How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Speedwell]

Im aware thanks. I study it.
Your postulation is?
Sadly some attack my knowledge but can never fill the void themselves.

My "postulation" is that abiogenesis is not a theist v. atheist question. The science is the same in either case.

Only atheists have the philosophical / faith problem of shoring up the idea of a cell from random chance science. And boy! The money they’ve wasted getting nowhere.

What is "random chance science?"

I’ve pointed out on forensic evidence cells appear in theistic context.
Take ( so called ) Eucharistic miracles . Abiogenesis believers none.

Clearly you have no idea of what "abiogenesis believers" actually believe. Right now you are discussing the question with at least one "abiogenesis believer" who also believes the Real Presence.

 

[Estrid]

My "postulation" is that abiogenesis is not a theist v. atheist question. The science is the same in either case.

What is "random chance science?"

Clearly you have no idea of what "abiogenesis believers" actually believe. Right now you are discussing the question with at least one "abiogenesis believer" who also believes the Real Presence.

I have an Uncle who is so hard core Maoist.
Red Guard...the whole bit.
Interesting in a way, but only up to
point.
No way he could be educated out of
his beliefs. Layer after layer of, well,
just so wrong. So not even wrong.
Best to avoid anything about politics!

Withal he is a very decent guy. Generous,
a worker, honest. Very little education
of course so he is some bewildered
by the 21st century.
When I find I've started talking to
a creationist who is comparably off
the rails I don't continue.

I used to try picking just one simple
mistake, easy to demonstrate, totally
irrelevant to the truth or falsity of ToE.

One is the "prove a theory" thing,
a variant being "law of biogenesis proved
by Pasteur therefore God".

I never even got a creationist to accept
that a theory cannot be proven.

As for what Uncle H won't ever concede,
no use going there, but its the same attitude.

 

[Mountainmike]

Demonstrating you don’t understand the problem of abiogenesis or the scientific method.

Miller Urey at best showed how a few bricks could appear.

It doesn’t take genius to recognise bricks may be evidence of ability of a someone to build houses , it has nothing whatsoever to say about self designing self building houses.

The quantum chemistry ( which I am guessing I understand better than you do) says the likelihood of an 18000 protein factory ( minimum cell) popping into existence is zero.

To postulate abiogenesis you need to DEFINE an intermediate , a process to it by PROBABLE random chance chemistry, and a process from there to our minimum cell. Or observe it, or reproduce it, neither of which anyone can. There also needs to be an explanation for why it cannot be observed still occuring.

You have none of the above. Zip, Nada. No hypothesis, no experiment. Just blind faith. You are welcome to it: but accept what it is :atheist speculation.

Since you seem to doubt that. Miller Urey suggested a route to small molecule biochemicals, That’s all. Barely bricks.

So put a pile of bricks on your drive, see how long they take to self design into a a house. Abiogenesis so far is pseudoscience not the real thing.


It is pure speculation dressed up as a scientific theory, it doesn’t qualify, or even as a hypothesis.

but then I’m a scientist so I care about abuse of terminology.


ive also pointed out serious problems with postulation of some macro evolutionary jumps. Again because I understand the science.

Didn't your dad tell you that when you are in a hole you should stop digging.

We know life stated on earth but don't know how.
There are several hypothesis for how life from organic chemicals
The Miller-Urey experiment provided the first evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components.


Micro and macro evolution are simply evolution on different scales. Both rely on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change, i.e
mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

The people who deny the science, i.e creationists, have a vested interests in doing so.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The quantum chemistry ( which I am guessing I understand better than you do) says the likelihood of an 18000 protein factory ( minimum cell) popping into existence is zero.

[... paragraphs removed ...]

but then I’m a scientist so I care about abuse of terminology.

Can you provide a citation from the QChem literature showing that a full cell can't pop into existence? How `bout just a QC calculation of a 18000 protein system?

 

[Estrid]

Can you provide a citation from the QChem literature showing that a full cell can't pop into existence? How `bout just a QC calculation of a 18000 protein system?

"Pop into existence" has to be about the moldiest,strawman ever,
unless of course it's the same person saying that's how the earth got here.

 

[Mountainmike]

So what exactly is the "atheist press"? I've not heard that one before.

Take the shroud:
Mass media love publishing any wacky theory that it considers disproves the shrouds validity: take “da Vinci made it “ despite the difference in dates.

It rarely publishes the evidence that discredited the dating or science that enhances validity. It rarely publishes any reference to the science.
The wikidpedia page gets so edited by sceptics, it has little of the science.

The objectivity of media - even such as Nature- is clearly seen when the press published so called RC dates. It did not reference the only archaeologists involved - meachams clear reservations published before the dating, or Indeed the fact the labs had completely ignored the sampling or sample treatment protocol. Indeed they ignored all the red flags when pronouncing fake. Nor did they question how it could be faked?

The late Gove has a lot to answer for: he systematically eliminated STURP scientists on the basis their findings tended to support authenticity. He let his belief in a fraud get in the way of good science.

The actual science is fascinating.
Pre and post mortem pathology Unknown in Middle Ages.
Demonstration of the time the fabric had been in the holy land,
A mark consistent only with radiation.
Spacial factors suggest non contact mark.

 

[Speedwell]

It appears to be Shroud of Turin week on the evolution/creation board. Does anybody know why?

 

[Mountainmike]

Thank you but I already have read quite a bit on the shroud. There is no evidence that the shroud is the one that Jesus was buried in. The Catholic church neither formally endorses nor rejects the shroud, and only refers to it as an “icon of a man scourged and crucified”.

The Catholic Church does not pronounce on many things.

There is plenty of evidence. You mean No proof, please use words precisely.

Only One man in history is documented as tortured and crucified in the wAy Christ was. All the pre and post mortem pathology of shroud and sudarium are consistent with that as well as the location. It clearly is a real crucifixion.

it is not an artwork.

If it were other than Who Christ is considered to be, as history and evidence it is beyond reasonable doubt.

The mark remains unexplained except as non contact radiation.

 

[Frank Robert]

Demonstrating you don’t understand the problem of abiogenesis or the scientific method.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Miller Urey at best showed how a few bricks could appear.

You are now agreeing that abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry which is the only point that I was making.

It doesn’t take genius to recognise bricks may be evidence of ability of a someone to build houses , it has nothing whatsoever to say about self designing self building houses.

Nice try at moving the goal posts.

The quantum chemistry ( which I am guessing I understand better than you do) says the likelihood of an 18000 protein factory ( minimum cell) popping into existence is zero.

Personal incredibility is not science its a fallacy

To postulate abiogenesis you need to DEFINE an intermediate , a process to it by PROBABLE random chance chemistry, and a process from there to our minimum cell. Or observe it, or reproduce it, neither of which anyone can. There also needs to be an explanation for why it cannot be observed still occuring.You have none of the above. Zip, Nada. No hypothesis, no experiment. Just blind faith. You are welcome to it: but accept what it is :atheist speculation.

You seem to think that I have a vested interest in abiogenesis. I don't, but you sure do. For about the fifth time my the only point I am making is that abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry. Science may never know but neither scientists nor myself are unnerved about not knowing.

Since you seem to doubt that. Miller Urey suggested a route to small molecule biochemicals, That’s all. Barely bricks.

A journey of a 1000 miles starts with the first step.

So put a pile of bricks on your drive, see how long they take to self design into a a house.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Abiogenesis so far is pseudoscience not the real thing.

Now you are just displaying how little you understand about science

It is pure speculation dressed up as a scientific theory, it doesn’t qualify, or even as a hypothesis.

You are miles out your depth.
Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory, Evidence & Examples

but then I’m a scientist so I care about abuse of terminology.

You don't have to prove the obvious.

ive also pointed out serious problems with postulation of some macro evolutionary jumps. Again because I understand the science.

Yes, I know, "no one has seen it happen" Just another hackneyed creationist trope.

 

[Mountainmike]

I can only repeat.
Bricks are not evidence of self designing houses.
Simple logic.

There is no hypothesis for how the first cell appeared.
It is pure speculation. So it is neither hypothesis nor theory.

I don’t have any particular view on it, whether guided or not, but there are massive gaps. Atheists are obliged to believe the first cell occurred as a random chance outcome of chemical process. But it is pure faith.

I can on the other hand point at forensic evidence of created cells.
Study so called Eucharistic miracles.

In any event you seem to want to play the man not the ball.

So there ends the conversation.

You are entitled to your opinion.

You are now agreeing that abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry which is the only point that I was making.

Nice try at moving the goal posts.

Personal incredibility is not science its a fallacy

You seem to think that I have a vested interest in abiogenesis. I don't, but you sure do. For about the fifth time my the only point I am making is that abiogenesis is a valid scientific inquiry. Science may never know but neither scientists nor myself are unnerved about not knowing.
A journey of a 1000 miles starts with the first step.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Now you are just displaying how little you understand about science

You are miles out your depth.
Abiogenesis: Definition, Theory, Evidence & Examples

You don't have to prove the obvious.
Yes, I know, "no one has seen it happen" Just another hackneyed creationist trope.

 

[Frank Robert]

The Catholic Church does not pronounce on many things.
There is plenty of evidence. You mean No proof, please use words precisely.

There is zero evidence that it is the shoud that Jesus was buried in.

Only One man in history is documented as tortured and crucified in the wAy Christ was. All the pre and post mortem pathology of shroud and sudarium are consistent with that as well as the location. It clearly is a real crucifixion.

Jesus may have been crucified but there is zero evidence that Jesus was crucified in the way it is described in the NT.

it is not an artwork.

That is not an issue.

If it were other than Who Christ is considered to be, as history and evidence it is beyond reasonable doubt.

No it isn't.

The mark remains unexplained except as non contact radiation.

Many things are unexplained

 

[Frank Robert]

I can only repeat.
Bricks are not evidence of self designing houses.
Simple logic.

No one has claimed that bricks are evidence of self designing houses.

There is no hypothesis for how the first cell appeared.
It is pure speculation. So it is neither hypothesis nor theory.

I know, your version of science is that the Miller Urey experiment is not science. Yet,

The experiment was a success in that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were produced during the simulation.
The finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry.​

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to our own facts.

I don’t have any particular view on it, whether guided or not, but there are massive gaps. Atheists are obliged to believe the first cell occurred as a random chance outcome of chemical process. But it is pure faith.

Two hackneyed creationists tropes packed into one sentence.

I can on the other hand point at forensic evidence of created cells.
Study so called Eucharistic miracles.

Miracles can not be investigated thourhg scientific inquiry.

In any event you seem to want to play the man not the ball.

That makes no sense.

So there ends the conversation.

Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Take the shroud:
Mass media love publishing any wacky theory that it considers disproves the shrouds validity: take “da Vinci made it “ despite the difference in dates.

It rarely publishes the evidence that discredited the dating or science that enhances validity. It rarely publishes any reference to the science.
The wikidpedia page gets so edited by sceptics, it has little of the science.

The objectivity of media - even such as Nature- is clearly seen when the press published so called RC dates. It did not reference the only archaeologists involved - meachams clear reservations published before the dating, or Indeed the fact the labs had completely ignored the sampling or sample treatment protocol. Indeed they ignored all the red flags when pronouncing fake. Nor did they question how it could be faked?

The late Gove has a lot to answer for: he systematically eliminated STURP scientists on the basis their findings tended to support authenticity. He let his belief in a fraud get in the way of good science.

The actual science is fascinating.
Pre and post mortem pathology Unknown in Middle Ages.
Demonstration of the time the fabric had been in the holy land,
A mark consistent only with radiation.
Spacial factors suggest non contact mark.

I asked what you meant about the "atheist press" and rather than explaining your term, you went on a ramble about your favorite stalking horse, or rather linen cloth.

 

[Frank Robert]

I asked what you meant about the "atheist press" and rather than explaining your term, you went on a ramble about your favorite stalking horse, or rather linen cloth.

Creationists label everything that don't understand or don't like as atheist. It's their "get out of jail free card."

 

[sjastro]

I asked what you meant about the "atheist press".............

Sounds like a basketball tactic.

 

[Estrid]

Sounds like a basketball tactic.

That essily makes more sense than the intended use
which makes no sense at all.

If persons who make up such things
had any substance at all to their
claims they would not have to make things up.

"Garbage o' the Gaps" ya might call it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sounds like a basketball tactic.

I like it! I tried to think of something it could be, but all of the examples I could envision sounded like ways one would mock a non-believing basketball team, so that's what I went with:

"Atheist press (used derisively): Describes the tactics of a non-believer team that *never* presses in the back court and only plays half-court defense, because they don't 'believe' the basketball is ever in the back court despite the plain evidence that the ball really does start in the back court."

 

[Estrid]

I like it! I tried to think of something it could be, but all of the examples I could envision sounded like ways one would mock a non-believing basketball team, so that's what I went with:

"Atheist press (used derisively): Describes the tactics of a non-believer team that *never* presses in the back court and only plays half-court defense, because they don't 'believe' the basketball is ever in the back court despite the plain evidence that the ball really does start in the back court."

That makes no sense to me but then unlike a creationist
I don't pretend to know more than any specialist in the world.

I'd be as good in the after game show as a creo is at
talking science, and I would not get all huffy and
self righteous when people laughed at my talk
of goalies and that loop thingy.

 

[AV1611VET]

That makes no sense to me but then unlike a creationist I don't pretend to know more than any specialist in the world.

We don't need to know more than any specialist in the world.

All we need to do is believe something's antithesis and that settles it.

For example, I don't need to know the ins and outs of Phlogiston Theory, if I subscribe to Combustion Theory.

And vice versa.

 

[sjastro]

For example, I don't need to know the ins and outs of Phlogiston Theory, if I subscribe to Combustion Theory.

And vice versa.

To compliment my subscription to 'Nature' I subscribe to 'Combustion Theory' magazine as well which comes out with thought provoking stuff such as;

(Note 'Combustion Theory' doesn't use a spell checker.)