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

[Jimmy D]

Do you have statistics to back that up? If not then it is mere personal opinion and personal opinion.
But for the sake of a very brief discussion, let us assume that it were true.
So what?

Derision from a person claiming to be a Christian but who defends atheism is ridiculous.

Now you are going weird on me.

Have you heard of the Catholic Church?

I think your confusion is arising from the fact that you wrongly equate biology with atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

Unfortunately that constitutes a false analogy.
In short, you are now desperately resorting to mindlessly comparing apples and mangoes with a slab of roasted beef.
What you don't resort to is a detailed analyses of why your argument is irrational and why the argument of ID is isn't.
But that's understandable as I said before.
When one doesn't have a leg to stand on one will uses crutches.

Is this why when id's prize witness, dr. Behe, had to admit under oath during the dover trial; if id is considered science, than astrology would also be considered science?

 

[Radrook]

Do you have statistics to back that up? If not then it is mere personal opinion and personal opinion.


But for the sake of a very brief discussion, let us assume that it were true.

So what?

Derision from a person claiming to be a Christian but who defends atheism is ridiculous.

Now you are going weird on

Then you need to seriously examine the two things you compare before comparing them.
If two things are different in any essential aspect then the whole analogy becomes invalid.

The concept of an ID and astrology as comparable is defective.

One is based on mere conjectures which depend on the positions of the heavenly bodies as they arbitrarily appear to humans from the surface of our Earth at various seasons.

The other is based on observation of patterns which which warrants an inductive leap. The foundation of one is flawed. The foundation of the other is rock-solid.

 

[Radrook]

Have you heard of the Catholic Church?

I think your confusion is arising from the fact that you wrongly equate biology with atheism.

I don't consider abiogenesis biology.
In fact, it doesn't even qualify as part of nature since it has NEVER been observed to occur in nature and nature cannot be FORCED to obediently display in a lab.

Essentially the problem is this:

You want us to view something that quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck and flies like a duck and if you cook it even tastes like a duck and in all other essential ways qualifies as a duck and say that it isn't a duck. To which we reply with ""Nuts!""

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't consider abiogenesis biology.

Nor science.
It's a pathetic belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You missed GENERAL.

I missed nothing.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't consider abiogenesis biology.
In fact, it doesn't even qualify as part of nature since it has NEVER been observed to occur in nature and nature cannot be FORCED to obediently display in a lab.

Essentially the problem is this:

You want us to view something that quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck and flies like a duck and if you cook it even tastes like a duck and in all other essential ways qualifies as a duck and say that it isn't a duck. To which we reply with ""Nuts!""

I thought that we were talking about evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unfortunately that constitutes a false analogy. In short, you are now desperately resorting to mindlessly comparing apples and mangoes with a slab of roasted beef.

Nope. This analogy actually comes from the horse's mouth, namely mr Behe.

On the Dover trial, the guy flat out admitted that if ID is to be considered scientific, then the same goes for astrology.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

This is not me saying it, it is one of the leading ID proponents (also known as cdesign proponentsists ) that said this.

Read carefully: according the Michael Behe, one of the leads in the ID "movement", if ID is a scientific model, then so is astrology.

What you don't resort to is a detailed analyses of why your argument is irrational and why the argument of ID is isn't.

What argument?

From the Dover trial, it is crystal clear that cdesign proponentsists had to redefine what a scientific model is, in such a way that it includes pseudo-science like astrology, in order to be able to call ID a scientific model.

Again, this is not me saying it. It is one of the leads of the ID movement that admitted to it.

 

[Speedwell]

Radrook's position is typical of Creationists generally.

They are indoctrinated with a made-up version of the theory of evolution, the purpose being to convince them that the theory of evolution is obviously false and being knowing promoted as such by wicked atheists for the purpose of denying the Bible.
The problem is, that when they argue against it in forums like this, they are arguing against the made up version, rather than the real thing, and look ridiculous. The derision they experience is then assumed to be directed against God and the Bible, rather than their erroneous understanding of real science.

 

[Radrook]

Nope. This analogy actually comes from the horse's mouth, namely mr Behe.

On the Dover trial, the guy flat out admitted that if ID is to be considered scientific, then the same goes for astrology.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

This is not me saying it, it is one of the leading ID proponents (also known as cdesign proponentsists ) that said this.

Read carefully: according the Michael Behe, one of the leads in the ID "movement", if ID is a scientific model, then so is astrology.



What argument?

From the Dover trial, it is crystal clear that cdesign proponentsists had to redefine what a scientific model is, in such a way that it includes pseudo-science like astrology, in order to be able to call ID a scientific model.

Again, this is not me saying it. It is one of the leads of the ID movement that admitted to it.

 

[Radrook]

Nope. This analogy actually comes from the horse's mouth, namely mr Behe.

On the Dover trial, the guy flat out admitted that if ID is to be considered scientific, then the same goes for astrology.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

This is not me saying it, it is one of the leading ID proponents (also known as cdesign proponentsists ) that said this.

Read carefully: according the Michael Behe, one of the leads in the ID "movement", if ID is a scientific model, then so is astrology.



What argument?

From the Dover trial, it is crystal clear that cdesign proponentsists had to redefine what a scientific model is, in such a way that it includes pseudo-science like astrology, in order to be able to call ID a scientific model.

Again, this is not me saying it. It is one of the leads of the ID movement that admitted to it.

I really don't care if his name be Behehehe or Behahaha! Or if he is a leading proponent, component, or exponent of the ID. He isn't my representative. His opinion is his and mine is mine.

Also, since there is a persistently pernicious habit of quoting things out of context and otherwise infusing garbled meaning into otherwise perfectly sane statements, I would have to read the original article or hear the original discussion myself in order to ascertain if that is what he actually said or meant. As it stands, that self incriminating interpretation sounds powerful fishy to me. I mean, if you can glibly misquote Saint Paul as you just did a few posts back, then it stands to reason that everyone whom you tag as a believer in an ID is fair game in your book.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook's position is typical of Creationists generally.

They are indoctrinated with a made-up version of the theory of evolution, the purpose being to convince them that the theory of evolution is obviously false and being knowing promoted as such by wicked atheists for the purpose of denying the Bible.
The problem is, that when they argue against it in forums like this, they are arguing against the made up version, rather than the real thing, and look ridiculous. The derision they experience is then assumed to be directed against God and the Bible, rather than their erroneous understanding of real science.

Well, there you go again Jimmy! I don't have any version of evolution in mind. Neither am I arguing against any particular version. You are confusing abiogenesis with the evolution theory.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, there you go again Jimmy! I don't have any version of evolution in mind. Neither am I arguing against any particular version.

"Sorry but I cannot fathom complex organic computers, complicated organic cameras, lifelong functional three-chambered and four chambered organic pumps, and all the other intricate organization which shouts planning and mind as merely the result of fortuitous mindlessness dependent on millions of happy highly improbable accidents. No degree in physics is needed to detect fallacious reasoning and reaching that conclusion is fallacious reasoning par excellence.."

That's your version. Not the same as the real thing.

You are confusing abiogenesis with the evolution theory.

At the present time there is no complete and coherent theory of abiogenesis, only speculations, and no real scientist pretends otherwise. In any case, even the speculations are more plausible than anything creationism has to offer.

 

[Radrook]

That was a generic generalization and not any specific criticism of any specific theory of evolution.
If indeed it is flawed, then point out the flaw instead of saying that it is flawed.
Tell me exactly where I am misrepresenting the evolution theory.

Less plausibility, Naaaah! That is just the same ole ""I jist cain't see cuz I refuse to see so there!" chant being conveniently deployed for a pathetic lack of something better. Actually, there are speculations of how life emerged which involve alien intervention that are far more plausible than your pop-goes-the weasel, billions-happy unprovable accidents story. But thanks for being consistently illogical since that means I won't waste my time in fruitless discussion with someone too keen on conveying a self-inflicted lobotomy to be able to engage in any meaningful discussion.

Really, absolutely no theory? Well, if indeed that is the case then the smug posturing, as if it were certain fact, is even more reprehensible because involves a far greater effort to deceive and a far more blatant disregard for the scientific method which condemns such chicanery.

 

[Astrophile]

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

The problem is that, if our understanding of cosmology, star formation and the origin of the Earth is even approximately correct, there was a time when there was no life anywhere in the universe, and a fortiori no life on Earth, whereas now there certainly is life on Earth. In other words, life must have originated somehow from non-life.

The elements of life were produced in the Big Bang (hydrogen) or by nuclear reactions in stars (everything else), and they combined in interstellar space and elsewhere to form non-living organic compounds, which still exist in comets and some asteroids and meteorites.

If you accept this, how do you think that life originated? Do you think that God put appropriate organic compounds, made by natural processes, together to make the first living organisms? Alternatively, do you think that God created plants, fungi, animals, micro-organisms, viruses, etc., out of nothing and in essentially their present form? Would you like to explain your own ideas on the matter rather than merely denying the possibility of abiogenesis?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I really don't care if his name be Behehehe or Behahaha! Or if he is a leading proponent, component, or exponent of the ID. He isn't my representative. His opinion is his and mine is mine.

His opinion is the very model you are promoting here. ID.

Also, since there is a persistently pernicious habit of quoting things out of context and otherwise infusing garbled meaning into otherwise perfectly sane statements, I would have to read the original article or hear the original discussion myself in order to ascertain if that is what he actually said or meant. As it stands, that self incriminating interpretation sounds powerful fishy to me.

Well... it WAS in court and he WAS under oath.

Here's the transcript. Have fun.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

When you have to redefine what a "scientific theory" is to include just about any crazy idea someone's imagination can come up with, just so you can call your own crazy idea a "scientific theory", it's safe to conclude that your idea has a few problems.

I mean, if you can glibly misquote Saint Paul as you just did a few posts back

Please give the link to the post where I supposedly quoted anything from the bible.

, then it stands to reason that everyone whom you tag as a believer in an ID is fair game in your book.

Funny. Behe is one of the people that came up with it.

He's not just "promoter" or "believer" or "follower".
He's the guy behind the "irreducible complexity" nonsense.

 

[bhsmte]

It is always interesting, to see certain people cross examined, while under oath.

 

[MasonP]

Spot on bro !

Do you really find it that easy to fool yourself?

 

[Speedwell]

That was a generic generalization and not any specific criticism of any specific theory of evolution.
If indeed it is flawed, then point out the flaw instead of saying that it is flawed.
Tell me exactly where I am misrepresenting the evolution theory.

"Millions of happy highly improbable accidents" is not part of the real theory of evolution.

Less plausibility, Naaaah! That is just the same ole ""I jist cain't see cuz I refuse to see so there!" chant being conveniently deployed for a pathetic lack of something better. Actually, there are speculations of how life emerged which involve alien intervention that are far more plausible than your pop-goes-the weasel, billions-happy unprovable accidents story. But thanks for being consistently illogical since that means I won't waste my time in fruitless discussion with someone too keen on conveying a self-inflicted lobotomy to be able to engage in any meaningful discussion.

Not my story--but tell me, where did these aliens come from? In fact, you haven't given us your theory of abiogenesis at all.

Really, absolutely no theory? Well, if indeed that is the case then the smug posturing, as if it were certain fact, is even more reprehensible because involves a far greater effort to deceive and a far more blatant disregard for the scientific method which condemns such chicanery.

Indulging in what is clearly identified as speculation is chicanery?

 

[Radrook]

"Millions of happy highly improbable accidents" is not part of the real theory of evolution.

Not my story--but tell me, where did these aliens come from? In fact, you haven't given us your theory of abiogenesis at all.

Indulging in what is clearly identified as speculation is chicanery?

As I clearly pointed out, the chicanery is acting as if it were undeniable fact. Anyone watching the documentaries about possibility of life on other worlds and on how life arose on Earth is immediately aware of that conveyed sense of certainty. It is never "ÏF" it happened" but it is always "How it must have happened". Claiming not to see that certainty as demonstrated in those documentaries itself constitutes chicanery.

Excerpt:
The Improbability of Abiogenesis

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

According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html