On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

[Radrook]

On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

 

[Maddox]

Summary : We don't know how it happened so God did it.

Guess we haven't heard that before.

Also just because some scientists for various reasons promote theistic theories it doesn't make it any more true than priests denouncing God makes religions any less plausible than they are now.

When you get majority of scientists on board with any theory that requires and is demonstrated to have God on it please post that.

I will be first to give it informative thumbs up.

 

[Maddox]

Here is another expert short document of the subject.

 

[Radrook]

Summary : We don't know how it happened so God did it.

Guess we haven't heard that before.

Also just because some scientists for various reasons promote theistic theories it doesn't make it any more true than priests denouncing God makes religions any less plausible than they are now.

When you get majority of scientists on board with any theory that requires and is demonstrated to have God on it please post that.

I will be first to give it informative thumbs up.

That's the bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Maddox]

More like appeal to authority really.

However, since theistic belief in origin of life is a matter of faith why be so desperate to get any scientific evidence of which there is none to back it up.

Just say I believe and leave it at that.
Nobody will bother to refute that statement and it will ignore all those indignities when people ridicule the idea of Noah's ark filled to brim with baby dinosaurs or kangaroos jumping from floating tree branch to another to make it into Australia from the ark without anyone of them dying on trek and being fossilized.

 

[Radrook]

n

More like appeal to authority really.

However, since theistic belief in origin of life is a matter of faith why be so desperate to get any scientific evidence of which there is none to back it up.

Just say I believe and leave it at that.
Nobody will bother to refute that statement and it will ignore all those indignities when people ridicule the idea of Noah's ark filled to brim with baby dinosaurs or kangaroos jumping from floating tree branch to another to make it into Australia from the ark without anyone of them dying on trek and being fossilized.

I don't depend on faith for my belief in an ID and neither does the Bible expect me to depend on blind faith. I keep explaining that very simple fact but it doesn't seem to sink in. That's one reason why I avoid detailed debates-because of the self-proclaimed blindness or feigned inability to reason that is constantly deployed and which constituters invincible ignorance.

 

[Maddox]

Let's just agree that you are wise to avoid detailed debates for numerous reasons.

 

[Radrook]

Let's just agree that you are wise to avoid detailed debates for numerous reasons.

Let's just agree that your practice of the invincible ignorance fallacy makes any productive discussion totally impossible.

 

[DennisTate]

Summary : We don't know how it happened so God did it.

Guess we haven't heard that before.

Also just because some scientists for various reasons promote theistic theories it doesn't make it any more true than priests denouncing God makes religions any less plausible than they are now.

When you get majority of scientists on board with any theory that requires and is demonstrated to have God on it please post that.

I will be first to give it informative thumbs up.

Or... are we entering an age when Theists
will be able to handle the idea of a God who learns...
who conducts experiments.....
who choreographs Big Bang type events... many of them.....

who gets better and better and better at creation until God is
able to restore an earth.... and part of a universe that was greatly damaged in
perhaps the first attempted coup...... led by a former Covering Cherub who had
fallen into jealousy, envy, a lack of thankfulness.... and had became
competitive against Adam and Eve and their offspring......

Post #1 here has a quite fascinating
explanation for the fall of Lucifer and how it led to
a universe that was "without form and void" as described in
Genesis 1:2


NDE of Dr. Richard Eby verifies old earth and gap theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's just agree that your practice of the invincible ignorance fallacy makes any productive discussion totally impossible.

You really need to quit trying to use logical fallacies. The people on the side of science only look infallible because all of the scientific evidence supports us. There are surely some relatively small errors in our claims. Unfortunately you believe in nonsense that is not scientific at all.

 

[Radrook]

You really need to quit trying to use logical fallacies. The people on the side of science only look infallible because all of the scientific evidence supports us. There are surely some relatively small errors in our claims. Unfortunately you believe in nonsense that is not scientific at all.

I don't view the atheistic arguments as either scientific or infallible. On the contrary, I find them unscientific and seriously flawed and my view far more scientifically valid.

BTW
I am not the one trying or using fallacies. I am merely pointing them out. The atheists are the ones constantly cunningly deploying them at very convenient juncture to any discussion...

 

[Radrook]

Summary : We don't know how it happened so God did it.

Guess we haven't heard that before.

Also just because some scientists for various reasons promote theistic theories it doesn't make it any more true than priests denouncing God makes religions any less plausible than they are now.

When you get majority of scientists on board with any theory that requires and is demonstrated to have God on it please post that.

I will be first to give it informative thumbs up.

Bandwagon is a fallacy. Try cogent reasoning.

 

[Radrook]

You are clueless about the terms you use.

Bandwagon fallacy ;

"This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought. In the Argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author."

We are not taking a position here based solely on fact many people think so. There is not a single shred of evidence for divine origin for life or for divine anything in scientific discoveries, experiments or theories.

Argumentum ad populum is saying God created life without any supporting evidence which is what most of the people in this planet believe without any evidence, without any expertise on subject and certainly without any meaningful authority so you are in a fine crowd.

Just educate yourself on these terms you want to use so threads of yours are not complete waste of time for everyone.

Excerpt:

The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

ad populum fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[quatona]

On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

Could you summarize those points that you find particularly convincing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excerpt:

The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

ad populum fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

You still do not understand how you are misusing those arguments.

 

[Maddox]

Excerpt:

The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

ad populum fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Sceptic's dictionary huh ? Well if this makes you read those guess this might be worth the trouble.

You are still missing the point. Nobody is saying masses of people can't be wrong.

You just seem to think that every time most of the people think you are wrong it is a bandwagon fallacy.

You could proclaim moon was made from cheese and despite people bringing up moon rocks, pictures, astronaut testimonies, mathematical density calculations you would just be screaming bandwagon fallacy.

We don't say something is true without reasonable amount of peer reviewed evidence. We leave unscientific unprovable claims for theists.

 

[Radrook]

Could you summarize those points that you find particularly convincing?

First, I did not post this video in order to debate its fine points. The one qualified to debate those fine points is the scientist himself not me. I posted it as edification for fellow Christians. But I will answer your question as to what parts I found informative.

I found his comments informative concerning:

1. Oxygen's interference with abiogenesis

2. Unwarranted assumptions or presuppositions which motivates the abiogenesis approach.

3. Miller-Urey Experiment result evaluation as irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Among many other points which I will leave unmentioned in order to avoid controversy.

 

[quatona]

First, I did not post this video in order to debate its fine points.

I didn´t ask for the fine points. I asked about the key points.
And I didn´t ask because I wanted to debate.

I posted it as edification for fellow Christians.

Ah, so I am not in the target-group. Ok.

 

[Radrook]

I didn´t ask for the fine points. I asked about the key points.
And I didn´t ask because I wanted to debate.

Ah, so I am not in the target-group. Ok.

What I really meant is that I posted it for those who believe in an ID but if anyone wishes to respond I appreciate it although I don't wish to debate. My apology if I gave that other negative impression. My general impression of his key points were that the conditions on Earth were not conducive to abiogenesis because of ultraviolet radiation, and other harsh environmental factors such as entropy the presence of oxygen and the mathematical improbability of all necessary factors essential to life appearing at the same time. He also mentions that there are many unsubstantiated presuppositions needed for the abiogenesis idea as well as the required rejection of all others. One presupposition is that it occurred. That is the presupposition that engenders all other explanations and refuses to admit any alternate views. However, he as a scientist finds that assumption unwarranted.



I found his comments informative concerning:

1. Oxygen interference with abiogenesis

2. Unwarranted assumptions that there no oxygen was present.

3. Miller Experiment result evaluation as non-biological

4. His evaluation of proteinoids as totally devoid of any potential life processes.

5. No mathematical chance of generating specific order or complexity for the formation of cell.

6. Major problem: No chemical pathway to acquire information needed for cell function as being discovered.

7. No experimental indication of how matter could increase in functional complexity.

8. Problem RNA world concept. RNA would be destroyed ultra-violate radiation.

9. His admission that an ID is the most logical conclusion

10 Specified complexity explanation

11. Evolution’s Immunity to critical examination in schools .

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, I did not post this video in order to debate its fine points. The one qualified to debate those fine points is the scientist himself not me. I posted it as edification for fellow Christians. But I will answer your question as to what parts I found informative.

I found his comments informative concerning:

1. Oxygen's interference with abiogenesis

Molecular oxygen, or O2, could have interfered with abiogenesis. Of course significant amounts of molecular oxygen did not exist until quite sometime after abiogenesis. It was initially a waste product of life.

2. Unwarranted assumptions or presuppositions which motivates the abiogenesis approach.

There weren't any that I know of. Statements like this are worthless if you can't support them.

3. Miller-Urey Experiment result evaluation as irrelevant to abiogenesis.

Wrong again. Why would you make such a claim? Do you not know what the Miller-Urey Experiment demonstrated and why it was important?

Among many other points which I will leave unmentioned in order to avoid controversy.

There probably would not be any "controversy" except for your errors being made apparent again. If you want to go over any of your claims in detail I would be more than happy to do so. The proper way to cover them is one at a time so that we can make sure that there are no errors from either side.