An atheists world (2)

[createdtoworship]

You guys are quoting from a book where a man argues that the flu, polio and mad cow diseases come from space.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoyle did a lot of great work, but a lot of his ideas were panned by the scientific community. Evolution From Space is part of that work.

Book Review - Evolution from Space: a theory of cosmic creationism



Try again.

so it's either a quote mine, if they haven't been banned from the scientific community,

or it's a illigitimate source? because no evolutionists can doubt evolution is this correct?

what about the Bulletin of the american meterological society vol 63,l 1983?

any argument as to it's legitimacy?

 

[StormanNorman]

and mathematically with those odds, you should be classed as insane to believe such a thing is possible.

Assuming those odds are correct; but, I would have to see the math behind them including the number of potential sequences of amino acids that could've also led to life different from the current set, the number of "events" or opportunities that counts in the odds calculation, the number of planets in the universe, time, etc.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

so it's either a quote mine, if they haven't been banned from the scientific community,

or it's a illigitimate source? because no evolutionists can doubt evolution is this correct?

what about the Bulletin of the american meterological society vol 63,l 1983?

any argument as to it's legitimacy?

The trouble is that you are finding these references on creationist websites and literally nothing on creationist websites can be taken at face value.

 

[lasthero]

ag

so it's either a quote mine, if they haven't been banned from the scientific community,

A quote mine you've yet to fess up to, and are proudly parading around, I might add.

or it's a illigitimate source? because no evolutionists can doubt evolution is this correct?

Hoyle does accept the veracity of evolutionary theory. That's why the book is called 'EVOLUTION from Space' - because he believe that EVOLUTION started in space. At best, it's an argument against abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.

Oh, and believe it or not, our understanding of things has somewhat progressed in the past thirty years since that book was published.

what about the Bulletin of the american meterological society vol 63,l 1983?

I'd have to see it. Given your track record, though, I'm doubtful.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, and are you ever going to say which scientist proposed that all life started from lightning striking a mud puddle? I was really looking forward to hearing you back that one up.

 

[florida2]

Oh for goodness sake, quantum involvement with plants has been going on for 6 years now with astonishing results. Look at the work of Niek van Hulst in Spain for example, or the Berkeley Lab.
Here is a paper but more has been discovered since then
Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed
Latest reports say Quantum is involved in telling the cell how much energy to convert.

What is it exactly that you're trying to prove?

My really bugbear is you using words like 'telling'. There are no concious decisions going on.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Oh for goodness sake, quantum involvement with plants has been going on for 6 years now with astonishing results. Look at the work of Niek van Hulst in Spain for example, or the Berkeley Lab.
Here is a paper but more has been discovered since then
Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed[/url]
Latest reports say Quantum is involved in telling the cell how much energy to convert.

Please read what I posted. I didn't say quantum wasn't involved, what I said is there are no agents in a plant "doing calculations".

Energy absorption and the concept of the "quanta" goes back to Bohr and the earliest QM revolutionaries. Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect and Planck's work on blackbody radiation all get back to the basics that energy is absorbed in discrete quanta.

Like I said the way a plant makes use of a broad spectrum of energy is NOT to do a "calculation" but to use 3 different pigments each of which has a specific, physically based absorption cross section.

What they are talking about in the Berkeley paper you cited makes it sound like there's some system in there "sampling" the pathways and making a conscious decision.

Unfortunately for your argument that ISN'T the sign of some intelligence...it's more like a filter. NOte that it leverages "constructive interference" of the states which allows the system to filter out the least efficient pathways.

It's like a seive. You can probably put a long chunk of something through a sieve if you jiggle it just right or it will be heldback just because statistically it hits in the wrong conformation and won't pass through.

Is this a sign that the sieve is doing some immense calculation showing a "computational" skill of the sieve? I hope not because that makes the sieve look a whole lot smarter than it actually is.

This is not to say that this "energy hopping" and filtering based on constructive interference of quantum states isn't fascinating and really really cool...but it's still predicated on non-supernatural, non-intelligence physical laws.

 

[CarlosTomy]

All we have to do then is keep freezing soup until life pops out. Let's hope the climate isn't too warm though.

Are you intentionally missing the point or am I not speaking clearly enough?

The freezing I'm talking about here isn't the same as the DNA reactions and DNA conformation.

What I'm attempting to point out to you guys is that freezing and crystallization in general results in high information, well ordered structures automatically without design. Based solely on molecular RULES which are, in most cases, based on the bonds and the electrostatics of the bonds.

DNA and DNA replication and reactions often require the same sort of chemical rules.

The hydrogen bonding which dictates how ice crystals form and ultimately take shape is the same type of "bonding" we see that drives the conformation of DNA. The bases pair in complementary pairs in DNA because of hydrogen bonds.

I apologize if I'm getting too deeply into chemistry than you are able to follow. I will be glad to back up and explain intro chemistry topics in more detail if that is needed.

Let me know what level of chemistry you feel competent in and we can start from that point and move forward from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

thanks for the heads up.

wasn't a lie, I made the same mistake just now.

Wrong. By quoting out of context it still is.

That is why there is a rule for creationists that they must provide a proper link to the source of the original quote if they try to quote evolutionists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's a sentence with elipses, if it's out of context... Perhaps it was a mistake and needs retraction? Ever cross the mind? Just saying. I have a whole list of these quotes. Most of the time the author just slips up and the truth peaks it's head out.

I am sure that you do.

You probably don't know what you just admitted to.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

I am sure that you do.

You probably don't know what you just admitted to.

"If my brain chemistry makes me more likely to believe in Christianity than theirs (either in the form of the presence of some element in me that is absent in them or the absence of some element in me that is present in them), does their brain chemistry invalidate the truth of their claims? If not, why should it invalidate mine? In point of fact, neither is true. Whether claims of this sort come from theists or atheists, they are equally invalid genetic fallacies."

Ken Coughlan

 

[Subduction Zone]

"If my brain chemistry makes me more likely to believe in Christianity than theirs (either in the form of the presence of some element in me that is absent in them or the absence of some element in me that is present in them), does their brain chemistry invalidate the truth of their claims? If not, why should it invalidate mine? In point of fact, neither is true. Whether claims of this sort come from theists or atheists, they are equally invalid genetic fallacies."

Ken Coughlan

You do not understand what gradyll is keeping a list of. Or why it is bad to have such a list. Why am I not surprised.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

You do not understand what gradyll is keeping a list of. Or why it is bad to have such a list. Why am I not surprised.

The title of article to which I quoted from was genetic fallacy. The article talks about the idea of a God gene or religious belief caused by a gene. The error or misconception of both the scientist/atheist is the fact if such a gene existed, then there would either be a gene for atheism or the lack there of meaning that all unbelievers are undeveloped.

If that was the case. Would atheism be the evolving or dying breed?

 

[Armoured]

*sigh* oh how I hate the misunderstanding that evolution is about a one way progression from underdeveloped to developed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The title of article to which I quoted from was genetic fallacy. The article talks about the idea of a God gene or religious belief caused by a gene. The error or misconception of both the scientist/atheist is the fact if such a gene existed, then there would either be a gene for atheism or the lack there of meaning that all unbelievers are undeveloped.

If that was the case. Would atheism be the evolving or dying breed?

You are asking a foolish question. No scientist or atheist believes that there is a "god gene" that I am aware of. And why did you not link to the article?

Is quote mining so automatic to creationists that they do it automatically. I cannot judge the quote fully unless I see it in context.

Of course I may have found the seeds of creationist quote mines. Fundamentalists will quote mine their own Bible. If you see the claim of "400 plus prophesies fulfilled..." many of those so called prophesies are only quote mines of their own Bible. Talk about sacrilege.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*sigh* oh how I hate the misunderstanding that evolution is about a one way progression from underdeveloped to developed.

I should have picked up on that too.

It implies that evolution has a "direction". If you see many of the "odds arguments" that creationists use they often try to "disprove" evolution by using man as a goal and calculating the odds of achieving that goal. Of course the odds are always astronomical. And all that it takes to debunk the argument is to point out he false assumption.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

You are asking a foolish question. No scientist or atheist believes that there is a "god gene" that I am aware of. And why did you not link to the article?

Is quote mining so automatic to creationists that they do it automatically. I cannot judge the quote fully unless I see it in context.

Of course I may have found the seeds of creationist quote mines. Fundamentalists will quote mine their own Bible. If you see the claim of "400 plus prophesies fulfilled..." many of those so called prophesies are only quote mines of their own Bible. Talk about sacrilege.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_XQgQULv0E&sns=em

 

[lasthero]

I'm sure there's some connection there with that scene from Maher's crappy movie and a list of quote mines, but...I just don't see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the point of your video?

There was no claim of a genetic basis for religious belief in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you could have used that video to claim that many scientists think that religion is a mental disorder, but even that would be a misinterpretation.

Again, it had nothing at all to do with a genetic basis for religion.