'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[bhsmte]

Whoosh!

I'm afraid it may be a little too much for some of you to comprehend. Try getting together on it...

LOL

 

[Kenny'sID]

I know.

 

[Cute Tink]

This was a discussion that was going well. Please return to discussing the topic instead of each other or the topic may be locked. Thank you.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Moved

We are moving this thread to a section where it is a better fit.

Please continue the discussion here, thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Radrook]

I stopped at the point where I realized the author is, once again, confusing evolution with the origin of life. If you cannot present the point accurately, you have lost my interest completely. The list of quote mines didn't help either.

Quotes are not necessarily irrelevant. If the quoted source has a conflict of interest then if course that disqualifies it. For example, if we quote what a tobacco company claims concerning the effects on tobacco in order to support our argument that it isn't as dangerous to human health as other objective sources claim, then our source is flawed. However, if the source being quoted has no conflict of interest and is an authority on the subject, then such quotes are indeed admissible as supporting material for our thesis.

Of course one has to be careful that one doesn't fall into the bandwagon fallacy where popularity is equated with certainty. So quotation abundance per se can very well be meaningless. However, if the consensus is unbiased, then the numerical predominance becomes significant.

Unfortunately, many scientific statements are from scientists who are indeed biased in favor of atheism and whose modus operandi isn't quite as objective as the scientific method demands. In such cases the numerical predominance is meaningless since it is based on flawed methodology and fallacious reasoning in the service of a popular pet idea.

 

[Cute Tink]

Quotes are not necessarily irrelevant.

They can be out of context though. In the article cited in the OP, there was no link to check context on them.

 

[Radrook]

They can be out of context though. In the article cited in the OP, there was no link to check context on them.

True, the following quotes should be fixed by having the publication or exact occasion and date when they were written or uttered. If they are unverifiable then they need not be taken as fact since they might very well be bogus. I strongly suggest that the person using these quotes provide the sources in order to make them legit.

• (2016) “[There is] collective cluelessness…those who say this is well worked out, they know nothing, nothing about chemical synthesis…Those who think that scientists understand the details of life’s origin are wholly uninformed. Nobody understands…when will the scientific community confess to the world that they are clueless on life’s origin, that the emperor has no clothes?” James Tour — Professor of Chemistry, Rice University (Synthetic chemist and among the top ten most cited chemists in the world)

[Stated when and where?]

• (2011) “The Origin of Life field is a failure.” Eugene Koonin, microbiologist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information

[Stated when and where?]

• (2011) “With respect to the Origin of Life, I find the more we learn about cells, the more complex they seem; they are just incredibly complex things, and to go from what we can see today and try to reason where it came from, I think is really impossible.” Lee Hartwell, Nobel Prize in Medicine, 2001

[Stated when and where?]

• (2007) “How? [did life begin] I have no idea.” George Whitesides, Professor of Chemistry, Harvard University, Winner of the Priestley Medal in Chemistry (second only to the Nobel Prize)

[Stated when and where?]

• (2001) “The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication.” Franklin Harold, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Colorado State University

[Stated when and where?]

• (1983) “In short, there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on earth.” Sir Fred Hoyle, distinguished British astronomer, physicist, mathematician (without question one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century)

[Stated when and where?]

• (1981) “Since Science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated…it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large.” Hubert Yockey, physicist and renowned information theorist

[Stated when and where?]

 

[Cute Tink]

True, the following quotes should be fixed by having the publication or exact occasion and date when they were written or uttered. If they are unverifiable then they need not be taken as fact since they might very well be bogus. I strongly suggest that the person using these quotes provide the sources in order to make them legit.

Good luck with that. I don't get the impression that the author of the article is that interested in clarifying based on the title of the article alone.

 

[Speedwell]

• (1981) “Since Science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated…it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large.” Hubert Yockey, physicist and renowned information theorist

[Stated when and where?]

I didn't realize it was a secret.

 

[RickG]

Of course one has to be careful that one doesn't fall into the bandwagon fallacy where popularity is equated with certainty. So quotation abundance per se can very well be meaningless. However, if the consensus is unbiased, then the numerical predominance becomes significant.

Thus the reason to base "consensus" on what the majority of publish research shows, not opinion.

Unfortunately, many scientific statements are from scientists who are indeed biased in favor of atheism and whose modus operandi isn't quite as objective as the scientific method demands. In such cases the numerical predominance is meaningless since it is based on flawed methodology and fallacious reasoning in the service of a popular pet idea.

Excuse me, but you seem the one asserting bias. I've worked with several scientists who I know were atheist and never once heard them make any comment toward any religion one way or another.

 

[Radrook]

Thus the reason to base "consensus" on what the majority of publish research shows, not opinion.


Excuse me, but you seem the one asserting bias. I've worked with several scientists who I know were atheist and never once heard them make any comment toward any religion one way or another.

The bias is inferred from the adopted policy.

 

[Radrook]

I didn't realize it was a secret.

Well, it is a secret since they behave as if they know. If indeed they didn't know, then how is it that they confidently predict the frequency of life arising via abiogenesis within certain hypothetical time and space parameters? Extreme uncertainty doesn't manifest itself that way.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, it is a secret since they behave as if they know. If indeed they didn't know, then how is it that they confidently predict the frequency of life arising via abiogenesis within certain hypothetical time and space parameters? Extreme uncertainty doesn't manifest itself that way.

Who is behaving like they know? Examples please.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, it is a secret since they behave as if they know. If indeed they didn't know, then how is it that they confidently predict the frequency of life arising via abiogenesis within certain hypothetical time and space parameters? Extreme uncertainty doesn't manifest itself that way.

They are speculating and don't represent it to be anything else. The only "certainty" you think you may detect is the confidence that their speculations are more likely to be true than recent special creation.

 

[Radrook]

They are speculating and don't represent it to be anything else. The only "certainty" you think you may detect is the confidence that their speculations are more likely to be true than recent special creation.

Really? Well, they sure as Shirley Temple don't seem to have any detectable doubt as to its absolute certainty. You see, semantically such doubts can be easily conveyed via the use of qualifiing words and phrases such as:

1. Perhaps
2. Maybe
3. We think that....
4. Some have suggested....
5. Seems to indicate
6. Some have suggested....
7. It is believed that....
8. According to the latest speculation....
9. Physicists think that....
10. according to the abiogenesis concept....
11. If the abiogenesis concept is true, then....
12. The atheist opinion is....


However, all of these qualifiers are cunningly dispensed with and bold statements are made as if they were scientifically certain and logically unassailable-both of which they are not. Why? well, very simple. abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature. Abiogenesis cannot be forced to happen even in controlled lab conditions. So all this pontificating as if it were an indisputable fact is quackery and quackery isn't part of the scientific method because the scientific method demands honesty and an objective approach as opposed to a dishonest ad biased one.

As to their perception of the unobserved abiogenesis being far more likely than intelligent design, that "Ï caint see! I jist cain't see it!"excuse is so ridiculous and old as to be totally ineffectual and is now verging on the comical as the obvious forethought and planning which is evidence of a mind at work displayed in nature becomes increasingly more compelling. That, amigo, is the dishonesty involved in the atheist approach.

BTW
The blindness which atheist scientists suddenly claim to experience whenever encountering strong indications of intelligent design suddenly disappears whenever they are shown identical data displayed elsewhere. LOL! I call it the MR. Magoo Syndrome for lack of a better name. Ever see MR. Magoo cartoon Character groping around with his eyes shut but then suddenly opening them when he's on the verge of stepping off a cliff?

That attitude constitutes the brazen unethical use of the the fallacy of inconsistency of policy which is the antithesis of what science is supposed to be about. scientific. Very sadly, those who admire science and believe that scientist always professionally adhere to its principles, mindlessly tend to imitate the

"I jist cain't sees it!" whenever an unbiased observation and unbiased analyses of data should logically lead them to the conclusion of an intelligent design. Unfortunately for them, chanting a mindless mantra does not and will never magically force compelling data which cries out for an inductive leap of intelligent design to vanish and neither does it logically disprove it as bogus. It merely displays a strong illogical aversion to what is being strongly indicated and an irrational phobic, pathological, anti creator need to avoid it at all costs and if the cost is being unscientifically dishonest via placing the mind on hold and claiming temporary blindness-then so be it..

To which you of course will reply with the popular: ""I still can't see!"

Which is of course your privilege. But to expect us who can clearly see, just as Einstein, Robert A. Millikan, Isaac Newton and others saw in nature to join in with that senseless chant? Sorry but that just isn't going to happen any time soon. So don't hold your breath.

 

[Radrook]

Who is behaving like they know? Examples please.

You caint see? Well, if indeed yu caint see the confidence in abiogenesis which your own scientists clearly display, then I am afraid that any sincere effort on my part to help you be able to see it will prove totally in vain since in my experience with others who claim your inability to see is that they still respond with:

"Well, ah still cain't see! So ah dayah!!"

 

[Radrook]

Divine creation has never been observed to happen in nature either, so neither of the two hypotheses have been directly observed.

However, there is more evidence to support abiogenesis than there is to support divine creation.

Natural chemical processes have produced amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers and short chains of RNA.

Divine creation has never been observed to produce amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, lipid bilayers or short strings of RNA.

There is a lot more observed evidence to support abiogenesis than there is to support divine creation. Science has had naturally produced amino acids since 1953. Where are the divinely created amino acids?

The evidence to hand strongly supports a natural process of abiogenesis.

Do not forget that your God explicitly states that He used a natural process to create life: "Let the waters bring forth...", "Let the earth bring forth..." That is a process starting with natural, material, components. The Bible does not describe direct creation of life by God. We do read, "Let there be light"; we do not read, "Let there be life." Your interpretation of the text is wrong here.

Abiogenesis is the study of the details of the process by which the waters and the earth brought forth material life.

rossum

My Response:

Chemical reactions interpreted as first steps in an imaginary process are simply chemical reactions interpreted as first steps in an imaginary process and nothing more. Anyone can make a theoretical framework and begin interpreting things as supporting their ideas. That is called conjecture based on presumptions. It's done tongue in cheek all the time to the amazement and accolades of all who wish to see in such conjectures solid unassailable evidence of a world brought about via blind forces and totally dependent on a billion happy albeit astronomically improbable accidents.

Actually, there is a very compelling pattern going back thousands, some say millions of years and repeated billions of times which totally justifies the life comes only from life inductive leap. Not only is the pattern detectable in our recent and very distant past, but is in the process of displaying itself continuously before our very eyes. Life from life.

However, there is no such pattern available for the abiogenesis is idea. In short, it has absolutely no inductive leap justification whatsoever. In short, your inductive leap is base on blind faith in what scientists are telling you is fact when they don't really have any inductive leg to stand on. In short, they are being illogical in the service of there atheistic idea and in the process as violating a scientific principle of objectivity. That is called quackery. A quackery which unfortunately you choose to defend as genuine science.

BTW
I just noticed that you said-DIVINE CREATION. I never mentioned DIVINE CREATION.
I said INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/se...is-treated-as-if-a-certainty-is-unjustifiable

 

[Speedwell]

Really? Well, they sure as Shirley Temple don't seem to have any detectable doubt as to its absolute certainty. You see, semantically such doubts can be easily conveyed via the use of qualifiing words and phrases such as:

1. Perhaps
2. Maybe
3. We think that....
4. Some have suggested....
5. Seems to indicate
6. Some have suggested....
7. It is believed that....
8. According to the latest speculation....
9. Physicists think that....
10. according to the abiogenesis concept....
11. If the abiogenesis concept is true, then....
12. The atheist opinion is....


However, all of these qualifiers are cunningly dispensed with and bold statements are made as if they were scientifically certain and logically unassailable-both of which they are not. Why? well, very simple. abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature. Abiogenesis cannot be forced to happen even in controlled lab conditions. So all this pontificating as if it were an indisputable fact is quackery and quackery isn't part of the scientific method because the scientific method demands honesty and an objective approach as opposed to a dishonest ad biased one.

As to their perception of the unobserved abiogenesis being far more likely than intelligent design, that "Ï caint see! I jist cain't see it!"excuse is so ridiculous and old as to be totally ineffectual and is now verging on the comical as the obvious forethought and planning which is evidence of a mind at work displayed in nature becomes increasingly more compelling. That, amigo, is the dishonesty involved in the atheist approach.

BTW
The blindness which atheist scientists suddenly claim to experience whenever encountering strong indications of intelligent design suddenly disappears whenever they are shown identical data displayed elsewhere. LOL! I call it the MR. Magoo Syndrome for lack of a better name. Ever see MR. Magoo cartoon Character groping around with his eyes shut but then suddenly opening them when he's on the verge of stepping off a cliff?

That attitude constitutes the brazen unethical use of the the fallacy of inconsistency of policy which is the antithesis of what science is supposed to be about. scientific. Very sadly, those who admire science and believe that scientist always professionally adhere to its principles, mindlessly tend to imitate the

"I jist cain't sees it!" whenever an unbiased observation and unbiased analyses of data should logically lead them to the conclusion of an intelligent design. Unfortunately for them, chanting a mindless mantra does not and will never magically force compelling data which cries out for an inductive leap of intelligent design to vanish and neither does it logically disprove it as bogus. It merely displays a strong illogical aversion to what is being strongly indicated and an irrational phobic, pathological, anti creator need to avoid it at all costs and if the cost is being unscientifically dishonest via placing the mind on hold and claiming temporary blindness-then so be it..

To which you of course will reply with the popular: ""I still can't see!"

Which is of course your privilege. But to expect us who can clearly see, just as Einstein, Robert A. Millikan, Isaac Newton and others saw in nature to join in with that senseless chant? Sorry but that just isn't going to happen any time soon. So don't hold your breath.

You've got to be kidding! Einstein, Millikan and Newton would have supported the "science" of Behe and Dembski? You know this how? Those fellows knew too much math to be fooled by Dembski's crap, and the God they believed in would never stoop to the amateurish tinkering by the Creator that Behe's conjectures. required.

The God I believe in wouldn't either.

 

[Speedwell]

I just noticed that you said-DIVINE CREATION. I never mentioned DIVINE CREATION.
I said INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

You would have been better off if you had. It would have put you in the company of those who believe that God is creator of the universe, but understand that Intelligent Design is nothing but biblical creationism in a cheap lab coat.
Divine creation is an ancient and respectable assertion, nothing to be ashamed of. Intelligent Design a joke.

 

[Radrook]

You've got to be kidding! Einstein, Millikan and Newton would have supported the "science" of Behe and Dembski? You know this how? Those fellows knew too much math to be fooled by Dembski's crap, and the God they believed in would never stoop to the amateurish tinkering by the Creator that Behe's conjectures. required.

The God I believe in wouldn't either.

I don't know what you are talking about.
Einstein, Millikan and Issac Newton all believed in intelligent design of the universe.
Who Dembski and Behe are is anybody's guess. They sound like characters out of the Walt Disney film Bambi. I'm new to this thread so maybe I missed something having to do with these names?