An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[AirPo]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

If there is something, why aren't there links?

 

[FormerAtheist]

I didn't take it out of context in the slightest. Your full post #327 consisted of what I responded to, and no more than that. Might have been taken a little bit out of the context of the conversation you were having, perhaps, but I didn't remove any content.


You know those little blue arrows pointing up next to the quoted person's username in a post? If you click them, it brings you back to the post that person is quoting from. If you click the one in my previous post, you'll be instantly taken to yours.


In the context of abiogenesis, natural selection applies about the same as it does on actual living organisms, just with molecules and collections thereof.


I only see creationists regularly do that. However, your suggestion that there was "nothing to select for" prior to a living cell is incorrect. Protocells with a metabolism so basic and passive that we could debate as to whether or not it counts, which consist of lipid bubbles with some proteins and nucleic acids in them, are highly variable, and the ones best at replicating do dominate abiogenesis experimental environments over ones bad at replicating. Heck, from the get go, there is stuff to select for.

just to be clear I am not that guy I quoted I was just quoting him I am not him there is nothing wrong with him and nothing wrong with me but I I'm not him

 

[AirPo]

Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.

You're not debating.

 

[tas8831]

If there is something, why aren't there links?

This might shed some light...

No link because his source provided no link. That is a quote from 1979 that can be found on hundreds of creationist sites (i.e., he didn't actually read it). I should put quote in quotes, since I cannot find the original essay (yet), and given the documented history of creationist misquotes and out of context quotes and made-up quotes, it may not even be real...

 

[tas8831]

Well I'm not a creationist but thanks for the compliment

Yes, right, because ID is not creationism... OK.. Got it..

Weird then that you use creationist arguments, creationist sources, creationist quotes of dubious veracity, etc.

 

[tas8831]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

Nice 38 year old quote that you found on a creationist website.

So impressive.

 

[tas8831]

Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

It is so cool how you never provide links.

Will you next present the 'witnessing' from that clown from Moscow University that also signed onto the phony 'Dissent from Darwin' list that thinks water has memory? Surely, he must be an expert on abiogenesis and evolution.

And so weird that the entirety of his rationale is that he has issues with abiogenesis, but then wraps it up by referring to Darwin.

 

[tas8831]

And here is a list of scientists that fully support 'darwinism' - just those named 'Steve' or some derivative of it. There are more Steves that support evolution that all of the lunks on the 'dissent' list...

Project Steve

They all agree with this statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

 

[tas8831]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

From an essay from 1979... An essay which, probably not coincidentally, I cannot find anywhere, but I can find that quote on... HUNDREDS of creationist sites. Amazing.


So cool that you are paraphrasing/stealing from this site*!

Why, that site even has a rather hackneyed list of people - amazing scientists - who are... creationists and never accepted evolution in the first place! Or who died before the ToE was even a thing (Newton)! Or whose fields of expertise had literally ZERO to do with anything relevant to evolution (like Maxwell)!

Your research skills are AMAZING!

Why - they have amazing scientist Gary Parker - whose science degree is an EdD! Amazing! His bio even claims he was a biologist professor - even though he never was!

Your sources are so totally impressive!

Wait - there is more!



I still cannot find the article in question, but I did find a site on which someone had done so, and that site's author quotes from the same article:

... “most or all of the Creationists are devout fundamentalist Protestant Christians. Many of them testify that they adopted their creationist positions in childhood, long before their professional training, and have not wavered since.” One of these scientists proudly declares, “I have always accepted the Bible as God’s unchanged and unchangeable word.” Contrary to Thomas’ apparent belief, uncritical acceptance has never been a hallmark of reputable science. Another quoted scientist calls evolution “among the great Satanic lies.”​

Hmmm....

Sort of calls into question using that quote as an argument that scientists are "leaving" evolution... in 1979... eh? Odd how ID advocates leave that part out of their quoting, isn't it? Sort of takes the legs out from under them.

Silly me - I forgot that being honest and open is secondary (maybe even quaternary?) to creationists.


*in fairness, he might not have taken the quote from the site I linked to, it was just the first one that popped up when I googled the quote. But I am 100% certain he did find it on a creationist site - googling the quote, one gets 122 hits. That is verbatim, ellipses and all. Which were not, of course, in the original article. I checked the first 20 returns, and all but 1 were to creationist sites. The 1 that wasn't was to TalkOrigins, which was in a comments section, and someone had seen the quote in a Cal Thomas (professional liar) column and asked if anyone had heard of it.

But "FormerAtheist" is not a creationist, no sir.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm just curious then why are there literally hundreds of scientists that a jumping ship? Why are they bailing. Why are people like me waking up to evolutionary nonsense and switching to ID? Its weird.

Sounds like you're experiencing confirmation bias and wishful thinking; they often go together - it's something to watch out for.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds like you're experiencing confirmation bias and wishful thinking; they often go together - it's something to watch out for.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman

Back on the old Beliefnet we use to run a challenge periodically to see if creationists could come up with a scientist who rejected evolution on the evidence before being converted to fundamentalist Evangelicalism. Never a one could be found.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

That article is 39 years old, yet evolutionary biology is bigger and busier than ever.

'Nuff said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Ah, yes - creationist Mr. Ed Peltzer, #315 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

'Nuff said.

 

[Jimmy D]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

No it didn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

just to be clear I am not that guy I quoted I was just quoting him I am not him there is nothing wrong with him and nothing wrong with me but I I'm not him

Oh, I see. You should make that clear in your posts from here on out, by, at a minimum, putting quotation marks around statements that are quotes and not statements originating from you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.

The universe rarely conforms to the categorical boxes we make for it, so ambiguity as to whether or not something is a metabolism in a protocell is hardly unexpected or a problem. There is a selective exchange between molecules in the environment and within the protocell, it is just that it is a function of the properties of lipid bubbles rather than a process controlled by protocell mediated mechanisms, which is why I said it is debatable whether or not that counts as a metabolism. Most sources list that as a very basic metabolism.

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life.

Then set up an abiogenesis experiment. As a chemist, you have the resources available to you to accomplish it.

Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much.

-_- protocells which have replicating genetic material and passively divide isn't much to you? Because that's a lot more than what people were expecting within such a short time period. Most people assumed that abiogenesis was a process that took an immense amount of time, but the fact that experimental results got that far may suggest otherwise. You should look into the work of Jack Szostak on this stuff, it's really amazing.

Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far.

-_- what do you mean by synthetic reactions? Most molecules necessary for living cells form naturally in environments that allow for it. Heck, to this day there is an abundance of amino acids unrelated to living cells in the environment.

It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.

Abiogenesis experiments are designed as simulations of the ancient Earth environment. It would be pointless for us to use conditions unlikely to represent that of the ancient Earth because that wouldn't represent a likely path that abiogenesis could take on our planet. It'd also be extremely directionless, giving it a higher chance of failure.

Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance.

Are you actually a chemist? If so, then tell me, is this molecule chiral?

And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

-_- there is nothing "Darwinian" about abiogenesis. The closest he came to even being involved is a comment he made about a hypothetical scenario where life arises from water, but he never investigated or hypothesized anything to do with abiogenesis.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Is your argument seriously just stolen from this guy? You couldn't even be bothered to reword it? If you are just going to post the arguments of others, you might as well just post links to them. And no, I am not editing my response because of this; if you are willing to present this argument, you better be prepared to defend it. Including the chirality question; if you don't know anything about chemistry, how would you be able to tell if this guy's arguments are legitimate or not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really because you have some key words in there. Can you give an example.

Things produced by the process of evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey I'm just going on what I originally told you and your response. You can not get natural selection unless you have something to select from.

Life exists.
So there is something to select from.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I thought it was about figuring out how life got here?

You thought wrong.

It's about how biodiversity, species, got here.

Darwin's original work was called "On the origins of species".
It's about how life works, about a process that existing life is subject to.

Not about how life got here.
Very different subject.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Remember I mentioned atheists as well. Remember its also atheists that do not trust atheists and for good reason. If your morals are relative then well ... lets just say I'll side with the atheists that don't trust atheists lol.

No offence, but you don't sound like a nice person.