Joined: May 2006
Still just archiving, as Wesley initially suggested. Jbagail's post is a particularly nasty and dishonest attack, I would note:
“I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong”.
Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong?--
Since you guys can't make any sort of "argument" except by lame analogy, I'm not surprised that this absurd comment cropped up.
OK, Jbagail, we'll not tolerate being kept out of where we're told that we don't belong. I demand to be made the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church. I'm certainly more qualified to tell the truth, and why should I be kept out just because I don't agree with his church's teaching?
So is this an exact analogy? No, of course it isn't. One complication is that the gov't has to make decisions about what to teach and fund. That, in fact, is exactly why religion is kept out of the funding, and the teaching, of science, because the real legal issue is freedom of religion, and not even the importance of teaching science. You have no business having your religious ideas funded from the taxpayers' dollars.
Your mindless smear has nothing to do with it. You aren't being kept ignorant by the gov't, you want the gov't to keep children ignorant and to teach them falsehoods.
--A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.”--
Ah yes, the dishonest comparison and the twisting of words by these "righteous" people who try to smear us. I didn't even come close to saying that any human being of any race, religion, belief, ethnicity, or IQ level doesn't belong anywhere that anyone else does. I said that I was trying to keep RELIGION out of where it doesn't belong, which is entangled in a government which is bound by the constitution not to establish any religion.
--I find this comment of yours very offensive.--
I find your unintelligent and faulty analogy to be offensive in the extreme, and your attempt to compare keeping a potentially controlling system of thought from controlling the schools and the government as being akin to keeping a person out of somewhere due to race to be highly tendentious and beneath contempt.
--Who are you to judge where religion does not belong?--
First off, I have no power to say where it belongs. Secondly, I am a reasonable man who has argued these things out like an intellectual, not a blustering bully like your presentation makes you out to be.
--If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does. Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing.--
Sorry, we're not arguing about whether or not Xians have the rights that everyone else does to free speech, free expression in general, and free public assembly. I am entirely in favor of the First Amendment, which you seem to oppose.
--Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet?--
Do you want to attack strawmen all day? I repeat, I want to keep religion out of where it doesn't belong, and it belongs in Xians, who are free in this society.
--Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of.--
Since the idea that I oppose the freedom of Jews and Muslims is entirely of your own malicious and/or ignorant making, I point out again what a dishonest attack you make upon me. It appears that the words of an honest non-theist such as myself in favor of the First Amendment is, in your mind, justification for a host of false charges.
--Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them. Ben you need to release your film ASAP.--
Apparently you haven't picked up any kind of tolerance, rather you promote hatred of those of us who favor the First Amendment. Indeed, with people like you praising the film, it shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate exactly why we need to keep religion where it belongs, which is, not acting as an agent of the government to oppress those who disagree with would-be theocrats like Jbagail.
You are one frightening person, Jbagail.
|--In message 1243 Glen D chose to only comment on my last statement about my anticipation of the movie that is receiving immense criticism even though it has not been seen yet.--|
Since it is a strawman attack, while you avoid what we actually wrote, it seems unlikely that anything else you might write is worthy of comment.
--I was disappointed that he did not offer any comment on the more substantive part of my message (1237) about entropy and the origin of life.--
What's substantive about it? We've read Granville Sewell, who tries to conflate probabilities with entropy, when the two are not about the same things.
--I addressed this only because some of the earlier messages indeed brought up thermodynamics and the acorn analogy.--
--I simply offered what I thought was a reasoned response.--
Well it wasn't. How about actually addressing some of the many responses that have been made to Sewell and to others who try to shoehorn SLOT into denying evolution?
--However I guess I was just guilty of more “strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.”--
Yes, I pointed out how inappropriate your remarks were. Why do you suppose that anyone should care about what you write about entropy when nothing prevents you from unfair characterizations of your opponents? Notably, rather than take back your unfair characterization, you simply move on to more attacks.
But okay, I'll answer again the most useless "science" arguments that have been answered thousands of times without their getting a clue:
--Just a few comments about the origin of life and thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs applies in both open and closed systems. It is also true that in the early earth there was plenty of energy available from the sun. It is also true that an acorn only needs water, sun and soil to germinate and grow into a mighty oak tree. This can all seem to argue that life could have arisen on an early earth as a localized decrease in entropy as the rest of the universe necessarily increases in entropy.--
It doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not life could have arisen on an early earth. Probability is not the same as entropy, even if someone like Sewell claims that it is. The point about the sun's radiance is that SLOT doesn't rule out increases in order (not the precise language of entropy, but it should be all right for our discussion), and that it can pay for incremental changes during the course of evolution.
I don't even know why abiogenesis is being brought into this, but again entropic considerations don't rule it out.
--But that’s not the whole story. An acorn also needs a genetic blueprint and cellular machinery to take the raw ingrdients of sun, water and soil and grow into a tree.--
That's where evolution comes into the picture.
--And raw energy from the sun is rather impotent without some kind of energy conversion mechanism to harness that energy for useful cell building work.--
No, energy from the sun is quite potent, able to make radicals, superoxides, amino acids, and what-not. Of course evolution is needed in addition to produce an oak tree and acorns, but that doesn't mean that the sun is impotent sans energy conversion mechanisms.
--Today that role is primarily filled by the process of photosynthesis.--
And on Mars high-energy molecules are made without photosynthesis. Possibly providing energy to organisms which evolved there.
--In the early earth, if we are going to go from raw chemicals, water and solar energy to even a simplified first cell, there is a desperate need for some kind of energy conversion mechanism.--
Why? Don't you know that the first organisms are considered likely to have been extreme heterotrophs? Just as high-energy ozone is made in the upper atmosphere, high-energy organic molecules could be made by sunlight under the proper conditions.
--Applying raw undirected energy to a system of chemicals is almost always going to be destructive not constructive.--
No, chemicals are zapped by various forms of energy to make high-energy and complex molecules. Buckeyballs and carbon nanotubes form when electrical discharges are run through various chemicals. Lightning produces ozone and nitrogen oxides. The Miller-Urey experiments produced amino acids via electrical discharges. Carbonaceous chondrites have fairly complex organic molecules in them including amino acids, which is certainly a step up from the monotomic atoms coming out of supernovae explosions.
Self-organizing processes are very well known in chemistry and elsewhere.
--Requiring some kind of energy conversion mechanism apart from cellular machinery before there were cells seems to require some kind of intelligent input.--
This is why I didn't respond to this "substantive" stuff before. It's all sheer creationism/ID, without any knowledge of what is proposed for abiogenesis, nor with any of the understanding of how early "life" might have incorporated and used compounds for reproduction. Indeed, replication itself would be the only real "metabolic" function in most scenarios, and that could be provided by various environmental means, like pH changes.
--Something has to manipulate the molecules.--
Only in your assumptions. Real science involves trying to learn how molecules might self-organize, which does happen in many situations.
--And what about the first cellular information blueprint? All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence.--
Our experience is that functional information in animals has evolved over the course of evolution. We do not know how genetic material arose to the level of life in the first place, but if we're not willing to conclude that it was just magic, we work at the problem scientifically, not merely resorting to the unevidenced.
Most importantly, the sort of information found in DNA has never been observed to come from intelligence, ever. Your claim that "All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence" is related to the idea that we have only seen wolves and lions coming from intelligence, when in fact we have only seen them coming from reproduction. But even though we HAVE only seen them come from reproduction, and even though we have evidence that lions and wolves share ancestry, you would prefer to believe that an unknown agent was responsible for there being wolves and lions.
Should we believe the evidence of common ancestry among humans? Among mammals? Among vertebrates? Among all of life? What is most absurd about ID is that it believes that the "probabilities are too high for 'Darwinism' to account for evolution," when apparently the 95%+ relatedness of chimps and humans is either accidental or due to some unfathomable reasons of the creator. We know that probabilities could never produce anything like the apparent relatedness and non-teleological evolution of all life, and of course claiming that design caused the expected patterns of "Darwinism" is the most ad hoc and lame claim that I can think of.
--Packaged energy for cellular processes and genetic information scream for an intelligent precursor.--
Non sequitur. And you completely ignored what is actually proposed for abiogenesis, which are also understood only as a sets of hypotheses at this time (IOW, it is not evolutionary theory).
--Compounding the equation is the apparent necessity for this to be a rapid process since fossilized remnants of bacterial life have been dated at around 3.6 or 3.7 billion years old, only a 100 million years or so after the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow life to survive and the major meteoric bombardment had let up.--
Compounding the equation is the fact that you have put in a bunch of assumptions which are not obviously important to abiogenesis.
--You can find the full thermodynamic equations in Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen’s book, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” It’s critique of chemical evolution scenarios remains valid.--
And I'm supposed to believe that claim, when none of your assumptions are shared with those scientists who work on abiogenesis?
--If you’re going to rely purely on chemical and geological forces to account for the origin of life, you just can’t get there from here.--
First off, I can't see that anyone was arguing over abiogenesis. Perhaps some were, but that's not what this blog is about. Secondly, none of your points have anything to do with the real work being done to try to explain life's origins.
--I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.--
Still a very unfair statement, considering that almost none of the remarks have disparaged the movie except insofar as it has been characterized by Stein and others involved in the movie. You seem to fault us merely for answering Ben's claims, and without properly characterizing our answers.
Back to the last part of his more recent post:
--I have been making this observation for many years. Perhaps Glen D can enlighten me as to why he would characterize my comments this way. I welcome any response.--
I characterized it that way because you made an unfair attack on those of us who were not faulting the movie so much as the material that has been released about the movie, and because such untruthful attacks amount to ad hominem attacks. Then I didn't want to get into abiogenesis, since that's largely beside the point that evolution is a solid established scientific theory the equal of other scientific theories.
And also I had noted how many times pro-IDists' "science" claims have been answered because it is true, and because I dealt with Granville Sewell's attacks on evolution (invoking entropy) here:
You have to click on "Read more" to get the full comments.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy