News:

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

Main Menu

According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Recusant

Quote from: 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.

You appear to be confusing scientific theories with scientific hypotheses. "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world applications (it's effective for calculating a workable route to the Moon and back for instance), it has been superseded by Einstein's theory of special relativity.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

Quote from: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:31:44 PMThis 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"

Quote from: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:31:44 PMFor 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.

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

Contrary to your sneering and inaccurate assertion, scientists are testing hypotheses of abiogenesis as we speak, at the Szostak Lab, for instance. This particular lab has produced results: "Synthetic primordial cell copies RNA for the first time" | New Scientist
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Dredge on January 08, 2017, 10:33:54 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 04, 2017, 01:16:00 PM
Quote from: Dredge on January 04, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
Quote from: solidsquid on December 31, 2016, 02:00:46 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.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dredge

Quote from: Gloucester on January 09, 2017, 09:17:34 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.

Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

No one


Pasta Chick

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...

Arturo

That's not dark energy, it's not even god energy. It's soap. ;)
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Firebird

Quote from: Dredge on January 10, 2017, 10:26:41 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.
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Magdalena

Quote from: Dredge on January 10, 2017, 10:26:41 PM
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,


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:

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.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Arturo

#54
Quote from: Magdalena on January 11, 2017, 06:45:08 AM
This I've contemplated:

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
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Dredge on January 10, 2017, 10:26:41 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 09, 2017, 09:17:34 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.

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

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Dredge on January 10, 2017, 10:26:41 PMWouldn'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.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Davin

#57
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.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Magdalena

 :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:

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Dave

Quote from: 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:

Me seeing same nothings. Big box, nix pix.

[ Oh, and doing an image search on it gives the weirdest results!]
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74