :reading:
Ha!

Also, the way some creationist types um... Apply, let's call it, quantum mechanics is cringe-worthy. Is there a For Dummies book for that?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on December 31, 2016, 11:45:13 PM
Oh, my dear Asmo... There's a For Dummies for EVERYTHING

Quantum Physics for Dummies, second edition (https://books.google.com/books?id=ohwWlcw5BzUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=quantum+mechanics+for+dummies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRm5aezp_RAhUr04MKHR-4CSUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=quantum%20mechanics%20for%20dummies&f=false)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 01, 2017, 03:37:19 AM
"How to Read - For Dummies"
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 04, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated.  
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 04, 2017, 08:41:41 AM
Only God can perform magic.

I'm not good at science or math, but that above sounds like special pleading to me, which makes the statement completely worthless.  Can you support the idea of magic and supernatural beings without using special pleading?
Er, no; you've got me there.  Since I can't prove that God exists, I concede that "God did it" is a worthless statement - just as worthless as "God didn't do it", since no one can prove that God doesn't exist.
Title: Re: How Life May Have First Emerged On Earth (Abiogenesis Thread)
Post by: Dredge on January 04, 2017, 08:44:44 AM
Spit from the original thread and moved to the troll pile.

Dredge.

If you want to promote creationism, and that is what this post does, please put your posts in the correct area of the forum. Your card is marked. This means I will ban you at the slightest sign of trolling or abusing the forum. You have been warned.

Have a nice day.

Tank.
Sorry.  My mistake.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 04, 2017, 09:08:22 AM
Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.
Any "first simple cell" would need to reproduce in order for the species to survive.  Do you imagine the reproduction of a cell would be a simple process?  I don't.  Is there any evidence that cell reproduction is anything but extremely complex?  Not a bit. 

And let's not forget that a cell cannot form piecemeal - a chaotic mess of molecules must form a living orgaism very quickly, then it must reproduce before it dies (within a few hours).   I wonder how all the cell's internal components manages to get inside a 100%-intact cell wall (since a less-than-100%-intact cell wall spells death). 
There are of course many other functions that a cell must perform in order to survive.  Which one of them is simple? 

A "simple cell" is as oxymoronic as a "simple computer" - no such thing exists or could ever exist - except as a fantasy in self-deluded minds of atheists.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 04, 2017, 12:56:38 PM
Ah Dredge difficult questions,
such conundrums to be sure.
But tell do, have you any pets?
Who was you're favourite pet?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 04, 2017, 01:16:00 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophistry
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 04, 2017, 01:36:42 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophism.

Stop throwing the isms around.
I want to know what he likes for lunch.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Papasito Bruno on January 04, 2017, 01:51:28 PM
Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.
Any "first simple cell" would need to reproduce in order for the species to survive.  Do you imagine the reproduction of a cell would be a simple process?  I don't.  Is there any evidence that cell reproduction is anything but extremely complex?  Not a bit. 

And let's not forget that a cell cannot form piecemeal - a chaotic mess of molecules must form a living orgaism very quickly, then it must reproduce before it dies (within a few hours).   I wonder how all the cell's internal components manages to get inside a 100%-intact cell wall (since a less-than-100%-intact cell wall spells death). 
There are of course many other functions that a cell must perform in order to survive.  Which one of them is simple? 

A "simple cell" is as oxymoronic as a "simple computer" - no such thing exists or could ever exist - except as a fantasy in self-deluded minds of atheists.

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following (Mind you now this isn't a complete list)

Flat-Earth Society Believers
Conspiracy Theorists (You know the moon hoaxer, or 9/11 Truther types )
Racists (This would included Holocaust Deniers, Free Speech Racists, Fetishizing Racists, Color-Blind Racists, Not-All-White People and Hipster Racists, Apologetic Racists, All-Lives Matter Dickheads, Trump Supporters, etc...)
Evolution is Just a Theory Types
Terrible Argument Misogynistic Asshole Types
Anti-Vaxxers
Those Freaks who Think the sounds generated by the group Abba account somehow for music (I know, you're like c'mon Bruno this is 2017 surely such people don't exists anymore, butt I assure you they do)
Creationists

Butt I'm going to go ahead and give it a whirl just for the heck of it, even if you do seem to be trolling.

It doesn’t appear that just life suddenly started, or even that evolution began after life first appeared; which is usually stated as an argument against the origin of life itself. Most likely evolution was/is part of the process the moment a single molecule formed that was capable of replicating itself.

And if such a self-replicating molecule were to be found today I doubt or don’t think anyone would classify such a simple molecule as alive, so it begs the question is such an event actually “Life from non-life’? This seems to me to be inappropriate, I don’t really see a hard line between the two.
Also, such events are probably not at all uncommon, and has happened a great many times. Who knows the number of life linages that were created over-time? Or that this isn't occurring even now all over the universe.
 
When we examine DNA it shows only one of those lineages fostered all surviving lifeforms that we have today, all the others simply lost the race, butt what a fucking race it must have been!

Anyway I’m not a scientist, only a self-deluded atheist. However; I can say that the only thing approaching fantasy is the belief that some magical, supernatural being created it all. The belief in supernatural beings is in fact the very “Primordial make-believe ooze" the world of fantasy is made out of.

P.S. Sorry to lump you/creationists in with all the other deplorables, butt meh', that's the way it is. After all you believe in the whole silly flood and ark thing, not to mention talking snakes, the Tower of Babel, etc...
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 04, 2017, 02:19:43 PM

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 04, 2017, 03:00:48 PM
The worst ABBA song is far better than anything conceived by any and all rappers. If you honestly believe that rap is even in the same galaxy as music, then you need to have your head examined.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Papasito Bruno on January 04, 2017, 03:05:56 PM

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 04, 2017, 05:39:07 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophism.

Stop throwing the isms around.
I want to know what he likes for lunch.

OK, changed it to a -stry (which it should have been)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 04, 2017, 05:42:17 PM
If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.
According to high school maths, a lot of things would not be possible. Fuck, if I could only use programming techniques or methodologies that they teach in high school, what I do for work every day would seem like magic. Stupid point. The things they high school isn't the complete picture.

Quote from: Dredge
The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability.
Nope. They even teach why you're wrong in high school. You're working off of a misunderstanding the of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 04, 2017, 05:44:16 PM

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?
Yup, so long as it does no damage to others I don't care if they claim the Earth is a cube or that it was created from a skin flake exfoliated from a scratched itch on the bum of the Great Galactic Gallump.

I do wish the would keep it to themselves though.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 04, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
I'm glad you decided to return and post in this thread again, Dredge.  :)

Your argument is a bit repetitive, so my response will be, as well.

Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.
Any "first simple cell" would need to reproduce in order for the species to survive.

It looks like you're asserting that self-replicating molecules could only exist within a cell. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems that your ignorance of current thinking regarding how abiogenesis could have proceeded is hindering your ability to produce a sound argument. No scientist is saying that living cells in the form we find in the current environment sprang into being spontaneously. However, there is plenty of evidence that organic molecules were common on the pre-biotic Earth. A possible path by which simple organic molecules can form more complex self-replicating organic molecules has been shown.

"New theoretical model explains the origins of self-replicating molecules" | Nanowerk (http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40896.php)

Once you have self-replicating molecules, they need to be protected by some sort of barrier from the surrounding environment to begin to form a primitive version of a cell. One hypothesis regarding how such a barrier might have come about is based on the fact that simple fatty acids under some conditions (which were common on the pre-biotic Earth) will form vesicles. Essentially, these are bubbles of fatty acids.

"Fatty Acids" | Exploring Life's Origins (http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html)

Combine one of these vesicles with a primitive self-replicating molecule, and you have a good candidate for a precursor of life as we know it.

Do you imagine the reproduction of a cell would be a simple process?  I don't.


It looks like you're conflating the cells that we find in our environment with the earliest steps toward life. Nobody in the modern field of abiogenesis is proposing that that is how life developed.

Is there any evidence that cell reproduction is anything but extremely complex?  Not a bit.

Again, cells that exist now are not examples of how life may have begun, and nobody except Creationists is saying that they are. It's obvious that the earliest forms of life (and certainly the precursors to life) would have been much simpler than what we observe around us.

And let's not forget that a cell cannot form piecemeal - a chaotic mess of molecules must form a living orgaism very quickly, then it must reproduce before it dies (within a few hours).

This is your presentation of how abiogenesis would have taken place. It does not accurately represent current thinking on abiogenesis. If you want to learn about how modern scientists think about abiogenesis, you might take a look at the site I linked above: Exploring Life's Origins (http://exploringorigins.org/index.html)

I wonder how all the cell's internal components manages to get inside a 100%-intact cell wall (since a less-than-100%-intact cell wall spells death).

The idea is that the earliest precursors to cells were not as resistant to intrusion as the cells we see in present-day life. You're taking the way that life currently exists as the standard by which we should view the origins of life. I hope you can take on board the idea that this sort of thinking will not help to understand how abiogenesis would have taken place.
 
There are of course many other functions that a cell must perform in order to survive.  Which one of them is simple?

Once you get your head around the fact that the precursors to life and the earliest forms of life are not the same thing as the life forms we see around us, you might be in a position to attempt to challenge the idea of abiogenesis. Right now, you're flailing around in the neighborhood of "not even wrong." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong)

A "simple cell" is as oxymoronic as a "simple computer" - no such thing exists or could ever exist - except as a fantasy in self-deluded minds of atheists.

Apparently you know as little about the development of computers as you do about modern ideas of abiogenesis.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 07, 2017, 02:27:57 PM

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?

You are right, I'm irredeemable.
You dislike ABBA so are homophobe.
Don't argue the case you'll only make it worse.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on January 07, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

I understand your example, however, I would classify it as a false analogy. Why? Because baboons building a space craft et al, are not similar situations to something such as the self-assembly and formation of RNA (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature08013.epdf?referrer_access_token=LOGkVF2ZbVHAu8GT9sS9m9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ns48sWjoiZjOrCF2DQ96eJQBexsQ84KSPuVz83Vh8EHNwlGzbFiLh_NDkYk9FoVG0OVhZM-GQLaVaRNXBw54EDSNSyD3IO_6PVQyOPZQyrr33-czIGE_noH_dyL-dSRrCgBs6q8cs9nyyDVh1xuNVA&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com) and phospholipids (http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/2/17).

With that said, you make the leap from "impossible to calculate" to "monkeys can't build space shuttles" to "...therefore God". That's pretty much the equivalent of saying:

(http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/I-Dont-Always-Aliens.jpg)

Also, the assumption that "dead" (non-living, yet organic matter) suddenly became a living, replicating cellular structure is a mischaracterization of the current scientific thought on the matter.  The transition is thought of as more of a process of intermediate steps (http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/11/130156.short), many of them most likely not successful, yet with the formation and action of primitive autocatalytic cycles it doesn't seem so implausible.

There are also those who take the stance of a divine hand initiating the necessary conditions for that self-assembly.  If the default in your argument is "God did it", why wouldn't it be reasonable to think it was accomplished through assembly of chemical polynucleotides which would eventually form a replicating protocell?

Either way, it's a more logical conclusion to defer to current models based upon experimental inquiry than to invoke the supernatural in my opinion.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:31:44 PM
I've learnt to be very skeptical of scientists and their theories.  So here's my general rule for sorting fact from possible fiction: I only believe in scientific theories that have found a use in applied science, since such a use means that the theory is correct beyond any doubt.  This approach to reality is anathema to most atheists, who swallow theoretical science as credulously as children.  And why not?  Theoretical science means you can entertain all sorts of possibilities without having to prove anything, not to mention allowing for specious "evidence" to be imbibed.
For example, without a shred of real evidence, scientists claim that the first primitive cells were much simpler than any cells existing today.  This "dumbing down" of the alleged first life form is a tenet of atheist theology, because extant cells are way too complex for abiogenesis doctrine to handle.  

Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:33:54 PM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophistry
Why is it sophistry?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 08, 2017, 10:48:33 PM
...is a tenet of atheist theology...

 :rofl:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 08, 2017, 10:49:13 PM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif)Dredge:
A dreamer's paradise.

Now, that's funny.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Sandra Craft on January 09, 2017, 02:20:31 AM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 09, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
I've learnt to be very skeptical of scientists and their theories.  So here's my general rule for sorting fact from possible fiction: I only believe in scientific theories that have found a use in applied science, since such a use means that the theory is correct beyond any doubt.


You appear to be confusing scientific theories with scientific hypotheses. "Hypothesis vs. Theory" (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory)

Scientific theories can have practical applications, yet fail to be "correct beyond any doubt." One commonly cited example of this is Newtonian mechanics. While the theory proposed by Newton has practical real world applications (it's effective for calculating a workable route to the Moon and back for instance), it has been superseded by Einstein's theory of special relativity. See "Even theories change" | Understanding Science

 (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/_0_0/howscienceworks_20)
This approach to reality is anathema to most atheists, who swallow theoretical science as credulously as children.  And why not?  Theoretical science means you can entertain all sorts of possibilities without having to prove anything, not to mention allowing for specious "evidence" to be imbibed.

Can you provide an example of specious evidence?

All scientific ideas are provisional and open to being revised in light of new evidence. "Proof vs. Evidence" (https://yalb.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/proof-vs-evidence/)

For example, without a shred of real evidence, scientists claim that the first primitive cells were much simpler than any cells existing today.  This "dumbing down" of the alleged first life form is a tenet of atheist theology, because extant cells are way too complex for abiogenesis doctrine to handle.

It's clear that life was not poofed into existence in the form we see around us today. The fossil record going back literally billions of years is irrefutable evidence of this. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to think that the earliest forms of life were not the same as contemporary forms. There is no dumbing down involved.

Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

Contrary to your sneering and inaccurate assertion, scientists are testing hypotheses of abiogenesis as we speak, at the Szostak Lab (http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/), for instance. This particular lab has produced results: "Synthetic primordial cell copies RNA for the first time" | New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24669-synthetic-primordial-cell-copies-rna-for-the-first-time/)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 09, 2017, 06:05:12 AM
Recusant dropped the mic on that one
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 09, 2017, 09:17:34 AM
I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophistry
Why is it sophistry?
OK, perhaps "sophistry" is not quite the definition I needed for your arguments. However they do not destroy the fact that a theory has a body of supporting evidence that, whilst not offering conclusive  proof, offers the best understand we have for a certain situation to exist. An understanding that can then be tested.

Your argument certainly works against the existence of any supernatural entity taking any part in the creation of the unjverse, or any part of it. There is no mathematical proof of such an entity, no physical evidence that can be tested in any way.

Though, as another said,  the denial of the denial of such an entity is as ridiculous as the assertion for it - neither argument hasany testable evidence. However there is a body of evidence that suggests that life developed from simple to complex forms. "Suggests" is impostant, there is no proof. It also requires rigid discipline on the part of researchers not to allow belief and desire to lead them along false paths to find their "Holy Grail".

However, theists merely have to decide, "I believe," and the job is done. Deep, objective, investigation into the origins of the belief are frowned upon. Proof is not something the believer seeks - just incase it goes the wrong way. Evidence abounds, because the believer believes it does.

Self-fulfilling.

The skeptical scientist, especially the atheistic one, has no such luxury. It is his or her task to determine that there is no "anti-theory", that the evidence cannot point to another possibility. They have to work against their own belief in order to prove its validity.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 10, 2017, 10:26:41 PM
Your argument certainly works against the existence of any supernatural entity taking any part in the creation of the unjverse, or any part of it. There is no mathematical proof of such an entity, no physical evidence that can be tested in any way.
A starfish living on the bottom of the ocean would have trouble believing in the existence of human beings, but this doesn't mean human beings don't exist.  Are you claiming that nothing exists outside science - ie, human perception?  Could human perception and science be limited and inadequate to explain reality?  Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 10, 2017, 10:57:29 PM
Where do you get your drugs?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 11, 2017, 12:40:17 AM
I don't want to be presumptuous on behalf of starfish, however the fact that literally do not have brains may play a role there...
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
That's not dark energy, it's not even god energy. It's soap. ;)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 11, 2017, 03:01:40 AM
Could human perception and science be limited and inadequate to explain reality?

Maybe, but maybe not. And if it is, monotheists like yourself don't have any more fucking clue what is real than atheists do. We're just not afraid to admit it.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 06:45:08 AM
A starfish living on the bottom of the ocean would have trouble believing in the existence of human beings, but this doesn't mean human beings don't exist.  Are you claiming that nothing exists outside science - ie, human perception?  Could human perception and science be limited and inadequate to explain reality?  Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy.

Hello, Dredge,

(http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/1821273_o.gif)
I must say that I've contemplated a lot of weird shit in my life, but a starfish, living on the bottom of the ocean, contemplating about my existence has never been one of them.

This I've contemplated:
(http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1156341_image_jpg0d5b1c4c7f720f698946c7f6ab08f687)
Wouldn't it be funny if those dark spots turn out to be God's son's reincarnation gone horribly wrong.

Your signature does say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads."  :shrug: --I'm just saying.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 07:56:47 AM
This I've contemplated:
(http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1156341_image_jpg0d5b1c4c7f720f698946c7f6ab08f687)
Wouldn't it be funny if those dark spots turn out to be God's son's reincarnation gone horribly wrong.

Your signature does say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads."  :shrug: --I'm just saying.

 :rofl:


Edited to fix quote tags. --R
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 11, 2017, 08:09:38 AM
Your argument certainly works against the existence of any supernatural entity taking any part in the creation of the unjverse, or any part of it. There is no mathematical proof of such an entity, no physical evidence that can be tested in any way.
A starfish living on the bottom of the ocean would have trouble believing in the existence of human beings, but this doesn't mean human beings don't exist.  Are you claiming that nothing exists outside science - ie, human perception?  Could human perception and science be limited and inadequate to explain reality?  Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy.

More of the same . . .

As has been said starfish have no brain. They do have a nervous system, even eyes. They will react to stimuli - but even plants do that. Comparing the cognitive power of a starfish with that of the human in this way maybe demonstrates the weakness of your own reasoning abilities. There is just no comparison at that level.

As for "dark matter"? The jury is still out but I have every confidence that the answer will fit into the natural laws of the universe and be describable in mathematics. One might say that it has already been so described in its effects if not in its nature.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 11, 2017, 11:18:57 AM
Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy.

Yes, vindication at last for us believers.
I thought our explanation of lightning and thunder being Zeus doing his thing was unassailable.
Then those scientists come along with their electrically charged clouds making the world less.
I wonder which god controls dark energy.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 01:39:31 PM
Given the trend of the "god's power" over time, I don't think it's very likely that we'll find god in dark matter or even dark energy.

(http://i.imgur.com/UCxI6Ng.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 02:28:54 PM
 :secrets1: Davin, the image is not showing anything. I tried opening it in a new tab, but there's nothing.  :(  I am interested in seeing, "god's power" over time.  :smilenod:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 11, 2017, 02:29:58 PM
:secrets1: Davin, the image is not showing anything. I tried opening it in a new tab, but there's nothing.  :(  I am interested in seeing, "god's power" over time.  :smilenod:

Me seeing same nothings. Big box, nix pix.

[ Oh, and doing an image search on it gives the weirdest results!]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
How about that?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 11, 2017, 03:33:36 PM
How about that?

The image link seems to be working now. At least it is for me.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 04:31:12 PM
How about that?

The image link seems to be working now. At least it is for me.

Yes, it's working now. Thank you.  :)
Not very impressive, is it?  :chin:
It's very important that Dredge sees this evidence and follows it to see where it leads.

I wonder why the statistics didn't include Jesus watching people while they take a bath.  :headscratch:
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/plaster_1358442i.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 04:40:04 PM
How about that?

The image link seems to be working now. At least it is for me.

Yes, it's working now. Thank you.  :)
Not very impressive, is it?  :chin:
It's very important that Dredge sees this evidence and follows it to see where it leads.

I wonder why the statistics didn't include Jesus watching people while they take a bath.  :headscratch:
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/plaster_1358442i.jpg)
God is always watching us, this is proof of it! What a creepy fucker.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM
(http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1156341_image_jpg0d5b1c4c7f720f698946c7f6ab08f687)

(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/plaster_1358442i.jpg)

:lol: Jesus does choose some funny places to manifest his image. I think god's trolling.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 04:53:22 PM
I sincerely agree with Davin's approach to handling Trump and Dredge:
^ :lol: maybe we fight crazy with crazy?
Let's find out who's the craziest mother fucker.
 :)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/P0NJ9855y0oog/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 05:47:36 PM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/0f1c80f8703d89f0c3425176aeb67a8f/tumblr_n63sm4SqGG1tz7eyoo1_250.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 11, 2017, 05:52:50 PM
Are we posting selfies?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 06:09:28 PM
I could be the craziest mofo here if I go off meds. Of course you would probably regret it when you see you've created a monster.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 11, 2017, 06:16:13 PM
Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference

(http://s3cf.recapguide.com/img/tv/64/2x7/Its-Always-Sunny-in-Philadelphia-Season-2-Episode-7-4-d87e.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
Supernatural?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 11, 2017, 06:20:14 PM
Philly cheesesteaks and sunny stuff?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 11, 2017, 06:30:26 PM
Philly cheesesteaks and sunny stuff?

I'll take it, but the correct answer was "the cats are brown now!"
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 06:32:15 PM
Are we posting selfies?
Maybe.
We showed you ours, now you show us yours.  :grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 06:43:30 PM
Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference

(http://s3cf.recapguide.com/img/tv/64/2x7/Its-Always-Sunny-in-Philadelphia-Season-2-Episode-7-4-d87e.jpg)


 :smilenod:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 06:50:27 PM
I could be the craziest mofo here if I go off meds. Of course you would probably regret it when you see you've created a monster.
(http://i.imgur.com/CnDf5Lu.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 06:53:16 PM
(http://media.giphy.com/media/2XflxzsPhNKtHYXpMzu/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 07:43:09 PM
Being crazy is kind of like this
: show
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4pzf1bZ7v1rnvwt1.gif)


And everyone around you is kind of like this
: show
(http://i.imgur.com/GivDjU4.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 07:58:03 PM
I think that being crazy is unnoticeable and completely normal to me until someone else mentions something.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 11, 2017, 08:20:08 PM
I think that being crazy is unnoticeable and completely normal to me until someone else mentions something.
So crazy is in the mind of the beholder?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 11, 2017, 09:21:22 PM
Probably more like, crazy is in the general opinion of consensus, and while some things are clearly crazy, there are a lot of places where it gets fuzzy.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 11, 2017, 10:01:25 PM
I think what strikes me as crazy is when someone is having a conversation with themselves in public settings like a doctor's office. Or if they take 15 short steps forward, then jump twice, then repeat. That last one is the kind of behavior that is normal for kids I might think, but not for adults.

I've met a girl, very pretty btw, who would say things that have no prior context, but still somehow related to the conversation. She would also be afraid of people walking behind her. Another thing she did was whisper a name to herself once while walking behind me and another friend. Now some people saw her as a manipulator, but that can be a symptom of some mental illnesses while not being a mental illness itself. Using sexuality to get what you want can also be a symptom of mental illness.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 11, 2017, 10:11:58 PM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) No one:
Are we posting selfies?

(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) Mags:
Maybe.
We showed you ours, now you show us yours.
:grin:

(http://cdn.quotesgram.com/small/32/85/566777860-DEMONS2-16.jpg)


Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:01:14 PM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
No, not really.  The Bible doesn't claim to be science.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 11, 2017, 11:07:45 PM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
No, not really.  The Bible doesn't claim to be science.

What does it claim to be then, in your mind?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:19:41 PM
You appear to be confusing scientific theories with scientific hypotheses.
Thank you.
Quote
Can you provide an example of specious evidence?
Yes.  Miller/Urey-type experiments.

Any evidence based on the composition of the earth's "chemical soup" of billions of years ago - since no one can possibly know what it was.

Computer models.

Quote
It's clear that life was not poofed into existence in the form we see around us today. The fossil record going back literally billions of years is irrefutable evidence of this. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to think that the earliest forms of life were not the same as contemporary forms. There is no dumbing down involved.
What a pity there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that self-replicating life can be anything be ridiculously complex.  But I completely understand the athesist's deperate need to believe in the possibilities that have no basis in fact.

Quote
Contrary to your sneering and inaccurate assertion, scientists are testing hypotheses of abiogenesis as we speak ...
Sneering?  Now that hurts. 
Let me know when they come up with an organism that can reproduce.  Any result less than that is just deluded space cadets talking. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:25:13 PM
Could human perception and science be limited and inadequate to explain reality?

Maybe, but maybe not. And if it is, monotheists like yourself don't have any more fucking clue what is real than atheists do. We're just not afraid to admit it.
I am willing to admit that my faith could be no more than a delusion.  But I don't think so.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:27:32 PM
Where do you get your drugs?
I make my own LSD.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:36:34 PM
As for "dark matter"? The jury is still out but I have every confidence that the answer will fit into the natural laws of the universe and be describable in mathematics. One might say that it has already been so described in its effects if not in its nature.
The jury used to think that the earth was flat - thems were rong.  The jury now thinks rocks turned into life and that evolved into all life - thems be rong again, I suspecto.  Scientists make up stories and think dem be good and truey.  Thems be often rong and not at all weight. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:44:08 PM
How about that?

The image link seems to be working now. At least it is for me.

Yes, it's working now. Thank you.  :)
Not very impressive, is it?  :chin:
It's very important that Dredge sees this evidence and follows it to see where it leads.

I wonder why the statistics didn't include Jesus watching people while they take a bath.  :headscratch:
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/plaster_1358442i.jpg)
This is not an image of Jesus, as it looks nothing like the face on the Shroud of Turin.   No, this is St. Peter.  I recognise him from that movie, The Passion of the Christ.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 11, 2017, 11:49:06 PM
How about that?
I don't like this moving scorpion thing.  It scares me.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 12, 2017, 12:13:58 AM
As for "dark matter"? The jury is still out but I have every confidence that the answer will fit into the natural laws of the universe and be describable in mathematics. One might say that it has already been so described in its effects if not in its nature.
The jury used to think that the earth was flat - thems were rong.  The jury now thinks rocks turned into life and that evolved into all life - thems be rong again, I suspecto.  Scientists make up stories and think dem be good and truey.  Thems be often rong and not at all weight.

No one of any credibility ever really believed the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) was running calculations back in 300BC or so.

But that's a red herring regardless. The entire point of science is that it advances as we acquire knowledge.

You also cannot simultaneously argue that science is wrong because it thinks its infallible and that science is wrong because sometimes it changes.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
You also cannot simultaneously argue that science is wrong because it thinks its infallible and that science is wrong because sometimes it changes.

:this:

The jury used to think that the earth was flat - thems were rong.  The jury now thinks rocks turned into life and that evolved into all life - thems be rong again, I suspecto.  Scientists make up stories and think dem be good and truey.  Thems be often rong and not at all weight.



So you would rather believe what ancient goat-herders had to say? 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 12, 2017, 12:38:53 AM
New plan: science deniers back away from all computers, cars, modern homes, etc and go sit in the woods banging rocks together.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 12, 2017, 01:05:38 AM
Can you provide an example of specious evidence?
Yes.  Miller/Urey-type experiments.

Any evidence based on the composition of the earth's "chemical soup" of billions of years ago - since no one can possibly know what it was.

The Miller-Urey experiments were valid according to the knowledge of the time. They showed that amino acids formed from basic atmospheric chemical components in the presence of electrical sparks. Science has moved on in the intervening 60 plus years, but the evidence provided by Miller and Urey is not "specious." They were testing a hypothesis, and their hypothesis was borne out. It turns out that the components they chose for simulating a pre-biotic atmosphere were likely incorrect. Most importantly however, the results of an experiment that took place over half a century ago have little to do with current hypotheses of abiogenesis, so Miller-Urey is pretty much irrelevant here.

Your assertion that "no one can possibly know" what the pre-biotic atmosphere of the Earth was like shows that you haven't bothered to explore and examine what current science has to say on the topic, including the means that are available to do that which you believe is impossible.

Quote
Scientists in the New York Center for Astrobiology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have used the oldest minerals on Earth to reconstruct the atmospheric conditions present on Earth very soon after its birth. The findings, which appear in the Dec. 1 [2011] edition of the journal Nature, are the first direct evidence of what the ancient atmosphere of the planet was like soon after its formation and directly challenge years of research on the type of atmosphere out of which life arose on the planet.

[source (http://www.astrobio.net/geology/earths-early-atmosphere/)]

Computer models.

Computer models are not "specious evidence," they're a means of experimentation. The validity of evidence that they provide depends on how closely they conform to the conditions they're intended to replicate. You denigrate them without providing a single example showing why you consider them to be specious. Until you do so, even if we ignore your confusion between experiment and evidence, your assertion is worthless.

It's clear that life was not poofed into existence in the form we see around us today. The fossil record going back literally billions of years is irrefutable evidence of this. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to think that the earliest forms of life were not the same as contemporary forms. There is no dumbing down involved.
What a pity there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that self-replicating life can be anything be ridiculously complex.  But I completely understand the athesist's deperate need to believe in the possibilities that have no basis in fact.

It appears you haven't bothered to follow and explore any of the links that I've provided. As a result, rather than critically addressing the information that they provide, you're arguing from a position of willful ignorance.

Contrary to your sneering and inaccurate assertion, scientists are testing hypotheses of abiogenesis as we speak ...
Sneering?  Now that hurts. 
Let me know when they come up with an organism that can reproduce.  Any result less than that is just deluded space cadets talking.

I see that you're moving the goalposts so you can engage in some more sneering. This approach doesn't speak well for your intellectual honesty, Dredge.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 01:11:40 AM
New plan: science deniers back away from all computers, cars, modern homes, etc and go sit in the woods banging rocks together.

As long as they're far away I don't care if they want to dance around a primitive camp fire singing some religious hymn and blurting out "amen" every two seconds.  :nu-uh:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
How about that?
I don't like this moving scorpion thing.  It scares me.

It seems you find science scary as well. ;)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 12, 2017, 01:23:24 AM
New plan: science deniers back away from all computers, cars, modern homes, etc and go sit in the woods banging rocks together.

As long as they're far away I don't care if they want to dance around a primitive camp fire singing some religious hymn and blurting out "amen" every two seconds.  :nu-uh:

I'm just really tired of them benefitting from all of it while using it to try to tear it down. It's mind boggling.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 12, 2017, 01:48:25 AM
I'm just really tired of them benefitting from all of it while using it to try to tear it down. It's mind boggling.

Yes, it seems that not only do they have a shallow understanding of science, they take it all for granted.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 12, 2017, 03:13:38 AM
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 12, 2017, 04:47:22 AM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) No one:
Are we posting selfies?

(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) Mags:
Maybe.
We showed you ours, now you show us yours.
:grin:

(http://cdn.quotesgram.com/small/32/85/566777860-DEMONS2-16.jpg)
(http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/-Colin-Farrell-GIF.gif)
No one, remember, I'm a bit of a hippie, so I'll use hippie terminology here. I sense a little bit of dark energy around you, and yet you manage to smile. I like that.  ;D

If, in my realm, that's what dark energy looks like, I can only imagine what God looks like to Dredge.
His words: "Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy."
 
Why would anyone want to worship dark energy!?
(http://rs118.pbsrc.com/albums/o92/quipfan/kids-clint-eastwood-grumpy-old-man-gran-torino_zpsxuilmxlz.gif~c200)


Edit:
*My last statement is not directed to any Asmodean worshipers.  :shifty:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 12, 2017, 04:56:28 AM
Where do you get your drugs?
I make my own LSD.

OK., I don't know you at all, Dredge, but I have a feeling that you're being sarcastic and that means that you might have a slight sense of humor, which is good.  ;D

Knowing that you don't believe what scientists say, makes me wonder if you do know how to make your own drugs...the correct way...that is. I don't think drug makers pray that all that shit that they just mixed together don't suddenly explode.  :-\

If you're making LSD based on faith, and you're smoking it, then I think this might explain a few things.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 12, 2017, 05:00:59 AM
How about that?

The image link seems to be working now. At least it is for me.

Yes, it's working now. Thank you.  :)
Not very impressive, is it?  :chin:
It's very important that Dredge sees this evidence and follows it to see where it leads.

I wonder why the statistics didn't include Jesus watching people while they take a bath.  :headscratch:
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/plaster_1358442i.jpg)
This is not an image of Jesus, as it looks nothing like the face on the Shroud of Turin.   No, this is St. Peter.  I recognise him from that movie, The Passion of the Christ.

Didn't the church have to rely on three radiocarbon dating tests, or some dumb scientific shit like that, to determine how old that thing was?

Wait, you recognize him from that movie, The Passion of the Christ? Aren't those movie projector thingies scientific shit and stuff too?
 
Where do you draw the line, Dredge? You use the scientific advances when they are beneficial, but the minute it reminds you of the decline of  "god's power" over time, you bitch about it in an atheist forum? Why?

Is this what all this is about?

And what does this mean!? "I am a Roman Catholic who is fascinated by atheism"
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 12, 2017, 06:56:24 AM
If, in my realm, that's what dark energy looks like, I can only imagine what God looks like to Dredge.
His words: "Wouldn't it be funny if dark energy turns out to be God energy."

(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/57/23/77/572377faafe3844a58c504edcc789548.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 12, 2017, 02:11:57 PM
As for "dark matter"? The jury is still out but I have every confidence that the answer will fit into the natural laws of the universe and be describable in mathematics. One might say that it has already been so described in its effects if not in its nature.
The jury used to think that the earth was flat - thems were rong.
How long ago? I suspect, given your performance in this thread, that you're working off of a misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

Quote from: Dredge
The jury now thinks rocks turned into life and that evolved into all life - thems be rong again, I suspecto.
This demonstrates that you have no understanding of any hypothesis for abiogenesis. Cite one proposed hypothesis that states that rocks turned into life.

Quote from: Dredge
Scientists make up stories and think dem be good and truey.  Thems be often rong and not at all weight.
You don't understand science, so judgments from you about science are worthless.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on January 12, 2017, 02:42:55 PM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15896405_586990931494497_7003542686895837676_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=7cc2f454d47e32daec0155366b0e36c9&oe=591611F3)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 12, 2017, 05:16:29 PM
^ :lol:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 12, 2017, 05:24:59 PM
Well, I can tell you now - my rocks certainly contain DNA!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 12, 2017, 07:08:29 PM
Pick a number.
Multiply it by 2.
Add 22.
Divide by 2.
Subtract your original number.

You are left with 11.

How did I know that.

MAGIC.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 12, 2017, 08:30:36 PM
Pick a number.
Multiply it by 2.
Add 22.
Divide by 2.
Subtract your original number.

You are left with 11.

How did I know that.

MAGIC.
^ :lol:

Pick a number, any number.
Multiply that number by 3.
Add 1998 to that number.
Divide by 3.
Now subtract your original number.

That's right, you picked the number of the beast: 666!!!!!

Now you have to ask yourself why you love Satan so much that you can only pick numbers that result in 666.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 03:34:28 AM
Why would anyone want to worship dark energy!?
Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?  But it would make more sense to worship the Being who created dark energy.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 03:42:55 AM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
No, not really.  The Bible doesn't claim to be science.

What does it claim to be then, in your mind?
History.  Prophesy.  Revelation.  Truth.  Peace.  Joy.  Salvation.  Eternal life.   Beyond science.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 04:16:24 AM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
No, not really.  The Bible doesn't claim to be science.

What does it claim to be then, in your mind?
History.  Prophesy.  Revelation.  Truth.  Peace.  Joy.  Salvation.  Eternal life.   Beyond science.
(http://incognitoforwomen.com/media/1907/reaction-18.gif?width=416px&height=241px)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 04:17:30 AM
Why would anyone want to worship dark energy!?
Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?  But it would make more sense to worship the Being who created dark energy.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VCOwoV9lMbo/VSbtwewe6dI/AAAAAAAAAuk/1j8X1aBIWQs/s1600/exasperated.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 04:20:18 AM
How about that?
I don't like this moving scorpion thing.  It scares me.

It seems you find science scary as well. ;)
I love science.  When I grow up, I want to be a scientist and wear a bow-tie and smoke a pipe and grow a beard. 

 I already have a theory (or is it an hypothesis?) about horses that I want to investigate:  It is my considered opinion that sea-horses are actually (land) horse larvae.  Horses normally stick to the land, but to breed, a boy horse and a girl horse go into the sea (probably during the night) to breed.  The girl horse produces an egg and the boy horse fertilizes it.  After a while the fertilized egg developes into a larvae, which we know as a sea-horse.  It grows and grows and grows and eventually becomes a little land horse (a foal), at which point, it walks (or possibly gallops) out of the sea (probably at night, as no one seems to have ever witnessed a foal emerging from the sea). 
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 04:25:04 AM
I'm sorry, guys, I just can't...
(http://replygif.net/i/1096.gif)
Is it time to move it where it belongs?
Dump Pile of Crazy Troll Posts






















Please?
(http://replygif.net/i/1096.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?   :popcorn:
No, not really.  The Bible doesn't claim to be science.

What does it claim to be then, in your mind?
History.  Prophesy.  Revelation.  Truth.  Peace.  Joy.  Salvation.  Eternal life.   Beyond science.
(http://incognitoforwomen.com/media/1907/reaction-18.gif?width=416px&height=241px)
This is pretty funny, but seriously, I'm sorry I made you ill.  Imagine how sick you're going to be when Jesus returns! Oh my Gord!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 04:29:05 AM
You sound happy about it.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 04:38:09 AM
Hello? Dredge?
I'm talking to you....
Wake up..













(https://media.giphy.com/media/3RsRSN8jpfNJu/giphy.gif)
Answer me.

 :grin:


Does it make you feel happy that your god will punish me?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 15, 2017, 05:06:33 AM



Does it make you feel happy that your god will punish me?
No, not at all.  Don't be silly.  I hope everuone gets to heaven eventually.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 15, 2017, 05:41:37 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 15, 2017, 05:57:45 AM



Does it make you feel happy that your god will punish me?
No, not at all.  Don't be silly.  I hope everuone gets to heaven eventually.
OK. In that case, me too.
This is what heaven looks like to me...

What does heaven look like to you?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 15, 2017, 07:07:42 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.

Remember when I said if I went off meds, you would regret making me the monster I'd become? Well Dredge is what I'd become.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 15, 2017, 09:01:22 AM
This guy is just a wind-up troll.

Not even funny anymore.

Bin job!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Tank on January 15, 2017, 09:58:41 AM
Why would anyone want to worship dark energy!?
Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?  But it would make more sense to worship the Being who created dark energy.

Dredge

This is trolling.

"Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?"

This is a warning.
Stop trolling or you will get banned.

Tank
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 15, 2017, 01:48:37 PM
How about that?
I don't like this moving scorpion thing.  It scares me.

It seems you find science scary as well. ;)
I love science.  When I grow up, I want to be a scientist and wear a bow-tie and smoke a pipe and grow a beard. 

 I already have a theory (or is it an hypothesis?) about horses that I want to investigate:  It is my considered opinion that sea-horses are actually (land) horse larvae.  Horses normally stick to the land, but to breed, a boy horse and a girl horse go into the sea (probably during the night) to breed.  The girl horse produces an egg and the boy horse fertilizes it.  After a while the fertilized egg developes into a larvae, which we know as a sea-horse.  It grows and grows and grows and eventually becomes a little land horse (a foal), at which point, it walks (or possibly gallops) out of the sea (probably at night, as no one seems to have ever witnessed a foal emerging from the sea). 
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.

Was that meant to be funny?  :boring:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 15, 2017, 05:34:09 PM
How about that?
I don't like this moving scorpion thing.  It scares me.

It seems you find science scary as well. ;)
I love science.  When I grow up, I want to be a scientist and wear a bow-tie and smoke a pipe and grow a beard. 

 I already have a theory (or is it an hypothesis?) about horses that I want to investigate:  It is my considered opinion that sea-horses are actually (land) horse larvae.  Horses normally stick to the land, but to breed, a boy horse and a girl horse go into the sea (probably during the night) to breed.  The girl horse produces an egg and the boy horse fertilizes it.  After a while the fertilized egg developes into a larvae, which we know as a sea-horse.  It grows and grows and grows and eventually becomes a little land horse (a foal), at which point, it walks (or possibly gallops) out of the sea (probably at night, as no one seems to have ever witnessed a foal emerging from the sea). 
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.

Was that meant to be funny?  :boring:

No, just trollish.   :zombie:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 15, 2017, 05:38:50 PM
There once was a troll called Dredge,
Who stood on a precarious ledge,
Then Tank said,"That's it,
You're just talking shit,"
And pushed him over the edge.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Papasito Bruno on January 15, 2017, 06:36:19 PM



Does it make you feel happy that your god will punish me?
No, not at all.  Don't be silly.  I hope everuone gets to heaven eventually.

If there is a heaven and hell, I think I'd prefer the latter...I'll let the well respected Philosopher Mr. Jim Jeffries explain it.


...as Jim describes in the video the point were he has died and arrived in heaven and he's meeting all of his dead relatives, "Hello Grandpa, Hello Nanna, Hello Uncle who used to touch me when I was little". "How did you get up here"? Oh, that's right, you worked for the church".
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Tank on January 15, 2017, 08:45:39 PM
There once was a troll called Dredge,
Who stood on a precarious ledge,
Then Tank said,"That's it,
You're just talking shit,"
And pushed him over the edge.

 :mb lol:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 16, 2017, 02:42:44 PM
I guess that's it. Not much of anything and nothing new.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 03:23:29 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 03:33:45 AM


What does heaven look like to you?
No aging, nor death, nor sickness, nor ugliness.  Golf balls don't sink sink, they float.  If you crash your motorcycle, you don't get hurt.  If you go surfing, no shark will bite you.   There are no biting insects such as fleas and mosquitoes.  There is no separation between God and man, as there is now.

The Bible says no man can imagine what God has in store for those who love him.  Can't wait!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 03:37:17 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.


Remember when I said if I went off meds, you would regret making me the monster I'd become? Well Dredge is what I'd become.
Envy is ugly.  It's not my faullt that I am brilliant at science, you know.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 03:40:20 AM
Why would anyone want to worship dark energy!?
Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?  But it would make more sense to worship the Being who created dark energy.

Dredge

This is trolling.

"Millions of atheists already worship science and evolution, so why not?"

This is a warning.
Stop trolling or you will get banned.

Tank
Not sure what I've done wrong, but whatever it is, my apologies and I'll desist immediately.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 18, 2017, 03:49:35 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.


Remember when I said if I went off meds, you would regret making me the monster I'd become? Well Dredge is what I'd become.
Envy is ugly.  It's not my faullt that I am brilliant at science, you know.

I think you are projecting a non existent state of mind onto your idea of me. You can take your LSD, I won't stop you. Just know you sound insane. And when you sound insane, and you act insane you end up alone. People here are mocking you. So if anything, I pity you. You are not brilliant at science, your definition of science are the tenants for Christianity. And you cling to those tenants. So 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:01:54 AM
The Miller-Urey experiments were valid according to the knowledge of the time ... Most importantly however, the results of an experiment that took place over half a century ago have little to do with current hypotheses of abiogenesis, so Miller-Urey is pretty much irrelevant here.
Please tell that to the hordes of atheists who still cite these experiements as evidence.
Quote
Your assertion that "no one can possibly know" what the pre-biotic atmosphere of the Earth was like shows that you haven't bothered to explore and examine what current science has to say on the topic, including the means that are available to do that which you believe is impossible.
Scientists 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.
Quote
Computer models are not "specious evidence," they're a means of experimentation. The validity of evidence that they provide depends on how closely they conform to the conditions they're intended to replicate. You denigrate them without providing a single example showing why you consider them to be specious. Until you do so, even if we ignore your confusion between experiment and evidence, your assertion is worthless.
Computer 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?
Quote
I see that you're moving the goalposts so you can engage in some more sneering. This approach doesn't speak well for your intellectual honesty
Not 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:10:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:20:44 AM
Didn't the church have to rely on three radiocarbon dating tests, or some dumb scientific shit like that, to determine how old that thing was?
The radioactive dating of the Shroud of Turin produced a date of the thirteenth century, which doesn't fit in with the time of Christ.  However, it now seems apparent that the material tested was taken from the edge of the Shroud and said material was very different to the rest of the Shroud.  It is suspected that this aberrant "edge" material was part of a repair job performed on the Shroud centuries after it came into existence.  Apart fom that, radioactive dating isn't infallible.  (I wonder if such dating methods have ever been used as submissible evidence in a court case.)

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 18, 2017, 04:27:40 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 18, 2017, 04:39:56 AM
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? 
Ahh 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on January 18, 2017, 05:00:31 AM


What does heaven look like to you?
No aging, nor death, nor sickness, nor ugliness.  Golf balls don't sink sink, they float.  If you crash your motorcycle, you don't get hurt.  If you go surfing, no shark will bite you.   There are no biting insects such as fleas and mosquitoes.  There is no separation between God and man, as there is now.

Now you sound like a Republican Roman Catholic who is fascinated by atheism.  :eyebrow:

I am pro-aging.
I am pro death.
I am pro ugliness.
I don't know why heaven would have: golf balls/motorcycles/surfing.
I believe sharks/insects/fleas/mosquitoes have the right to bite us if we invade their space.
Separation of god and state is the best thing we've ever done.

Dredge, you have just gone to a spiritual realm that might seem deep to you, but to me, it is extremely shallow. It's sad that someone without spirituality or even a soul, like me--a sinful atheist, can perceive this in someone like you, who feels so close to a god.

You have no spirituality and no science. I am done with this conversation. 
 
Besides, a heaven with prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, jokers, smokers, and midnight tokers sounds more like the type of people Jesus would rather hang out with--forever.
--not golfers.  :eyeroll:

Good night. Good luck.  :computerwave:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 18, 2017, 06:07:46 AM
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.
"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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 18, 2017, 06:09:54 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 18, 2017, 07:08:38 AM
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, as you know, is a common  error of theists - especially those supporting creationism.

The scientific evidence, theoretical or applied, for the existence of the supernatural seems to be zero.

Dredge, could you please offer your definition of science to us? Do you consider it a mindset - a view of the universe, or a method - a way of considering and testing how the universe works?

Edited, sorry, put handle of wrong poster in first edition, not easy to differentiate between one theist and another at times.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Tank on January 18, 2017, 09:07:30 AM
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 - ...
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

You don't understand science and you are in fact one of the people who do this "{science} can be abused to promote unscientific nonsense".
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 18, 2017, 10:58:54 AM
Yeah... Promoting unscientific nonsense is one of few thing science cannot be used for.

Some people's "understanding" of what science is and how it works, on the other hand... That can be used towards that goal.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Tank on January 18, 2017, 12:43:01 PM
Yeah... Promoting unscientific nonsense is one of few thing science cannot be used for.

Some people's "understanding" of what science is and how it works, on the other hand... That can be used towards that goal.
Of course there are those that understand science and wilfully misrepresent it to suit their own agendas.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 18, 2017, 02:15:53 PM
Just a boring troll.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:18:49 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 18, 2017, 03:23:44 PM
Scientists 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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14836.msg343808#msg343808) 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.

Computer 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.

Not 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:

Abiogenesis 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:30:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:32:54 PM

  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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2017, 03:39:51 PM

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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 18, 2017, 03:47:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 19, 2017, 01:10:41 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:12:12 AM
You 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.

Quote
So 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:21:02 AM
Ahh 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:26:33 AM
I am pro-aging.
I am pro death.
I am pro ugliness.
You sound like a very happy and well-adjusted individual!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:30:41 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! 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:42:46 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 19, 2017, 07:47:11 AM
Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
Such as?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
Damn and blast this connection... OK...

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.

Quote
Show 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.

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

Quote
Abiogenesis 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.

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.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 19, 2017, 08:14:34 AM
You 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.
So 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.
"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]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 19, 2017, 09:35:34 AM
Dredge is showing typical creationist technique -  misinterpret, misrepresent, divert, create confusing or spurious arguments . . .

There is a hand-book of such techniques available IIRC, another offers selected partial/mis-quotes from non-creationist scientists to "prove" they had doubts.

Quite surprised be is not mis-quote-mining himself.

And, have not noticed your answer to my question yet, Dredge: how do you define "science"?

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 09:40:52 AM
Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
Such as?
Are you seriously trying to engage us in a debate on the validity of speciation without at least the superficial knowledge of that?

I am not a biologist or a botanist, but I do have a hobby of reading scientific literature. You know, the kind with big words in it? Words like... Well, let us start with D. Melanogaster.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2017, 10:22:36 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?

Dredge, answer this please. I'm curious to know what type of scientist you see as an authority on the subject. And their credentials.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2017, 10:25:24 AM
Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
Such as?

You could start with this:

Speciation events  (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/)

It's an easy to read Scientific American blog. I could give you research papers but I don't think you're ready for those.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 19, 2017, 10:27:55 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.

I will refer you to an older post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14836.msg343325#msg343325) of mine. :grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 19, 2017, 10:47:22 AM
Um...I don't mean to bust your creationist bubble, but speciation events have been observed.
Such as?

You could start with this:

Speciation events  (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/)

It's an easy to read Scientific American blog. I could give you research papers but I don't think you're ready for those.
And...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/speciationmodes_05
which indicates that things like food preference can cause a single species to divert into two through genetic seperation. If insects are attracted to mates by smell and that smell has any component that is dependent on food type . . .
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 19, 2017, 12:35:09 PM
Those creationists are weird.
The Pope is OK with Darwin
It's over, Anakin! I have the high ground!
You underestimate my power!
Black Knight:  'Tis but a scratch.
Arthur:  A scratch?  Your arm's off!
Black Knight:  No, it isn't.
Arthur:  Well, what's that then?
Black Knight:  I've had worse.
I scorn life forming from primal soup,
It's so ridiculous don't make me laugh.
Before anything else there was an All
A most majestic inconceivably complex
Where'd He spring from? He always was.
I'm making a list, categorising scientists
Layabouts that just thought but didn't do
And those that did, made useful stuff
microwave ovens and smart phones
Newton, Darwin, Einstein, stand over there
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 19, 2017, 02:42:46 PM
Avoids challenges: ✔
Low effort: ✔
Moves goal posts: ✔
Evades questions: ✔

Looks like a troll to me.

(http://www.opengeek.net/images/ogeek/omg/picture_4.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 19, 2017, 02:50:40 PM
Dredge could be Scissorlegs,
giving us a reason to be.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 19, 2017, 03:14:47 PM
Avoids challenges: ✔
Low effort: ✔
Moves goal posts: ✔
Evades questions: ✔

Looks like a troll to me.

An example of Poe's Law in action. Do you think that a sincere Creationist who behaves as you've described (and plenty of them do) can accurately be described as a troll?

Anyway, Dredge has two active warnings on his account. I can't calculate the odds, but chances are that he'll get some time off to try to come up with better material.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 19, 2017, 03:26:00 PM
Avoids challenges: ✔
Low effort: ✔
Moves goal posts: ✔
Evades questions: ✔

Looks like a troll to me.

An example of Poe's Law in action. Do you think that a sincere Creationist who behaves as you've described (and plenty of them do) can accurately be described as a troll?
Yes. Sincere or not, avoiding questions and challenges, putting in low effort responses to well thought out ones, moving goal posts, and other troll related behaviors is a person trolling. As far as whether they actually believe in what they say or not, we may never know for sure, but what we do know is how they behave.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on January 19, 2017, 03:56:56 PM
I began typing a lengthy response to some claims and had appropriate references and so forth.  However, it would simply be a waste of my time as it is obvious Dredge is not here to consider and discuss evidence for or against anything - only to ridicule any opposing viewpoints and tell us how scientifically illiterate we are.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 19, 2017, 04:14:29 PM
I began typing a lengthy response to some claims and had appropriate references and so forth.  However, it would simply be a waste of my time as it is obvious Dredge is not here to consider and discuss evidence for or against anything - only to ridicule any opposing viewpoints and tell us how scientifically illiterate we are.

Dredge wouldn't be the only one reading your response though! I've missed your great informative posts here, solidsquid; I remember learning plenty from reading your contributions to this site. If you have the time and inclination, please don't hesitate to limber up your sledgehammer of knowledge and bap triflers like Dredge upside the head.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 19, 2017, 04:20:54 PM
I began typing a lengthy response to some claims and had appropriate references and so forth.  However, it would simply be a waste of my time as it is obvious Dredge is not here to consider and discuss evidence for or against anything - only to ridicule any opposing viewpoints and tell us how scientifically illiterate we are.

Dredge wouldn't be the only one reading your response though! I've missed your great informative posts here, solidsquid; I remember learning plenty from reading your contributions to this site. If you have the time and inclination, please don't hesitate to limber up your sledgehammer of knowledge and bap triflers like Dredge upside the head.
I agree. There is almost always something for me to learn from well thought out responses.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on January 19, 2017, 04:34:27 PM
I began typing a lengthy response to some claims and had appropriate references and so forth.  However, it would simply be a waste of my time as it is obvious Dredge is not here to consider and discuss evidence for or against anything - only to ridicule any opposing viewpoints and tell us how scientifically illiterate we are.

Dredge wouldn't be the only one reading your response though! I've missed your great informative posts here, solidsquid; I remember learning plenty from reading your contributions to this site. If you have the time and inclination, please don't hesitate to limber up your sledgehammer of knowledge and bap triflers like Dredge upside the head.

Good point, didn't think about it that way.  I may do that if I find some time soon. I'm at a conference for the next few days (just started today) so I have some downtime here and there but not a lot.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 19, 2017, 04:57:05 PM
Yep. The above is why I bother at all - even half-heartedly. (Full-hearted responses are available on demand)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:30:33 AM
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!

Let 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!   Like I said, hilarious.
 
Furthermore, in a thousand years time, scientists may (will probably) hold different opinions on the composition of the primordial atmosphere than they do today - but they might be wrong too, since there is no way to verify their opinion (unless someone can invent a time-travel machine and go back billions of years and grab some samples).  
The 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.

But there are some among us who just love their sandy pseudo-science, aren't there?  

Quote
]I 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.

Quote
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.
Yes, ok, point taken.  But I was leading up to the new goalposts anyway.  Am I not allowed to introduce a new point?
Besides that, I suspect that many of the results of abiogenesis experiments are controversial and that there is little consensus on the experiments among researchers.  But 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:37:23 AM
Are you seriously trying to engage us in a debate on the validity of speciation without at least the superficial knowledge of that?
All the claims of speciation I have investigated have turned out to be spurious.  What a tiresome charade.  For example, different strains of fruit flies emerged that don't inter-breed - but they're still the same species of fruit fly.  This is not speciation, just drowning Darwinists clutching at straws.
Some believe that Lenski's E. coli displayed speciation ... but no, they didn't; it was just more evolution phantasmagoria ... unsurprisingly.  

Many evolutionists are so desperate for evidence of their precious theory that they hallucinate and see things that aren't really there.  What a weird and sad phenomena - but fascinating, nevertheless.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:45:16 AM
Dredge, could you please offer your definition of science to us?
Science "is the intelllectual and practical activity encompasssing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" - from my iPad dictionary.  

I especially like the part about "observation and experiment" ... as opposed to your garden-variety atheist, who much prefers untested theory - or even better, untestable theory.   Many atheists aren't fond of the reality of applied science, as it contributes nothing to their worldview.  They much prefer, and are psychologically addicted to, the nebulous world of theoretical science, where a vivid imagination can run riot. 
Theoretical science is to these atheists what the Bible is to Christians.  Both atheology and theolgy have no place in real science.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:50:02 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?

Dredge, answer this please. I'm curious to know what type of scientist you see as an authority on the subject. And their credentials.
Prof. Michael Behe - Biochemistry

Prof. Kenneth Miller -  Biology

Prof. Vladimir Betina - Microbiology, Biochemistry and Bology

Prof. Carl Fliermans - Biology
  
Prof. Dwain Ford - Organic Chemistry

Prof. Robert Franks - Biology

Prof. Leonid Korochkin -  Molecular Biology

Prof. Harriet Kim - Biochemistry

Prof.  Kyoung-Tai Kim - Genetic Engineering

Prof. Lane Lester - Genetics, Biology

Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon - Immunology

I'm sorry if I'm slow in responding sometimes; I have to travel to a wi-fi hot spot to get online and my health is poor and consequently often feel too tired to play.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 04:58:04 AM
The Pope is OK with Darwin
What!  An atheist is recommending the opinion of a Christian?  How unusual.

------------------------------------

What any Pope thinks about Darwinism is irrelevant to other Catholics.  The Church doesn't oblige the faithful to believe anything at all about the theory of evolution.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 21, 2017, 05:13:08 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).






Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 21, 2017, 05:25:21 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?

(http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj347/rustyporter/lol_no.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 21, 2017, 06:44:57 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?

(http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj347/rustyporter/lol_no.gif)
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 21, 2017, 07:33:15 AM
Are you seriously trying to engage us in a debate on the validity of speciation without at least the superficial knowledge of that?
All the claims of speciation I have investigated have turned out to be spurious.  What a tiresome charade.  For example, different strains of fruit flies emerged that don't inter-breed - but they're still the same species of fruit fly.  This is not speciation, just drowning Darwinists clutching at straws.
No, it is in fact speciation. It comes in several different varieties, you see.

Your argument is not invalid, so I will come back to this. Walls of text take a little time to compose and properly reference.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 21, 2017, 09:00:25 AM
The Pope is OK with Darwin
What!  An atheist is recommending the opinion of a Christian?  How unusual.

------------------------------------

What any Pope thinks about Darwinism is irrelevant to other Catholics.  The Church doesn't oblige the faithful to believe anything at all about the theory of evolution.

It's not unusual for an atheist to share opinions with Christians, except in regard to the existence of god.
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs.  It got a bit hard though as evidence piled up so they had to concede points or look ridiculous and encourage questioning of the basis of their faith.  Cowardice is what I call it, not like the brave creationist who doesn't care that other Christians and atheists alike are laughing at them.



Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 21, 2017, 12:41:02 PM
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?

(http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj347/rustyporter/lol_no.gif)
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...
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:48:19 PM
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?

Dredge, answer this please. I'm curious to know what type of scientist you see as an authority on the subject. And their credentials.
Prof. Michael Behe - Biochemistry

Prof. Kenneth Miller -  Biology

Prof. Vladimir Betina - Microbiology, Biochemistry and Bology

Prof. Carl Fliermans - Biology
 
Prof. Dwain Ford - Organic Chemistry

Prof. Robert Franks - Biology

Prof. Leonid Korochkin -  Molecular Biology

Prof. Harriet Kim - Biochemistry

Prof.  Kyoung-Tai Kim - Genetic Engineering

Prof. Lane Lester - Genetics, Biology

Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon - Immunology

I'm sorry if I'm slow in responding sometimes; I have to travel to a wi-fi hot spot to get online and my health is poor and consequently often feel too tired to play.

: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.

Besides Behe, who seriously...meh...I don't know any of those names. I'll look them up later. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 02:50:01 PM
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:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 21, 2017, 03:15:58 PM
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?

(http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj347/rustyporter/lol_no.gif)
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!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 21, 2017, 03:18:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 21, 2017, 03:28:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 21, 2017, 04:17:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 21, 2017, 04:43:06 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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14836.msg344053#msg344053) 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.

Let 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.
 
The 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
I 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
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.
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.

Besides 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. 

But 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.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:37:35 AM
: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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 03:40:44 AM
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs
Can you give me an example, please?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 04:07:31 AM
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 22, 2017, 04:27:29 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 05:27:11 AM
: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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 05:28:07 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 05:35:58 AM
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_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. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 22, 2017, 06:48:22 AM
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 22, 2017, 08:18:16 AM
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_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/
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: 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” (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721416654436) – 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 22, 2017, 02:58:27 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” (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721416654436) – among the usual suspects such as climate change and genetically modified food was also evolutionary theory. 

Very interesting!

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 22, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
Excellent! Thanks, Solidsquid!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 22, 2017, 03:52:01 PM
Michael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.

Michael Behe is a lifelong Roman Catholic (http://www.discovery.org/a/10501), Dredge. I challenge you to cite even one example of a Creationist or supporter of "Intelligent Design" who is not a theist.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 22, 2017, 03:58:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on January 22, 2017, 08:56:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 22, 2017, 09:42:39 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” (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721416654436) – 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.

Quote
We 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:18:55 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 05:47:33 AM
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. 

Quote
Scientific 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! 

Quote
I 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.

Besides 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. 
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:00:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 23, 2017, 06:15:59 AM
Michael Behe is not a Christian (as far as I know), but does believe in creation.

Michael Behe is a lifelong Roman Catholic (http://www.discovery.org/a/10501), 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 23, 2017, 08:17:36 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
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 23, 2017, 10:27:32 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 23, 2017, 02:03:46 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 23, 2017, 02:53:33 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 23, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
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.

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.

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
Scientific 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
I 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

You're lying again. Crick didn't "conclude" that aliens seeded the Earth, he offered that idea speculatively (http://ofbacteriaandmen.blogspot.com/2012/08/francis-crick-and-directed-panspermia.html); 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:04:05 AM
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.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to do this:


:moving goalpost:



Moonwalking goalpost :grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:28:31 AM
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. 

How do you even know that early life arose only once on Earth? Why must there be one process?

The propensity for lifeforms could have been so high that life arose multiple times during Earth's primordial era. 

You do know that there is no clear consensus on what a lifeform is, don't you? ::) For instance, you would have to broaden the definition of life to consider viruses to be living organisms. Some people see them this way while others see them as simple viral particles. 

So, back to basics. How do you define life, with all your advanced biology knowledge? 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 12:37:40 AM
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:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 25, 2017, 05:18:08 AM


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.
So is plate tectonics a fact or a theory?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 25, 2017, 05:23:55 AM
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 was trying to be scientific and you think I was trying to be funny?  I'm crushed - this is the ultimate insult!  Is this any way to treat a friend?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 25, 2017, 05:27:12 AM
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.
Please be advised that my IQ has been measured at 9 - almost double figures!  Has the IQ of any starfish ever been recorded greater than 9?  I don't think so!  Not even jelly-fish are that intelligent.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 25, 2017, 05:41:05 AM
Lol what are you even talking about
You don't capisce.  Ok.  Well, when you leave school, don't think about becoming a scientist.  If you can't even grasp the basic scientific concept I mentioned, then how will you cope with much more complex ideas? 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 25, 2017, 10:41:07 AM
Lol what are you even talking about
You don't capisce.  Ok.  Well, when you leave school, don't think about becoming a scientist.  If you can't even grasp the basic scientific concept I mentioned, then how will you cope with much more complex ideas?

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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 25, 2017, 12:30:23 PM
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs
Can you give me an example, please?

Giodorno Bruno.

Ye and they set hands on Galileo, fricken Galileo, a hero for the ages, some bastards, I don't recall their names, they put him in a cell, let broil as to the traditional recipe,  showed him their implements of torture to tenderise their meat in the time honoured way.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 02:48:42 PM
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 was trying to be scientific and you think I was trying to be funny?  I'm crushed - this is the ultimate insult!  Is this any way to treat a friend?

It's all in your head, Dredge, all in your head. You're just not funny. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 02:49:31 PM
Lol what are you even talking about
You don't capisce.  Ok.  Well, when you leave school, don't think about becoming a scientist.  If you can't even grasp the basic scientific concept I mentioned, then how will you cope with much more complex ideas?

Oh, more irony. Speak for yourself.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Papasito Bruno on January 25, 2017, 04:37:45 PM
I think we need a new thread titled "The Dredge Report". It would be a place to post all sorts of non-sensical, silly ideas and stuff...
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2017, 06:30:22 PM
The Catholics used to torture and kill scientists for expounding views that threatened their beliefs
Can you give me an example, please?

Giodorno Bruno.

Ye and they set hands on Galileo, fricken Galileo, a hero for the ages, some bastards, I don't recall their names, they put him in a cell, let broil as to the traditional recipe,  showed him their implements of torture to tenderise their meat in the time honoured way.

They're afraid, so afraid. :sadnod:

They could've just squished them a little to hear them squeak, but no, they had to go and burn Giordano Bruno and place Galileo under house arrest.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on January 26, 2017, 02:58:18 AM


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.
So is plate tectonics a fact or a theory?

Plate tectonics is a theory, just like the other theories I mentioned, as it is an explanatory framework for how the crust of our planet behaves. Although, I have a feeling you may be confused on how the word "theory" is used in a scientific context.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:32:42 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.
Giodorno Bruno - the dissent Catholic priest who fell in with the Calvinists but was excommunicated by them; then fell in with the Lutherans and was excommunicated by them as well; went to England made himself decidely unwelcome at Oxford university.
Bruno was a defender of heliocentric astronomy, but he was not known as a scientist, rather, as a philosopher.  Pierre Bayle characterised him as the "knight-errant of philosophy".  Bruno wasn't condemned for his scientific views, but his theological errors ( best described as materialistic pantheism) against Catholic doctrine.
Bruno was put him to death by secular authorities, not the Catholic Church.

In short, contrary to your claim, Giodorno Bruno is not an example of a "scientist" who was put to death by the Catholic Church.  Was he even tortured by the Church?  If so, where is the evidence?

During the Inquisition, many people, such as Bruno, were tried and condemned by the Church.   But as already mentioned, he was not executed by the Church, but by the secular authorities.  It is possible that the Church didn't actually execute anyone at all during the Inquisition?  Perhaps it's the case that the rivers of lies told by Protestants and other enemies of Catholicism have become folklore.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:34:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:39:12 AM


How do you even know that early life arose only once on Earth? Why must there be one process?

The propensity for lifeforms could have been so high that life arose multiple times during Earth's primordial era. 
Yes, and there could be more than one Tooth Fairy.  There could be multiple Tooth Fairies. 



Quote
So, back to basics. How do you define life, with all your advanced biology knowledge?
My definition of "life" would be in line with the definition found in your average dictionary. 

How does a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.
Why would a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.

--fixed quote (xSPx)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:41:52 AM
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.
I'm sure you've heard it all before ... expect for that mysterious voice that saved me from a fatal snake bite, maybe.  Oh, and then there was that vision I had that showed me the future.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 26, 2017, 04:46:59 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 26, 2017, 08:02:22 AM
There are others.

A sequence of mutually dependent events does not signify design in the sense of a system being acted upon by a deliberate or sentient agent.

A hydrogen fire in an oxygen/nitrogen environment will result in gaseous water rather than ammonia. That is not due to hydrogen molecules bumping into oxygen molecules by chance and avoiding nitrogen molecules by chance. The chemical reaction will go the same way in mostly nitrogen environments as it does in mostly oxygen environments.

There are holes in our knowledge of how exactly DNA became DNA, but there is no reason to suspect that the circumstances were at their core any different than those of hydrogen forming bonds with oxygen rather than nitrogen when heated. 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. If you insist on using the word "design," then it's designed in a way that canyons are "designed" by rivers, not in a way that aircraft are designed by engineers.

If it walks like a badly tortured metaphor and talks like a badly tortured metaphor, it is a badly tortured metaphor. If, on the other hand, it appears to walk like one and talk like one, then it appears to be one. Appears to be != is.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 26, 2017, 11:50:23 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.
Giodorno Bruno - the dissent Catholic priest who fell in with the Calvinists but was excommunicated by them; then fell in with the Lutherans and was excommunicated by them as well; went to England made himself decidely unwelcome at Oxford university.
Bruno was a defender of heliocentric astronomy, but he was not known as a scientist, rather, as a philosopher.  Pierre Bayle characterised him as the "knight-errant of philosophy".  Bruno wasn't condemned for his scientific views, but his theological errors ( best described as materialistic pantheism) against Catholic doctrine.
Bruno was put him to death by secular authorities, not the Catholic Church.

In short, contrary to your claim, Giodorno Bruno is not an example of a "scientist" who was put to death by the Catholic Church.  Was he even tortured by the Church?  If so, where is the evidence?

Ye good point, I have to admit I liked the idea of Bruno being tortured by the church 'cause of his science,  but now my oracle (wiki) is telling me something different to what I want to hear, very disappointing, I think it told me something different a few years back.

I'm not going sink into depression over this though, we've still got Galileo, I don't fault him for choosing to live but it was a bit selfish, his dying for the cause would have better supported my bias.

Anway there's the Hypatia movie and the evil Christians killed Rachel Weisz, I'll never forgive them for that.

Isaac Newton had to hide his alchemical research from the staid religious, yet he succeeded in turning base metals to gold, got appointed warden of the Royal Mint, Britain adopted the gold standard and dominated the world for a while.

Darwin, didn't want to cause trouble, kept his dangerous idea close until he was pressed to declare.

I'm still maintaining my bias, religion is stifling.


During the Inquisition, many people, such as Bruno, were tried and condemned by the Church.   But as already mentioned, he was not executed by the Church, but by the secular authorities.  It is possible that the Church didn't actually execute anyone at all during the Inquisition? 

That may be a petty distinction, I'm intellectually lazy so I won't say more than that.

Perhaps it's the case that the rivers of lies told by Protestants and other enemies of Catholicism have become folklore.

Perhaps but I think they (Catholics) admit to, have apologised for some of it.





Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Papasito Bruno on January 26, 2017, 07:36:43 PM
I wish you all would stop talking about my ancestor Giodorno Bruno so callously.


Anyway I read the the following article this morning in the "Huffington Post", and it reminded me that we have evidence for such odd behavior right here in this thread, which is the disturbing trend among so many Americans to deny science (More like cherry-picking to suit their needs).

Why So Many Americans Don’t ‘Believe’ In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines
 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-americans-deny-evolution-climate-and-vaccine-science_us_5888cd7ce4b098c0bba7db84)

Quote
The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country’s citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

“The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified,” said Troy Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Oregon....


I also like this statement, thought I would leave it here.

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

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 26, 2017, 08:33:56 PM
Dredge has at least implied that he's from Australia, and polls show that he's got his work cut out for him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Australia) if he wants his country to catch up with the US in this regard. He's wasting his time here, which is probably a good thing for Australia.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 26, 2017, 08:44:19 PM
He might be from Russia, I hear they have a bunch of pathetic paid trolls.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 26, 2017, 09:20:42 PM
Might be Ken Ham :)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 26, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
Donald Trump?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 26, 2017, 09:47:45 PM
You are suffering from from the Dunning-Krugar Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_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?

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!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:22:34 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.
Giodorno Bruno - the dissent Catholic priest who fell in with the Calvinists but was excommunicated by them; then fell in with the Lutherans and was excommunicated by them as well; went to England made himself decidely unwelcome at Oxford university.
Bruno was a defender of heliocentric astronomy, but he was not known as a scientist, rather, as a philosopher.  Pierre Bayle characterised him as the "knight-errant of philosophy".  Bruno wasn't condemned for his scientific views, but his theological errors ( best described as materialistic pantheism) against Catholic doctrine.
Bruno was put him to death by secular authorities, not the Catholic Church.

In short, contrary to your claim, Giodorno Bruno is not an example of a "scientist" who was put to death by the Catholic Church.  Was he even tortured by the Church?  If so, where is the evidence?

During the Inquisition, many people, such as Bruno, were tried and condemned by the Church.   But as already mentioned, he was not executed by the Church, but by the secular authorities.  It is possible that the Church didn't actually execute anyone at all during the Inquisition?  Perhaps it's the case that the rivers of lies told by Protestants and other enemies of Catholicism have become folklore.

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.

Whether 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. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:23:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 02:58:32 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?

Quote
My definition of "life" would be in line with the definition found in your average dictionary. 

Ok, so this is from thefreedicitionary.com:

Life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." (Bold mine)

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'.

If the definition I added above is how you would define 'life' then there is one problem. Definitions can be helpful but they can also hinder understanding.

For instance, having a metabolism. That would require a certain degree of complexity and compartmentalisation of processes. Which means that it would most likely be a cellular organism, with organelles. Such organisms, even the simpler bacterial cell, are already evolutionarily advanced. They are not the first self-replicating organic forms to have appeared on Earth. If you adopt the definition above, you are excluding the building blocks that lead to the first lifeforms.

Quote
How does a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.
Why would a machine with no intelligence reproduce itself?  I don't know, ask God.

God of the gaps...just not an attractive answer, but fairly typical for people like you. You can try and talk to this imaginary friend you think is your god but if you get an answer...then you've got issues. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 03:06:22 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 03:14:13 AM
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)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 05:38:22 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:08:51 AM
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.

Quote
You'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.
Quote
Crick 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

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 27, 2017, 06:24:51 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 27, 2017, 08:39:46 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 27, 2017, 08:56:31 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!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 27, 2017, 09:06:56 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 09:13:18 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2017, 09:16:50 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. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 27, 2017, 09:26:18 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 27, 2017, 05:09:59 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.

You'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.

Crick 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 (https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/431166706367877120):

Quote
I’ve always expressed my strong scepticism of panspermia. It’s only slightly more plausible than divine creation.

Sagan actually wrote a review (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/29/books/is-there-life-elsewhere-and-did-it-come-here.html?pagewanted=all) of Crick's book on "directed panspermia."

Quote
For 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.

"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 (https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-evolution-theory-crisis), 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.

Quote
Abuses 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.

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.
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 (https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html):

Quote
I 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.

Incidentally, 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.

... 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.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Icarus on January 27, 2017, 10:11:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:08:22 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.

Quote
Whether 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.  
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:10:11 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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:11:43 AM
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:16:03 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. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:21:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:28:26 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:31:50 AM
Might be Ken Ham :)
Ken Ham is a young earth creationist.  I am an old earth creationist.  Therefore I cannot be Ken Ham.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 28, 2017, 04:36:21 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 28, 2017, 04:37:02 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on January 28, 2017, 04:39:55 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 28, 2017, 08:06:20 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;
(http://www.minerals.net/GemStoneInTheRoughImages/quartz-rock-xl-arkansas.jpg)
"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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 28, 2017, 08:45:41 AM
Yup, take a diamond:
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy67/DaveGlos/Mobile%20Uploads/8ccbe8096b93a0d91b4c88ce3cdc7be5.jpg) (http://s778.photobucket.com/user/DaveGlos/media/Mobile%20Uploads/8ccbe8096b93a0d91b4c88ce3cdc7be5.jpg.html)

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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 28, 2017, 12:48:42 PM
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
Quote
Whether 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.

Quote
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. 

Does 'many' mean 'most'?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 28, 2017, 12:52:02 PM
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. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 28, 2017, 12:56:15 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?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 28, 2017, 01:43:26 PM
-------------------------------------
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on January 28, 2017, 03:57:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 28, 2017, 04:48:23 PM
Thanks, Solidsquid, I think this goes further to reinforce the opinion amongst us that Dredge has no real grasp of the concept of science.

I know that I use the word lazily,  "Well, in theory there is no way that cat ran through the fence, but it could possibly have jumped that six feet!" Just another way of saying hard solid objects are normally complete barriers to comparatively soft projectile cats.

Hmm, there is still impirical evidence to back it up though. . .

 :grin:

Must find out how to switch off the word predator again!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean Prime on January 29, 2017, 08:19:45 PM
That's for you Brits and Yanks. A proper Asmo will only accept metric evidence.

 :rimshot:












...Yup. Sad.  :(
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 29, 2017, 09:40:44 PM
Drat! Typo'd "Quote" instead of "Modify"!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 29, 2017, 09:41:59 PM
Déjà vu...

Edited to add:

Drat! Typo'd "Quote" instead of "Modify"!

:grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 30, 2017, 12:18:39 AM
Dredge has been rather quiet lately. Could it be that he's busy reading up on self-organisation? :notsure:

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 30, 2017, 06:37:56 AM
Drat! Typo'd "Quote" instead of "Modify"!

Oh, come on! Now His Divine Wordplay is even more sad! :(
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 31, 2017, 12:03:09 AM
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!
Organisms can't make themselves. God created them all.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 31, 2017, 12:05:31 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.
Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?  I didn't know that.  As far as I can tell, speciation is no more than an hypothesis.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 12:20:24 AM
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!
Organisms can't make themselves. God created them all.

Organisms can't make themselves? Didn't your parents give you "the talk" yet?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 12:31:28 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.
Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?

Yes.

Quote
I didn't know that.

That isn't saying much, as you've demonstrated that there is a LOT you don't know, in this thread. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, as it can be fixed, but stupidity and willful ignorance are different. Your problem, like so many other creationists, is that you think you know what the hell you're talking about, and when by some chance you admit to not knowing, you look to people who are not authorities on the subject of biology to tell you what to think.

Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers. 

Quote
As far as I can tell, speciation is no more than an hypothesis.

:rofl:

So...you and sea slugs are the same species? Not reproductively isolated?  Can produce viable (fertile) offspring?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 31, 2017, 12:37:41 AM
Crick's speculations do not actually support Intelligent Design of any sort, natural or supernatural.
Here is an alleged (and unreferenced) quote by Francis Crick that is presented by exoperaculture.com:  "The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe.  The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering.  The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent information-bearing design.  Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical, so-called first simple cell(s) ... For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible." 

And another:  "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts ..." 

Regarding chemical evolution, in Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Crick states, "The plain fact is, the time available was too long, the many microenvironments of the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemicals possibilities too numerous and our knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."   Of course, Crick's common sense is rejected by today's deluded abiogenesis "scientists".

Peter J. Bowler (Evolution: The History of an Idea) states, "... Crick has worked on the problem of the origin of life, and he remains suspicious of the orthodox Theory of chemical evolution.  He argues that the complexity of life is so great that chances of even the simplest structures arising naturally on the primitive earth are too remote."

Quote
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.
In an interview with Ben Stein, Dawkins suggested alien-seeding as a serious possibility.  See youtube.

According to Wiki, "Sagan and Shklovskii ... hypothesised that life on earth may have been seeded deliberately by other civilisations."   (Intelligent Life in the Universe, 1966)

Quote
Sagan ... "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."
These are the words of a deluded fool.

Quote
Dishonesty is endemic among Creationists and their fellow travellers
It's true that some creationist organisations use quotes taken out of context, although I have found that Catholic creationist websites are more professional and reliable.

Quote
Flew ... "I 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."
These are the words of a deluded fool.

Quote
Somebody is "out of their depth and clueless," Dredge, but it is not the scientists who are investigating hypotheses of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is useless, futile junk-science for space cadets, and therefore offers nothing to lovers of true science.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on January 31, 2017, 01:00:54 AM
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".
Elbowed aside?  Oh, it that all?  Tell that to the thousands of Russian Orthodox priests and laymen whom the Bolsheviks either executed, tortured or sent to rot, starve and freeze to death in the gulags of Siberia. 

Quote
Do you have a single original thought in your head?
My "sea horse = land horse larvae" hypothesis was an original idea.  So was my hypothosis that mosquitoes want my special blood in order that their offspring might evolve to a higher level.  These are sound, original scientificalistic thoughts that deserve further investigation ... and respect.

I am also working on an original idea that could revolutionise house-work form womans ... a machine that sucks in air that can be used to suck up dust as well - off of floors, for example.  The same principle could be used to clean the bottom of swimming pools - I would call such a machine, a "Dredge-o-matic".

Your posts contain regurgiatated inaccuracies and nothing remotely original. Heard it all before, unfortunately.   Give me something original and I will let you be my friend for one week.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 01:02:53 AM
Catholics usually travel in flocks, where there's one there must be more. Where are the rest, Dredge?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JJwlFN9MYKPk98s/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 01:29:44 AM
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".
Elbowed aside?  Oh, it that all?  Tell that to the thousands of Russian Orthodox priests and laymen whom the Bolsheviks either executed, tortured or sent to rot, starve and freeze to death in the gulags of Siberia. 

You're being nitpicky here, Dredge. Firebird is right, even if you don't agree with his choice of words.

Quote
Quote
Do you have a single original thought in your head?
My "sea horse = land horse larvae" hypothesis was an original idea.  So was my hypothosis that mosquitoes want my special blood in order that their offspring might evolve to a higher level.  These are sound, original scientificalistic thoughts that deserve further investigation ... and respect.

Not scientific, just boring and stupid.

Quote
I am also working on an original idea that could revolutionise house-work form womans ... a machine that sucks in air that can be used to suck up dust as well - off of floors, for example.  The same principle could be used to clean the bottom of swimming pools - I would call such a machine, a "Dredge-o-matic".

Boring.

Quote
Your posts contain regurgiatated inaccuracies and nothing remotely original. Heard it all before, unfortunately.   Give me something original and I will let you be my friend for one week.

Yet you don't adequately address his points, just ramble on about "elbowed aside" and come up with ludicrous ideas.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on January 31, 2017, 04:45:46 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 31, 2017, 05:44:07 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

 :chin: You're not the only one who's said that.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 07:28:36 AM
Yes, he hasn't been dredging up anything but dumb creationist ideas.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on January 31, 2017, 07:57:57 AM
Organisms can't make themselves. God created them all.
What makes you think it was god? Why could it not have been Xzilotz, visiting from planet Axvkshaz, who dragged in some local microflora on his space boots?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on January 31, 2017, 08:11:33 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

 :chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 31, 2017, 01:39:46 PM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

 :chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
The people responding to him are good quality replies though. At least I'm finding them interesting.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on January 31, 2017, 04:02:41 PM
The people responding to him are good quality replies though. At least I'm finding them interesting.

He already has had two warnings though. If he's trolling, he deserves to be given a suspension, at least. Even if a troll is getting calmly argued quality responses instead of the reaction they're looking for, that doesn't excuse their trolling.

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on January 31, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
The people responding to him are good quality replies though. At least I'm finding them interesting.

He already has had two warnings though. If he's trolling, he deserves to be given a suspension, at least. Even if a troll is getting calmly argued quality responses instead of the reaction they're looking for, that doesn't excuse their trolling.
I agree. I don't mean that he/she should be allowed to troll, but to show my appreciation for those that spent their time to respond.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 04:32:13 AM
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.
If you could search every nook and cranny of the universe, you still may not find any Tooth Fairies, as they might be endowed with powers of invisiblity.  This is deep.

If you can't prove that TFs don't exist, does this mean you can't prove that God doesn't exist?   
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 04:42:00 AM
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.
Hilter deceived a lot of people, great and small, before he revealed his true nature and his true intentions.

Quote
Does 'many' mean 'most'?
Catholics who actively oppose evolution and theistic evolution are a small minority.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 04:51:12 AM
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.
This is not what I asked.  I'm not talking about what it is, based on appearance; I'm talking about how it came into existence, based on appearance.

Are you saying that if something appears designed, it's more logical to conclude it's NOT designed, rather than to conclude that IS designed?  If so ... wow.  Now that is apophenic!

If you happen to be walking along a beach and come across what appears to be sand castles on the beach, are you saying it is more logical to conclude that the wind and waves made those "sand castles" rather than conclude that some children built them?  

There are some folks who believe that the four "faces" on Mt. Rushmore are man-made.  Are you saying that it makes more sense to believe that those faces are actually products of mindless erosion rather than products of human activity? 

What about the Sphinx in Egypt?  It is more logical to conclude that the wind accidentally formed that structure or to conclude that humans designed and built it? 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 05:04:30 AM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Asmodean on February 01, 2017, 07:28:53 AM
Hilter deceived a lot of people, great and small, before he revealed his true nature and his true intentions.
This is a very broad statement, and it is broadly inaccurate. Hitler was not an unpopular leader, not even after he revealed his "true intentions" (Unless you think he revealed those only after the Third Reich started crumbling to dust) and he did not really bother to hide his "true intentions" from those he commanded.

This is not what I asked.  I'm not talking about what it is, based on appearance; I'm talking about how it came into existence, based on appearance.
No, what you are trying to do is argue semantics with someone who would normally jump at half a chance to do so. In this instance, I'm happy to point out the flaw in your counter:

How it came to existence is an "is-statement." For example, "This airplane was built by Airbus." How it appears to have come into existence is an "appears to be" statement. For example, "A platypus appears to be the child of an otter who fucked a duck."

Beyond that, I'll stick to my point with yet another illustrative example; A smells like almonds and is roughly almond-shaped. B concludes that A is almonds and eats it. B dies of potassium cyanide poisoning.

Quote
Are you saying that if something appears designed, it's more logical to conclude it's NOT designed, rather than to conclude that IS designed?  If so ... wow.  Now that is apophenic!
Apophenia is the tendency to find patterns where there are none.

That said, I did not say what you seem to think I said. What I did say, was that if something appears to be designed, it's wrong to conclude that that something is a product of design. I'm sorry, I'm not going to allow you to turn my positive statements into negatives that easily. There is a big difference between them.

Quote
If you happen to be walking along a beach and come across what appears to be sand castles on the beach, are you saying it is more logical to conclude that the wind and waves made those "sand castles" rather than conclude that some children built them?
No, not saying that at all. See above (and above the above. I said "what I'm saying" in my quartz post)

Now it's my turn though; how do you know they were children who built them? 

Quote
There are some folks who believe that the four "faces" on Mt. Rushmore are man-made.  Are you saying that it makes more sense to believe that those faces are actually products of mindless erosion rather than products of human activity?
Oh, we know how those faces came into existence. The key difference between knowledge and faith is that one is subject to objective verification, the other is not.

Quote
What about the Sphinx in Egypt?  It is more logical to conclude that the wind accidentally formed that structure or to conclude that humans designed and built it?
See above.

Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.
Well, keep learning! It may well start to make a-whole-nother-kind of sense eventually. There are reasons why the scientific community is so sparsely populated with creationists, and it's not that science attracts atheists, but it is pretty good at making them.

That' by the way, is a very good example of imbuing something conceptual in nature with agency - giving it a mind of its own, if you will. People have been doing it for as long as there were people, but as we (well, one of us, at least) have established, just because it appears to be something, that does not mean that it is that something. So, my advice? Do not conclude without enough data to draw an informed conclusion, and when you do, always be ready to change your mind when someone else's conclusion makes more sense than your own.



Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 01, 2017, 08:35:03 AM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

What kind of designer do you have in mind? surely not an omniscient one.
Picky people do point to flaws in the design process, particularly those grumps with bad backs or knees.
Not me though, I'm a bum along, add a bit here, work with what I've got kind of maker, so a less than perfect creator appeals to me. 
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 07:56:06 PM
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.
If you could search every nook and cranny of the universe, you still may not find any Tooth Fairies, as they might be endowed with powers of invisiblity.  This is deep.

If you can't prove that TFs don't exist, does this mean you can't prove that God doesn't exist?   

And that's why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If I walked up to a stranger on the street and told them to prove that the invisible dragon living in my garage who doesn't interact with the natural world in anyway doesn't exist, they'd lock me up in an asylum.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:01:27 PM
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.
Hilter deceived a lot of people, great and small, before he revealed his true nature and his true intentions.

Come on, "revealed his true nature"? Are you saying that a monster such as Hitler couldn't have been a Catholic? That's resorting to the no true Scotsman fallacy.

As if Christians are a homogeneous lot. Where I'm from, most Christians are Catholics, and a whole lot of them are nasty people who think they can just confess away their sins and their slate is clean. It's disgusting.

Quote
Quote
Does 'many' mean 'most'?
Catholics who actively oppose evolution and theistic evolution are a small minority.

Thank goodness, societal evolution in action!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.

You're projecting agency, which is perfectly natural, so don't feel bad about that. ;) Thinking is more difficult. There's a good evolutionary explanation for why humans do that.   
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:33:53 PM
Famous example of unintelligent design: the laryngeal nerve in animals with necks. Here they take the longest neck in the animal kingdom to demonstrate just how unintelligent a designer with foresight would be. 

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 01, 2017, 09:33:00 PM
Famous example of unintelligent design: the laryngeal nerve in animals with necks. Here they take the longest neck in the animal kingdom to demonstrate just how unintelligent a designer with foresight would be. 


Excellent, good link xSP!

Perhaps Big G was a designer, just not intelligent? Met some of those in the engineering industry.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 09:42:50 PM
Perhaps Big G was a designer, just not intelligent? Met some of those in the engineering industry.

Could be, though that's not what his minions say.  ;) 

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on February 01, 2017, 09:46:20 PM
Human beings are walking, talking examples of unintelligent design. There's the commonly cited "Who in their right mind puts a playground next to a sewage plant?" but it goes well beyond that (http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787). The linked article lists ten, but there are more, and even some of the examples given don't actually elucidate all the problems in the area discussed. The Wikipedia article on the dysteleological argument gives a few more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#In_humans).
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 01, 2017, 09:52:50 PM
Perhaps Big G was a designer, just not intelligent? Met some of those in the engineering industry.

Could be, though that's not what his minions say.  ;)

Tsk, what do they know about anything?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 10:04:54 PM
Perhaps Big G was a designer, just not intelligent? Met some of those in the engineering industry.

Could be, though that's not what his minions say.  ;)

Tsk, what do they know about anything?

According to them, basically everything. :lol:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 10:12:23 PM
I found an example of intelligent design!

: show
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZtdPKV8tj7PVqV2/giphy.gif)


Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 04, 2017, 07:02:10 AM
Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?

Yes.
Can you cite an example of speciation, please?

Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 04, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
Organisms can't make themselves. God created them all.
What makes you think it was god? Why could it not have been Xzilotz, visiting from planet Axvkshaz, who dragged in some local microflora on his space boots?
Hypothesises of alien-seeding or panspermia are the result of desperation and are just passing the abiogenesis buck.  Life is a miracle that science cannot and never will explain.   Who can perform miracles, I wonder?

Besides, Xzilotz's speciality was genetic cloning; he never came up with anything original, in my opinion.  And did anything good ever come from Axvkshaz?  I've never been impressed by anyone from that planet - all talk and no action.   Maybe Stephen Hawking's ancestors were from Axvkshaaz?  He's all talk and no action - a bullsh.t artist masquerading as a scientist.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 04, 2017, 07:17:58 AM
.There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.
I'm not talking about hypothesises about how abiogenesis occurred.  As an atheist you would believe it to be fact that the first life form arose from inanimate matter as a result of some natural, but mindless process, would you not?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 04, 2017, 08:43:35 AM
.There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.
I'm not talking about hypothesises about how abiogenesis occurred.  As an atheist you would believe it to be fact that the first life form arose from inanimate matter as a result of some natural, but mindless process, would you not?

As an atheist with a scientific approach I do not "believe" life came from inanimate matter. But I do accept that, with our current understanding of the nature of the Universe, that hypothesis has the most going for it. Accepted with reservations, with the door left fully open for more demonstrable fact. Either way.

Belief, in this usage, is the prerogative of woo and its followers.

Corrected later, I put "theory" where I should have put "hypothesis".

[Slaps own wrist!]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 04, 2017, 01:18:27 PM
.There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.
I'm not talking about hypothesises about how abiogenesis occurred.  As an atheist you would believe it to be fact that the first life form arose from inanimate matter as a result of some natural, but mindless process, would you not?

:d'oh!:

I don't think you've been paying attention, or are just ignorant. Probably the latter. Or both.

WE ONLY HAVE HYPOTHESIS!!!!!11!!!One!

Abiogenesis is frontier science.

Read this (https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work), you won't be cured of your scientific ignorance but you'll get one step closer.

As I mentioned before, science studies naturalistic processes, not the supernatural. No matter what delusion you're under that science proves the existence of god, angels, demons or tooth fairies, it does not. All that is metaphysical speculation, in the relam of philosophy, not science.

I ask again, have you ever heard of non-overlapping magisteria? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria)   

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 04, 2017, 01:20:49 PM
Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?

Yes.
Can you cite an example of speciation, please?

Examples were cited earlier in this thread. I'd rather you use your ATP and not mine to find them. Use the search function and ye shall find.

Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 04, 2017, 10:48:44 PM
Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*

Hahahaha
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on February 05, 2017, 01:23:19 AM
Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*

Hahahaha
Oh great, if he starts spewing Ken Hamm crap, I don't think I'll be able to take much more.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 05, 2017, 06:30:32 AM
Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*

Hahahaha
Oh great, if he starts spewing Ken Hamm crap, I don't think I'll be able to take much more.

Ken Hamm doesn't believe in science at all and thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 05, 2017, 10:22:29 AM
I can't remember, have prions been mentioned?

In the area of self-replication we usually think of eukaryote and prokaryote type organism, possesing fissionable DNA whether organised in a nucleus or not.

Quote
A prion is an infectious agent composed entirely of protein material, called PrP (short for prion protein), that can fold in multiple, structurally distinct ways, at least one of which is transmissible to other prion proteins, leading to disease that is similar to viral infection.

So, no DNA involed but a replicable molecule that is infectious.

At the moment there is no treatment, particularly drug based, for the diseases prions cause - so it is not under "threat" and has no need to evolve. But, given a few more billion years, will this always be the same?

It is, perhaps, silly to think of prions as any kind of "missing link" between non-biological chemistry and even virus type organisms, DNA was the big leap. However they are replicable molecules that have no apparent "metabolism" and seem to offer no beneficial function to their "hosts". Purely parasitical chemistry.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:00:32 AM
This is not what I asked.  I'm not talking about what it is, based on appearance; I'm talking about how it came into existence, based on appearance.
No, what you are trying to do is argue semantics with someone who would normally jump at half a chance to do so. In this instance, I'm happy to point out the flaw in your counter
Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living organsim that can exist is necessarily a complex machine that performs complex tasks - reproduction, for example. 
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:03:32 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

 :chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
If I were trolling, an unprejudiced mind would rate it as between average and slightly-above-average.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: OldGit on February 06, 2017, 09:21:05 AM
Quote from: Dredge
Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)

Oh, for Pete's sake!  This has been exhaustively dealt with by so many writers, you must know our answer by now.  I suppose you've blanked it out of your mind, as christians tend to do.  I won't weary all the other members by going through it yet again.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:24:12 AM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process. 

--------------------------------------

A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: OldGit on February 06, 2017, 09:29:26 AM
Like so many members here, Asmo is not a native English speaker.  His command of the language is superb, so we don't take kindly to mocking the occasional mistake.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 06, 2017, 09:39:51 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

 :chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
If I were trolling, an unprejudiced mind would rate it as between average and slightly-above-average.

That is what makes it poor trolling - I actually gave you a back-handed compliment!

To be a "good" troll you have to be more provocative and insulting than even you are!

Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that you fail at being a troll and at being a non-troll.

Prejudice, pre-judging, is an attitude not based on actual knowledge or experience, of a person or class of people, like saying all atheists are evil or all theists are deluded idiots. Neither applies in reality. Some atheists are high-grade humanitarians and some theists are at genius level. Most of each category fall somewhere on the line between the two extremes. Regular people people, evil theists and deluded idiots of atheists exist!

Since I have experience of your personal attitude and beliefs, based on the ideas you have expressed in this forum, I would deny the charge of "prejudice".. "Postjudice" (judging after experience/knowledge) is not (yet) in the dictionary.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 06, 2017, 09:51:20 AM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process.

Design requires foresight and intelligence? Says who? You?

Quote
A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")

Yes, it can.

Well, sorry for not spelling the word according to your taste, I only speak English occasionally and it doesn't resemble the equivalent in Portuguese.  :sadshake: I guess I will have to lose my faith in the free dictionary now.  :cryandrun:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wonderous (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wonderous)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 06, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
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.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process. 

--------------------------------------

A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")

Great archtecture, like cathedrals, came before science got good enough (in Europe at least)  to design "gothic" arches or flying buttresses. Lots of stuff fell down before they got it right. We see the results of many iterations, many attempts, lots of "suck-it-and-see."

Reiteration is a natural process out of which design grew for humans - once they had formalised and "formularised" things. Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment. Humans do not have the time or resources to do it that way, but we do have the ability to transfer proven ideas into new constructs. Or to use them to derive theories that are an acceptable, pro-tem, explanations (to rational people)  for those things we do not, and maybe can never, have full knowledge of.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 06, 2017, 07:28:22 PM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 07, 2017, 08:18:14 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 07, 2017, 10:03:31 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.
I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 07, 2017, 10:33:50 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.
I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.

I feel you are close to ascribing purpose if you think genes have a "reason" to change. Is it possible that a molecule, no matter how large and complex and in huge quantities can have a "reason" to do anything?

Your "might survive" only applies if attached to "until the next major environmental challenge." The new iteration, to be valid, as to have survived the last challenge successfully. As to the next challenge . . .

For us "global warming" might be our next major envitonmental challenge, well, that or a "nuclear winter". The iteration, variety, of humanity that might survive either of those challenges would need to be alive right now for humanity to survive. But it will probably be as much, if not more, of a mental iteration rather than a physical one. It is possible that we can "design" our survival, adapt our immediate environment, as well as adapt to it, whether the survivors be of Kalihari Bushman or Siberian stock.

Couple tens of thousands of years of genetic adaptation with whatever technology and knowledge is left and available . . .
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 07, 2017, 11:33:56 PM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.

Genes can be switched on or off by the cell's physiological environment as is in the case of epigenetics (DNA methylation and histone acetylation and deacetylation for instance) , but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 

Quote
I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.

I agree. Once a species enters an extinction vortex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_vortex) it can be very difficult to rescue.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 08, 2017, 12:33:13 PM
but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 


Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 08, 2017, 06:59:57 PM
but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 


Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.

The "believer's solution"? :notsure:

 :P
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 08, 2017, 07:15:02 PM
but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 


Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.

The "believer's solution"? :notsure:

 :P

And that's the bottom-line, cause made up god said so.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:21:30 PM
.There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.
I'm not talking about hypothesises about how abiogenesis occurred.  As an atheist you would believe it to be fact that the first life form arose from inanimate matter as a result of some natural, but mindless process, would you not?

:d'oh!:

I don't think you've been paying attention, or are just ignorant. Probably the latter. Or both.

WE ONLY HAVE HYPOTHESIS!!!!!11!!!One!
These must be the largest letters ever posted on any forum in the world - possibly in the entire universe.   How did you make them so big?  

Atheists have no choice but to believe that inanimate matter turned into life.  So surely it is regarded as a atheist fact, not an hypothesis.  

Quote
Abiogenesis is frontier science.
 Abiogenesis doesn't qualify as any kind of science, because no theory arising from it can ever be put to the test.  

Quote
As I mentioned before, science studies naturalistic processes, not the supernatural. No matter what delusion you're under that science proves the existence of god, angels, demons or tooth fairies, it does not. All that is metaphysical speculation, in the relam of philosophy, not science.
I am not under the delusion that science proves the existence of God.  There is evidence, but not proof - not in this life, at least.

Quote
I ask again, have you ever heard of non-overlapping magisteria? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria)
I am familiar with S.J. Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria", but it means nothing to me.  I much prefer Plato's Socrates' advice:  Follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:30:29 PM
Design requires foresight and intelligence? Says who? You?
Er ... says everyone ... except maybe some children less than five years old.   Look the word up in a dictionary.
Inanimate matter cannot design anything, since to design is to employ intelligence, foresight, imagination and decision-making.  So evolution designs nothing, it's mindless.  There are evolutionists who admit that evolution can produce things that appear to have been designed, but never have I come across an evolutionist who claims that evolution actually designs.  You are the first.

Quote from: Dredge
A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process. 

xSilverPhinx: "Yes, it can.
The claim that a mindless process can design the equivalent of a dialysis machine is irrational, unscientific nonsense.  Only in the pseudo-scientific dreamworld of evolution can a mindless, aimless process produce a complex machine.  Try telling a mechanical engineer that any machine can be produced without intelligent design and he'd laugh at the perfect absurdity of such an idea.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:38:50 PM
Great archtecture, like cathedrals, came before science got good enough (in Europe at least)  to design "gothic" arches or flying buttresses. Lots of stuff fell down before they got it right. We see the results of many iterations, many attempts, lots of "suck-it-and-see."

Reiteration is a natural process out of which design grew for humans - once they had formalised and "formularised" things. Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment. Humans do not have the time or resources to do it that way, but we do have the ability to transfer proven ideas into new constructs. Or to use them to derive theories that are an acceptable, pro-tem, explanations (to rational people)  for those things we do not, and maybe can never, have full knowledge of.
The blind, mindless process of evolution, that can neither think nor plan nor imagine nor design, somehow produces creatures that can!
 Such a belief amounts to a scientific and philosophical absurdity, in my opinion (for what it's worth - which is probably ... a lot).  Chicko agrees with me, by the way.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:44:46 PM
Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?

Yes.
Can you cite an example of speciation, please?

Examples were cited earlier in this thread. I'd rather you use your ATP and not mine to find them. Use the search function and ye shall find.
Now take the claim of "speciation" of the fruit flies that W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt bred in the late 1980s.  At the beginning of the experiement these fruit flies were Drosophila melanogastor;  after 35 generations, the alleged "speciation" occurred and the fruit flies became Drosophila melanogastor.  

Did you notice how - as a result of "speciation" - the species name changed?  No?  Well, neither did I.   The species name remained the same - because they're still the same species!   In other words, there was no speciation. 
This is how it works:  A new species gets a new name.  If the species doesn't change, the name stays the same.

Likewise with other fake claims of speciation - for example, when Green Warblers "evolve" into Green Warblers, E. coli "evolve" into E.coli and Peppered Moths "evolve" into Peppered Moths.   The moral of the story is, I have yet to see even one genuine example of speciation.  Maybe speciation is a myth.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:46:52 PM
Quote from: Dredge
Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)

Oh, for Pete's sake!  This has been exhaustively dealt with by so many writers, you must know our answer by now.  I suppose you've blanked it out of your mind, as christians tend to do.  I won't weary all the other members by going through it yet again.
Oh, sorry; I didn't realize that I'm posing a question that I already know the answer to.  But seriously, if I were an atheist, I would want to avoid answering such a question, too.
----------------
I also didn't realise that the "all the other members" are duty-bound to read every word of your every post.  See how little I know!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 08, 2017, 11:52:02 PM
Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that you fail at being a troll and at being a non-troll.
W...Wh...Wha...What?!  I fail at being a troll and a non-troll?!
 Wow, that is such a depressing thought that I cannot possibly face up to it.  Therefore I shall dream up some reason why it can't be true.   

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:19:56 AM
The blind, mindless process of evolution, that can neither think nor plan nor imagine nor design, somehow produces creatures that can!
Make enough iterations over a long enough time period . . . We are talking probably more iterations than we will ever have counting numbers for over billions of years and anything that is possible is possible. And the process is ongoing, you are genetically different than any other human who ever lived or, possibly, will ever live in the future. Excepting pure clones the same applies to al living creatures. More individuals than can ever be counted producing those new iterations. Even forms of life that multiply by fission, duplicating their genes, evolve to survive - to our dismay in terms of disease.

Such a belief amounts to a scientific and philosophical absurdity...

You still have not understood what science is have you?

Quote
scientific
sʌɪənˈtɪfɪk/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
"the scientific study of earthquakes"
synonyms:   technological, technical;
2.
informal
systematic; methodical.
"how many people buy food in an organized, scientific way?"
synonyms:   systematic, methodical, organized, well organized, ordered, orderly, meticulous, rigorous, exact, precise, accurate, mathematical, regulated, controlled;


"Science" is a method, not a proof, not a measure of veracity - no matter how it is misused by such as yourself.

... in my opinion (for what it's worth - which is probably ... a lot).  Chicko agrees with me, by the way.

Yawwwwwn.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 09, 2017, 12:40:38 PM
Yawwwwwn.

I agree. :boring:

You know what they say about arguing with creationists?

: show
"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking victorious."


I'm not going to waste further time repeating myself ad nauseam to a willfully ignorant person with only very limited understanding of science and no desire to change that.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 09, 2017, 01:10:43 PM
Therefore I shall dream up some reason why it can't be true.   

It might be interesting if you documented the process.

Anyway that's not why I'm here, I just wanted to announce that I'm not you.
I was concerned that I might be so I instructed my wife to lock me in a cupboard for a day so I could confidently deny the association if a Dredge post was made while I was restrained.  She kept me constrained for three days because she's opportunistically scientifically rigorous.  To the point, I'm not you, if you were wondering too.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 09, 2017, 01:15:12 PM
Quote
"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking victorious."

 :rofl:   :smilenod:  :sadnod:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 09, 2017, 02:15:51 PM
What's the problem with acknowledging a link to apes anyway?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on February 09, 2017, 04:46:38 PM
Anyway that's not why I'm here, I just wanted to announce that I'm not you.

No worries. I'll admit it did cross my mind very early on, but after a bit of investigation (just to satisfy my own curiosity) I'd pretty much confirmed that it wasn't the case. I feel that my finding has subsequently been confirmed. His clumsy posturing and heavy-handed attempts at humor lack your deft and sly wit.  ;)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 09, 2017, 10:22:47 PM
At first I thought Dredge was a Poe, as I do with practically all creationists (there's just no way that someone can seriously think that creationism is real, right? Wrong), but that Pudding and Dredge were one and the same...never crossed my mind. :grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Firebird on February 09, 2017, 11:20:18 PM
Therefore I shall dream up some reason why it can't be true.   

It might be interesting if you documented the process.

Anyway that's not why I'm here, I just wanted to announce that I'm not you.
I was concerned that I might be so I instructed my wife to lock me in a cupboard for a day so I could confidently deny the association if a Dredge post was made while I was restrained.  She kept me constrained for three days because she's opportunistically scientifically rigorous.  To the point, I'm not you, if you were wondering too.

Hey, whatever you guys are into is none of my business.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 10, 2017, 09:25:56 AM
At first I thought Dredge was a Poe, as I do with practically all creationists (there's just no way that someone can seriously think that creationism is real, right? Wrong), but that Pudding and Dredge were one and the same...never crossed my mind. :grin:
He has one behaviour common to multiple forum posters/trollers, though there could be other explanations.

When the poster pops up every so often, answers a selection of posts - rarely entering into actual debate - then buggers off for a few more days... One thinks he might be doing the same over several forums. Not quite as bad as the totally non-responsive multiple copy/paster . . .

I have found four such patterns before, but picking a name like "Dredge" makes searching near impossible, 99% of the results refer to scraping crap off the bottom of wet and soggy places. Hmm.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 11, 2017, 12:50:12 AM
Yeah, people like Pahu and other copypasters are worse, but when you're speaking to someone who isn't paying attention to a word you're saying it can result in the same effect -- speaking to a wall. Just because a wall can occasionally talk back doesn't mean a meaningful conversation is taking place.

That's why I'm not going to respond to Dredge anymore. It's not out of fear of weird creationist fantasies, it's not because I feel Dredge has won, it's because this exchange has become exceedingly boring.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 11, 2017, 08:20:37 AM
Yeah, people like Pahu and other copypasters are worse, but when you're speaking to someone who isn't paying attention to a word you're saying it can result in the same effect -- speaking to a wall. Just because a wall can occasionally talk back doesn't mean a meaningful conversation is taking place.

That's why I'm not going to respond to Dredge anymore. It's not out of fear of weird creationist fantasies, it's not because I feel Dredge has won, it's because this exchange has become exceedingly boring.

Yeah, met Pahu elsewhere(s).

As I said before, responding to such is mostly a waste of time - other than when you have time to waste and want to amuse yourself generating yet another re-iteration of the same argument!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 13, 2017, 01:13:02 AM
The blind, mindless process of evolution, that can neither think nor plan nor imagine nor design, somehow produces creatures that can!
Make enough iterations over a long enough time period . . . We are talking probably more iterations than we will ever have counting numbers for over billions of years and anything that is possible is possible.
Yeah, right - given even time, monkeys will "iterate" a Large Hadron Collider into existence.  You live in a dreamworld, my friend.

The problem with your iterations hypothesis is there is no evidence that inanimate matter can accumulate complexity to a point that is even remotely close to what is required for life.  Has half a strand of DNA or parts of a cell been observed floating about?  I'd say that what your propose is based on nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking ... pseudo-science, in other words (aka atheist theology).

Was it Tina Turner who sang that song, "What's evidence got to do with it?"
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 13, 2017, 01:20:47 AM
I'm not going to respond to Dredge anymore.
After I pointed out the faults in your ridiculous "evolution designs" argument, I'm not surprised.
Before you go, can you cite even one evoutionary scientist who says evolution involves design?

Do you believe in Gaia, by any chance?

Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Icarus on February 13, 2017, 03:26:27 AM
Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.

Design may...or may not, be impossible without intelligence.......but intelligence may very well be possible or even likely without design. 




[Fixed quote tags. - R]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 13, 2017, 05:54:41 PM
I'm not going to respond to Dredge anymore.
After I pointed out the faults in your ridiculous "evolution designs" argument, I'm not surprised.
Before you go, can you cite even one evoutionary scientist who says evolution involves design?

Do you believe in Gaia, by any chance?

Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.
Dredge is left so alone...
(http://i.imgur.com/QNqJAiD.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 13, 2017, 06:22:45 PM
The problem with your iterations hypothesis is there is no evidence that inanimate matter can accumulate complexity to a point that is even remotely close to what is required for life.  .

Is there any evidence that it can't? It, basically, only had to do it once, a long, long time ago. Just a theory - but with far more supporting evidence than any for supernatural intervention. Except in the folk stories and and social rules written down by a few Bronze Age power hungry people.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 14, 2017, 01:37:59 AM
I'm not going to respond to Dredge anymore.
After I pointed out the faults in your ridiculous "evolution designs" argument, I'm not surprised.
Before you go, can you cite even one evoutionary scientist who says evolution involves design?

Do you believe in Gaia, by any chance?

Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.
Dredge is left so alone...
(http://i.imgur.com/QNqJAiD.gif)
:sad sigh:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 14, 2017, 08:32:56 AM
It's easy to think you've won the game when you ignore all the points the other team has over you.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 14, 2017, 02:41:25 PM
It's easy to think you've won the game when you ignore all the points the other team has over you.
It doesn't matter if Dredge thinks it won, so I say let it think so. If it was actually interested in being right, it would have listened to the dissent and corrected all the embarrassing logical and factual errors in its arguments.

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/200.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Pasta Chick on February 14, 2017, 06:42:06 PM

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.


(https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-12-2015/XzZnY9.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 14, 2017, 07:07:08 PM
It's easy to think you've won the game when you ignore all the points the other team has over you.
It doesn't matter if Dredge thinks it won, so I say let it think so. If it was actually interested in being right, it would have listened to the dissent and corrected all the embarrassing logical and factual errors in its arguments.

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/200.gif)

That's the reason I stopped talking to him. He made it apparent to me that he's irrational and won't believe otherwise because he thinks he's so smart. He's essentially Donald Trump.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 14, 2017, 07:47:50 PM

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.


(https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-12-2015/XzZnY9.gif)
Oh yeah, that is a better gif.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 14, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
It's easy to think you've won the game when you ignore all the points the other team has over you.
It doesn't matter if Dredge thinks it won, so I say let it think so. If it was actually interested in being right, it would have listened to the dissent and corrected all the embarrassing logical and factual errors in its arguments.

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/200.gif (https://media.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/200.gif)

That's the reason I stopped talking to him. He made it apparent to me that he's irrational and won't believe otherwise because he thinks he's so smart. He's essentially Donald Trump.
Yeah, it becomes useless and redundant, and with Dredge it didn't take long to get there.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 15, 2017, 01:37:07 AM


When the poster pops up every so often, answers a selection of posts - rarely entering into actual debate - then buggers off for a few more days..
Readers other than Brits, Aussies and Kiwis are probably wondering what "buggers off" means.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:32:58 AM


When the poster pops up every so often, answers a selection of posts - rarely entering into actual debate - then buggers off for a few more days..
Readers other than Brits, Aussies and Kiwis are probably wondering what "buggers off" means.
There is enough context there for anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells to work out the meaning I think.  :grin:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on February 15, 2017, 10:57:19 AM
Dredge is left so alone...

Ye, 26 pages and still you're posting, it's like hypnotizing chickens.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 16, 2017, 04:18:17 AM
The problem with your iterations hypothesis is there is no evidence that inanimate matter can accumulate complexity to a point that is even remotely close to what is required for life.  .

Is there any evidence that it can't? It, basically, only had to do it once, a long, long time ago. Just a theory - but with far more supporting evidence than any for supernatural intervention. Except in the folk stories and and social rules written down by a few Bronze Age power hungry people.
Just a theory?  More like atheist theology, I would say.

No one is claiming that supernatural intervention is science, since science is too puny and limited to explain the supernatural.   But if you want to play the science game, you need play by science rules.   The burden of proof for your "iterations" hypothesis is on you.  Since there is no evidence that inanimate matter per se can accumulate the necessary complexity for life (or anything even close), it is an hypothesis based on nothing more than faith.
A belief based on faith isn't science, but you like to call it science because by doing so you feel like "an intellectually fulfilled atheist".  
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 16, 2017, 04:27:07 AM
Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.

... intelligence may very well be possible or even likely without design.
As an atheist, you have no choice but to believe such irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be telling that computers can come into existence all by themselves.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 16, 2017, 04:29:11 AM
It's easy to think you've won the game when you ignore all the points the other team has over you.
It doesn't matter if Dredge thinks it won, so I say let it think so. If it was actually interested in being right, it would have listened to the dissent and corrected all the embarrassing logical and factual errors in its arguments.

As it stands, Dredge looks like a toddler declaring victory in a fit.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Wvo6vaUsQa3Di/200.gif)

That's the reason I stopped talking to him. He made it apparent to me that he's irrational and won't believe otherwise because he thinks he's so smart. He's essentially Donald Trump.
Some of these anti-Dredge posts are pretty funny.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on February 16, 2017, 04:56:12 AM
Irrational nonsense? Like an almighty deity that created everything there is, yet somehow resembles its most cherished creation? (http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Whistle.png)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 16, 2017, 05:00:54 AM
Some of these anti-Dredge posts are pretty funny.
Yes, they are.  :tellmemore:


Are the anti-Dredge posts in other atheist forums, like this?
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/eb36ee90582bf1d870414bf118d39ecc/tumblr_numq76onyi1rmerh9o1_400.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 16, 2017, 07:58:49 AM
[ . . . ]
Just a theory?  More like atheist theology, I would say.
[ . . . ]
A belief based on faith isn't science, but you like to call it science because by doing so you feel like "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". 
Nope.

If new evidence  modifies a theory then the atheist, and the true scientist, is allowed and is willing to modify his or her understanding (very different from "belief") to incorporate the new evidence - but keeps future options open. The theist might modify his or her understanding, might even ignore  or seek to deflect uncomfortable evidence, but is not allowed to challenge the basics.

"Faith" has no part in science, facts do (hence my avatar). But, even "facts" are sometimes just universally accepted pieces of evidence because no other explanation is available - as with two solid bodies in space tend to be mutually attracted to the centre io mass of each other . . . But Karl Popper  (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)had things to say about that sort of thinking. :tongue in cheek emoji:

Faith is for those who cannot explain things without introducing some sort of, usually un-quantifiable, influence into the equation. Otherwise known as "woo".
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 16, 2017, 10:12:44 AM


When the poster pops up every so often, answers a selection of posts - rarely entering into actual debate - then buggers off for a few more days..
Readers other than Brits, Aussies and Kiwis are probably wondering what "buggers off" means.
There is enough context there for anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells to work out the meaning I think.  :grin:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NRKD75g45Ls/UO8f8o-BD6I/AAAAAAAAFio/ou2nE7VSxy4/s1600/captain-america.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 16, 2017, 02:02:44 PM
Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.

... intelligence may very well be possible or even likely without design.
As an atheist, you have no choice but to believe such irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be telling that computers can come into existence all by themselves.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder139/34606139.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on February 16, 2017, 03:16:41 PM
What's the problem with acknowledging a link to apes anyway?

It defames the ape community.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 16, 2017, 03:33:57 PM
Actually, the term, "intellegent design" is a tautology.  Without intelligence, design is impossible.

... intelligence may very well be possible or even likely without design.
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.

 :fixed:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 20, 2017, 08:19:03 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/T6kzaE0.gif)
Where's Dredge?
We haven't seen him in a long time. Did he get tired of us?  :sad sigh:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on February 20, 2017, 08:27:39 PM
He mentioned that he has poor health, and has to travel to a WiFi hotspot to log in to this site. It may be that one or the other has outweighed the entertainment he derives from visiting here. I hope that he is well.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on February 20, 2017, 08:28:30 PM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) mags:
Where's Dredge?
We haven't seen him in a long time. Did he get tired of us?


Mothership scooped him up. (http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Thumbs%20Up.png)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 20, 2017, 08:30:47 PM
It takes a some work to actively ignore everything Dredge disagrees with, I'm sure it's just resting up.

(https://media.tenor.co/images/bdd74fcdffe17c56f288efb7ac591b3d/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 20, 2017, 09:03:58 PM
He mentioned that he has poor health, and has to travel to a WiFi hotspot to log in to this site. It may be that one or the other has outweighed the entertainment he derives from visiting here. I hope that he is well.

I don't recall seeing that info, Recusant, but I also would not wish him  ill.

Just not pestering us!
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 20, 2017, 09:11:50 PM
I saw a distinctly Dredgian apparition yesterday, but no other trace was made manifest.  :sherlock2:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on February 20, 2017, 10:18:35 PM
I don't recall seeing that info, Recusant, but I also would not wish him  ill.

Just not pestering us!

I'm certainly not vouching for the credibility of what he's said about himself. He doesn't seem to be particularly concerned about veracity.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 20, 2017, 10:42:22 PM
He mentioned that he has poor health, and has to travel to a WiFi hotspot to log in to this site. It may be that one or the other has outweighed the entertainment he derives from visiting here. I hope that he is well.
(http://i.imgur.com/bXFS3.gif)
Yes, I remember when he said that.
I also hope he is well.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 20, 2017, 10:43:56 PM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) mags:
Where's Dredge?
We haven't seen him in a long time. Did he get tired of us?


Mothership scooped him up. (http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Thumbs%20Up.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/XHHIRHH.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 20, 2017, 10:45:12 PM
It takes a some work to actively ignore everything Dredge disagrees with, I'm sure it's just resting up.

(https://media.tenor.co/images/bdd74fcdffe17c56f288efb7ac591b3d/tenor.gif)
(http://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/411078/b37b.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 21, 2017, 05:15:49 AM
I saw a distinctly Dredgian apparition yesterday,
(https://showmehow2play.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/you-can-read-minds-o.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 21, 2017, 05:17:16 AM
Some of these anti-Dredge posts are pretty funny.
Yes, they are.  :tellmemore:


Are the anti-Dredge posts in other atheist forums, like this?
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/eb36ee90582bf1d870414bf118d39ecc/tumblr_numq76onyi1rmerh9o1_400.gif)
Magdalena .... spreading the love around.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 21, 2017, 05:22:35 AM
Irrational nonsense? Like an almighty deity that created everything there is, yet somehow resembles its most cherished creation? (http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Whistle.png)
If you want to defend your brand of science, the best way to do it is with science, not with some theological straw man.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on February 21, 2017, 05:40:09 AM
Magdalena .... spreading the love around.
Well..........Um...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/FMy6ot1q12tNK/giphy.gif)
...A lot of us are trying to do that, right now.
I hope you can see that.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 21, 2017, 05:40:58 AM
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.
:fixed:
Ah yes, but the difference is, I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.

Furthermore, it is rational to believe that intelligence has an intelligent cause; it is decidedly irrational to believe that intelligence has an unintelligent cause (evolution, for example).  Therefore, my "cause" theology is more rational than your atheist "no cause" theology.



[Repaired quote tags. - R]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 21, 2017, 07:57:55 AM
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.
:fixed:
Ah yes, but the difference is, I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.

Furthermore, it is rational to believe that intelligence has an intelligent cause; it is decidedly irrational to believe that intelligence has an unintelligent cause (evolution, for example).  Therefore, my "cause" theology is more rational than your atheist "no cause" theology.

OK, same old single issue argument that ignores concrete evidence.

Edited later
I will reiterate the thing you seem to constantly and wilfully ignore: there is no "belief", no "faith" in science - reserve those for the supernatural. There is an acceptance, a current understanding, that a given theory appears to explain a given natural phenomena - for the moment, the door is always open for new evidence to modify that understanding.

For some your theology was "fixed" 4000 odd years ago (ignoring the many interpretations since) and is inpervious to external influence. Well, there are a few clergymen with enough intelligence to question the factual basis of the bible.



[Repaired quote tags. - R]
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on February 21, 2017, 09:24:52 AM
Dredge, how long has human intelligence existed in your model of things?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on February 21, 2017, 10:02:32 AM
There is no use in arguing with him if he runs on circular logic.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on February 21, 2017, 03:20:54 PM
Quote from: Dredge
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.
:fixed:
Ah yes, but the difference is, I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.
So Dredge, using technologies based on the discoveries of science, is trying to say that science is a leap of faith... that is hilarious.

It's funny how all this technology developed on discoveries by science, that works so reliably that people actually get upset if there is a slight hiccup, seems to be ignored by those like Dredge.

Just like the absurdity of a person wearing clothes, living in some kind of building, using a machine with an operating system developed by thousands of people, that that transmits data via electric signals that travel through wires, light, and airwaves, complains about how things shouldn't be allowed because they're not "natural."

Until those like Dredge who go around pretending to know things, corrects these wild inconsistencies in their faulty reasoning, it's difficult not to think them anything but a ridiculous joke. Because just by using these various technologies to troll these forums, Dredge is demonstrating that science is not a leap of faith and is instead highly reliable.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: solidsquid on February 21, 2017, 09:59:18 PM
There is no use in arguing with him if he runs on circular logic.

(http://trollscience.com/image/f/full/8c6ac6fe0aa5ec1952e8e274f6df0f5e.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on February 28, 2017, 11:58:03 PM
Dredge, how long has human intelligence existed in your model of things?
5777 years
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on March 01, 2017, 12:06:20 AM
Quote from: Dredge
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.
:fixed:
Ah yes, but the difference is, I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.
So Dredge, using technologies based on the discoveries of science, is trying to say that science is a leap of faith... that is hilarious.
Huh?  It certainly would be hilarious if I said that .. but I didn't; nothing of the sort, in fact. 

Did you have trouble with comprehension tests when you were at school?

Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: No one on March 01, 2017, 12:35:18 AM
(http://forums.motortrend.com/_siteconfigs/_global/images/community/bbcode/icon_quote.gif) Dredge:
Did you have trouble with comprehension tests when you were at school?

Hey Pot, have you met Kettle? (http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Whistle.png)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dave on March 01, 2017, 10:00:11 AM
Dredge, how long has human intelligence existed in your model of things?
5777 years
Does it take intelligence to depict animals as images on cave walls, to develop tools from mere pieces of broken stone to instruments intended for a purpose, to shape a piece of bone into a harpoon to catch fish?

When were such skills, and others,  achieved in your timescale for man?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 01, 2017, 11:32:31 AM
Dredge, how long has human intelligence existed in your model of things?
5777 years
Does it take intelligence to depict animals as images on cave walls, to develop tools from mere pieces of broken stone to instruments intended for a purpose, to shape a piece of bone into a harpoon to catch fish?

When were such skills, and others,  achieved in your timescale for man?

fook Dredge

Was the hominid that invented the wheel on par with Einstein and Colonel Sanders?
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 01, 2017, 11:52:55 AM
Was the hominid that invented the wheel on par with Einstein and Colonel Sanders?

It wasn't an hominid, it was an equine.
They'd done a deal, we won't eat you if move us and stuff.
So the horsies made wheels to make things easier.
Hominids just increased the load and appropriated the tech.
Horsies evolved to a lower intelligence to cope with their lot.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on March 01, 2017, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: Dredge
As a theist, you have no choice but to believe irrational nonsense.  Next you'll be believing that life can come into existence all by the will of woo.
:fixed:
Ah yes, but the difference is, I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.
So Dredge, using technologies based on the discoveries of science, is trying to say that science is a leap of faith... that is hilarious.
Huh?  It certainly would be hilarious if I said that .. but I didn't; nothing of the sort, in fact.

This is hilarious, just look at what Dredge wrote.

Quote from: Dredge
[...]I don't call my leap of faith, "science" - you do.

Why yes, it is hilarious when Dredge calls science a leap of faith.

Quote from: Dredge
Did you have trouble with comprehension tests when you were at school?
Awww, Dredge tried to insult me. It's kind of adorable. Breaking the civility rules of the forum, but the pathetic attempt is still a bit adorable.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on March 02, 2017, 03:32:48 AM
Did you have trouble with comprehension tests when you were at school?

Dredge, the insult above is in contravention of HAF's rule number 1 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=1522.0). While you've mostly been able to keep within the rules here, the staff have also refrained from taking action a number of times when your posts have been reported and when you've pressed your luck with comments that appeared to have been posted with the sole intention of eliciting an emotional response.

You've been given two warnings already by the staff, and this is the third. According to the policy of the site, you have now been suspended for two weeks. Assuming you return, please refrain from such personalized negative remarks in the future. We try to avoid banning members here, but if you aren't willing to respect our rules (this includes posting here using a different IP address during your suspension), then you will be shown the door.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Recusant on March 02, 2017, 03:52:08 AM
I'll say that I've been impressed with the way that members here have pretty much avoided rising to Dredge's bait, responding to the content of his posts rather than what certainly seem to be intermittent attempts at trolling. Well done. :cheers:
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on March 02, 2017, 04:55:47 AM
I'll say that I've been impressed with the way that members here have pretty much avoided rising to Dredge's bait, responding to the content of his posts rather than what certainly seem to be intermittent attempts at trolling. Well done. :cheers:

It wasn't always easy, but I give myself and everyone else a pat on the back.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Dredge on March 16, 2017, 05:47:08 AM
Dredge, how long has human intelligence existed in your model of things?
5777 years
Does it take intelligence to depict animals as images on cave walls, to develop tools from mere pieces of broken stone to instruments intended for a purpose, to shape a piece of bone into a harpoon to catch fish?

When were such skills, and others,  achieved in your timescale for man?
Je ne sais pas.
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Magdalena on March 16, 2017, 06:01:43 AM
Dredge is back.

(http://68.media.tumblr.com/33780d3541ab70bc58b74ab2b98994e2/tumblr_nqshcbKTtm1u876bxo4_250.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on March 16, 2017, 01:36:10 PM
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/23jn6mu.jpg)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Davin on March 16, 2017, 04:58:44 PM
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/921f66481509fbb6aa1084b11440d0c8/tumblr_inline_ogvjxl8U2m1s50qig_500.gif)
Title: Re: According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic
Post by: Arturo on March 22, 2017, 03:14:31 PM
Empathy.  Why is it necessary to have empathy?  A shark lacks empathy but survives just fine.  If a shark doesn't need empathy, why should a human?

We would all kill each other that's why.
So what?  What makes you think humans need to exist?

Why are you questioning their need to exist? Do you think they all need to be wiped out?
I don't think humans need to be wiped out.  But quite a few environmentalist fanatics think a global cull would be very beneficial for the planet (Satan is always coming up with novel ways to exterminate humans, as it is in his interest).

According to your "science", no life needs to exist.

You already had an answer to your own question. Why even ask it? It's clear you're just trying to prove your own prejudice.

Whether or not life needs to exist doesn't matter. It already does and we want to survive. We do survive. I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm also not against uthenasia if someone is suffering a great deal. They have there own personal struggles that I'm not going to project my preferences on to. I will try to help them if I can but I can't always be there. So if someone slips through the cracks, at least let them have peace.

Quote
quite a few environmentalist fanatics think a global cull would be very beneficial for the planet
Statistics? Don't use an anecdote (if you even know what that is) because we already know none of us are the center of the universe.

Quote
(Satan is always coming up with novel ways to exterminate humans, as it is in his interest)

You mean how God wiped out who knows how many people in the Bible as we've already described? I mean once we brought that up, you started questioning why we think it's bad for babies to be slaughtered. And why humans need to exist. And then you blamed it on science but really it's all coming from your Bible lol