Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The limits of darwinism.

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,06:17    Quote 2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets? Yes, that's a dilemma. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,14:25    Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17) Quote 2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets? Yes, that's a dilemma. I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover. (As long as they PM 'Ras) -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,16:51    Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2010,14:25) Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17) Quote 2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets? Yes, that's a dilemma. I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover. (As long as they PM 'Ras) You mean like "jerry"? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:15    Wow, Ut. I've been following your sojourn, am not the least bit surprised by the results. All anybody need accept is that the questions for which telic design is 'the' answer are mostly philosophical and/or metaphysical. They are not questions that science can ever answer definitively, nor can religion offer anything that could compete in the scientific arena with objective physical evidence. A matter of belief. We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them. Science doesn't deal in metaphysical "proofs," religion doesn't deal in physical "proofs." Debates like these are usually sideshow attractions, mere distractions from real life. Dueling Metaphysics, I like to call them. It's a perennial human pastime. Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong!

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:22    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 08 2010,14:51)     Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2010,14:25)       Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,04:17)       Quote 2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets? Yes, that's a dilemma. I'd suggest that the deep cover socks be granted an exemption, so as to not blow their cover. (As long as they PM 'Ras) You mean like "jerry"? I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they? (Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.) -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,17:23    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,18:15) We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them.  (snip) Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong! See what she did there, ut? You're gonna love playing with Joy. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,18:03    What, Lou? Are we not free to believe as we choose about metaphysical questions of final causation and/or meaning? I've never had a problem with evolution. Seems entirely evident to me, even not being a biologist or microbiologist. I also see a continuum of relative consciousness in all living beings, from the meanest to the finest. To me, "alive" means more than some particular arrangement of atoms. I do not believe there is any such thing as "living matter." No scientific finding of means or mechanisms will convince me that life is some sort of accidental 'poof' of magical matter. No religious belief will convince me there's tiny angels dancing on nuclear membranes to make it happen. All this back and forth is mostly sideshow to me, and I never pay good money to see freaks. They're way too common in real life, thanks... §;o)

The Wayward Hammer Posts: 64 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,20:45    I would assume that Lou's problem is the comment about choosing to "believe" evidence that suits our worldview.  Morton's Demon, I assume? How can we ever learn anything if we only admit the evidence that fits what we already "know"?

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,20:56    And what do you "know," Hammer guy? I'm pretty old, relatively speaking. All I "know" is what I've personally experienced [i.e., 'seen', figurative]. My conclusions about what I've experienced - how things fit into what I believe about life and the nature of It All - are shaped by my cultural milieu and education within it. But my choices are my own. As are yours. And everyone else's. A crossbeam here, a strut there, sometimes just a pile of sand to support the arch until there's a keystone... I do not know what you believe. I don't know what your experience of life and death on planet earth has been. What I've said is that I do not believe in the existence of some crazy sh*t best described as "living matter." I've spent a lifetime around magicians and illusionists and mentalists and puppeteers and... clowns. I don't believe in that kind of magic, know too much about how it's done. So sue me.

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2010,21:27    And because I haven't seen you much around here, let me elucidate a bit... I have some scientific 'knowledge' and experience. Not only did I pass advanced biology in high school (while concurrently taking physics-II and chemistry-III) back when advanced biology was the only way you'd get introduced to Darwinism, I was privileged in college to take an undergrad course in genetics under guest lecturer Isaac Asimov. Got to take it because I was then current in crystallography, but I didn't learn too much about genetics (it was the '70s. Who knew very much?). I did have a delightful time, though. Learned some other things... §;o)

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,03:12    A:   Quote I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they? Would be nice, but I am afraid that's wishful thinking. B:   Quote (Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.) That regrettably most likely is what it is. How I wish that it would be A:. That might help restore some of my lost faith in mankind. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,04:33    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,18:03) No scientific finding of means or mechanisms will convince me that life is some sort of accidental 'poof' of magical matter. That's right. Nothing magical about it. Nonetheless, best evidence is that normal matter became alive. The only people bringing 'and then a miracle - poof - occurred' into the equation are the TTers. And you. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Utunumsint Posts: 103 Joined: Jan. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,08:53    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 08 2010,17:15) Wow, Ut. I've been following your sojourn, am not the least bit surprised by the results. All anybody need accept is that the questions for which telic design is 'the' answer are mostly philosophical and/or metaphysical. They are not questions that science can ever answer definitively, nor can religion offer anything that could compete in the scientific arena with objective physical evidence. A matter of belief. We are free to choose what we will believe, based on what evidence fits into our worldviews or helps to shape them. Science doesn't deal in metaphysical "proofs," religion doesn't deal in physical "proofs." Debates like these are usually sideshow attractions, mere distractions from real life. Dueling Metaphysics, I like to call them. It's a perennial human pastime. Make up your own mind. Nobody will ever "prove" you wrong! Hi Joy, Well, you are the first person on this forum who seems remotely sympathetic to a religion. Welcome. :) I certainly believe that the scientific method is a powerful way to learn about the physical universe, but it is not the only way to reason, or arrive at truth. My church provides firm guidelines on what is attainable based solely on reason alone, and what requires faith in a revelation that although is beyond reason, does not contradict reason. A good example of the dividing line between reason and faith is the resurection accounts. From a purely historical point of view, one cannot make any claims about the resurection because 1-there were no witnesses, 2-it was a miraculous event, and clearly beyond the normal parameters of nature, 3-it happened a very long time ago. Now if you approach these facts from a purely historical point of view alone, you arrive at no religious conclusions, but only the isolated facts that a man preached, was killed for his doctrines, and his disciples claimed he resusitated by some kind of mystical power. This is in fact a good summary of the account of Christianity provided by a non believer, Pliny, to the Roman Emperor around 90 AD. To understand these events from a religious perspective, one has to take into account prophetic texts, the religious understanding of the Jews of those days, and the philosophic and religious milieux. You have to accept that God is working in history and has a personal relationship with his people. All of these things are clearly beyond the sphere of science. Is it invalid because science cannot provide a material explanation for the resurection, or a live video feed? Some people would say yes. Good for them. I personally see this as unreasonable, but I also believe that it is a personal choice. All that being said, I did not come here to proselatize my religious point of view, but only to verify if there is any scientific merit to the Behe's arguments in the edge of evolution. By the way, are you Christian? Cheers, Ut

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,09:15    Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 09 2010,08:53) Well, you are the first person on this forum who seems remotely sympathetic to a religion. Welcome. :) The owner / admin is religious. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,10:21    I am a Gnostic. ("We" lost out to literalism.) 'Nuff said. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,10:49    oldmanintheskydidntdoit: Quote Nonetheless, best evidence is that normal matter became alive. Exactly what is the difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter? What is the physical difference between a carbon atom in a rock and a carbon atom in your femur? What is the physical difference between a molecule of water in a raindrop and a molecule of water in your liver? Where does 'alive' matter go when it dies? How does its form or nature change? Not to worry, oldman. I already know there is no physical difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter, because matter is neither alive nor dead. It is just matter.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:23    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,10:49) Exactly what is the difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter? The arrangement.     Quote What is the physical difference between a carbon atom in a rock and a carbon atom in your femur? Nothing. They are interchangeable.     Quote What is the physical difference between a molecule of water in a raindrop and a molecule of water in your liver? Nothing, they are interchangeable.     Quote Where does 'alive' matter go when it dies? How does its form or nature change? Nowhere. The specific arrangement changes.     Quote Not to worry, oldman. I already know there is no physical difference between 'normal' matter and 'alive' matter, because matter is neither alive nor dead. It is just matter. Exactly. The arrangement is what's important, not the component pieces. So I suppose you don't believe in "the breath of life" then?   Quote Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person. Good-o. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:35    Ut: Quote All that being said, I did not come here to proselatize my religious point of view, but only to verify if there is any scientific merit to the Behe's arguments in the edge of evolution. The weaknesses of the version of Darwinism promulgated by EA [Evangelical Atheist] culture warriors are many, and often require more faith than most normally held religious beliefs. It seems quite reasonable to me that something more is going on in the existence and evolution of life than accidental magical matter-poofs. But science needn't accept the direct intervention of deities, fairies, angels or any other disembodied tinkerer outside of life itself. That isn't science's purpose, and science has no means of demonstrating such things anyway. I subscribe to a version of EAM [Endogenous Adaptive Mutation], though I'm not sure if that is an adequate descriptive title for it. I am fairly supportive of the theory that consciousness (of some description) is a fundamental parameter of our 4-D universe of manifestation, thus that manifestation naturally seeks greater concentration and expression of this quality. Life would be the most effective form of manifestation for this purpose, and evolution toward greater complexity and expression of consciousness would be its natural proclivity. I do not consider the nuclear genome to be the whole story of life, inheritance and evolution, as there are other factors involved and of more immediate affect in the process than the static historical record contained in the genetic library. There are forms of life that can operate just fine without their nuclear templates, the handicap of that condition being merely an inability to reproduce. There is a mammal evolving so rapidly that all species display genetic/chromosomal chaos that even has males and females of the SAME species with different numbers of chromosomes! Yet they [voles] all look alike... It is the anomalous in the living world which tends to point to more going on. I'm fond of anomalies - can't help it. There is a telic impetus across all forms of life that spurs living organisms to seek continuation of life, thus to adapt if possible to the changing conditions of its existence. I suspect that this is something biology (all pertinent fields) will eventually quantify and begin to understand. They are never going to quantify gods, angels, demons, etc. Quote By the way, are you Christian? What my metaphysical beliefs may be is not relevant to what I strongly suspect about the nature of life and evolution. But FYI, I call myself a "Follower of Christ."

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:46    oldman:   Quote The arrangement is what's important, not the component pieces. The arrangement of matter is obviously important to the process of living, but the mere arrangement of matter is not life. New forms of life do not spontaneously poof into existence from rotting meat or hay, nor in mud puddles or peat bogs or anywhere else on earth where matter is concentrated in arrangements that once functioned for some organism in its process of living. You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew. It is always a source of amusement to me how many self-professed scientists stubbornly cling to the idea of spontaneous generation more than a hundred years after it was demonstrated false by science/scientists. Keep trying, though. If indeed life can spontaneously poof into existence from raw or prearranged matter, you may luck out someday.

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:49    ARGH! no edit function. EAM = Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis

Utunumsint Posts: 103 Joined: Jan. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:54    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:49) ARGH! no edit function. EAM = Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis Is this a good description of EAM? http://telicthoughts.com/endogenous-adaptive-mutagenesis/ Cheers, Ut

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:56    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:46) The arrangement of matter is obviously important to the process of living, but the mere arrangement of matter is not life. Define "life". And I think you'll find that the "mere" arrangement of matter is quite important to life. Change the arrangement enough then "life" dissipates. The "mere" arrangement of matter *is* life. If not, what *is* Joy?   Quote New forms of life do not spontaneously poof into existence from rotting meat or hay, nor in mud puddles or peat bogs or anywhere else on earth where matter is concentrated in arrangements that once functioned for some organism in its process of living. Don't they? How do you know? Got a microscope on every rotting meat pile have you?         Quote You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew. No, magically poofing life into existence requires an old bearded man in the sky.         Quote It is always a source of amusement to me how many self-professed scientists stubbornly cling to the idea of spontaneous generation more than a hundred years after it was demonstrated false by science/scientists. No, instead you stubbornly cling to ideas created by sheepherders thousands of years ago.         Quote Keep trying, though. If indeed life can spontaneously poof into existence from raw or prearranged matter, you may luck out someday. It did already. And here we are. If everybody believe what you are saying here nobody would even look. Science stopper or what! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,11:58    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,11:35) I am fairly supportive of the theory that consciousness (of some description) is a fundamental parameter of our 4-D universe of manifestation, thus that manifestation naturally seeks greater concentration and expression of this quality. I think you stole that idea from The Golden Compass.... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:13    Yes, Ut. That's the general gist of it. oldman: Quote Don't they? How do you know? Got a microscope on every rotting meat pile have you? LOL!!! Actually, I tend to accept the scientific evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur. Though I can see that your faith is strong regardless of the scientific evidence. As I said, keep on trying. You just might luck out someday and demonstrate Pasteur, et al. wrong. Quote No, magically poofing life into existence requires an old bearded man in the sky. Really? Have you tried talking the old bearded man in the sky into helping you out with your spontaneous generation experiments? Quote No, instead you stubbornly cling to ideas created by sheepherders thousands of years ago. So... you're a mind-reader too? Wow. There's a lot of talent around here! Quote If everybody believe what you are saying here nobody would even look. Science stopper or what! Oh, I imagine that curious people would still attempt to quantify and understand the natural world even if they did believe that consciousness is a natural parameter that seeks concentration and expression. But not to worry. I know some Ph.D.s who have made fine lives for themselves driving ski shuttles and/or tending bar. Enjoying life can be an adequate substitution for sleeping on cold concrete behind the shield wall in the accelerator target zone when the budgets are tight... §;o)

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:39    oldman: Quote The "mere" arrangement of matter *is* life. If not, what *is* Joy? If you were ever to meet me, you might believe that the skin and bones you see at that moment *is* me. Though I've noticed quite a lot of rearrangement of skin and bones over the course of my decades of life, and am not all that delighted with their condition at present (it was all in much better shape when I was 18). If I live a good while longer, though, I'll probably look back on the wrinkles and sags of 'now' wistfully... I, like most other people, am constantly replacing pieces-parts of cells and organs, even while wearing some entire layers of already dead cells around. I ingest some pre-arranged organic matter that used to be alive, digest it into pieces-parts, and use those for replacement and to power the various dynamic processes of life that allow me this fairly functional body. When I'm done with it the pieces-parts will be left in this universe of manifestation and may even be recycled into pieces-parts for some other life forms in a future I won't be living in. Matter is cheap - all around us all the time. It's kind of funny how I don't seem to myself to be much different than I was when I was four (or eighteen, or thirty, or...). I constantly add to my store of experience, I learn new things fairly regularly, I think new thoughts quite often. But it's still the same *me* even if that reflection in the mirror doesn't fit my self-image very well these days. Mostly I just avoid mirrors... I like to think I am my consciousness - my awareness and sensory abilities and experience of life on planet earth, my thoughts and beliefs,  my several abilities to work with the materials of the world and shape them to my desires, my understandings of what I experience and what I do with my time in time. Small as that understanding may be. I do not know why you'd want to believe that you're just a collection of cells and chemicals. But since that appears to be so, I'll just wish you the best of luck keeping it all together for as long as possible before you have to leave parts or all of it behind for someone else to use for awhile.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:51    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,12:13) LOL!!! Actually, I tend to accept the scientific evidence that spontaneous generation does not occur. I think we both know to what we are really taking about.     Quote Though I can see that your faith is strong regardless of the scientific evidence. No scientific evidence for any sort of deity. Yet you believe. And I don't have "faith". You don't need "faith" in science. It just is.     Quote As I said, keep on trying. You just might luck out someday and demonstrate Pasteur, et al. wrong. Life arose from non-life at least once. Proving that happens would not prove Pasteur wrong, and you know it. You are just being contrary.       Quote Really? Have you tried talking the old bearded man in the sky into helping you out with your spontaneous generation experiments? No, that's because it does not exist. And I don't find it productive to talk to things that don't exist.     Quote So... you're a mind-reader too? Wow. There's a lot of talent around here! Whatever.     Quote Oh, I imagine that curious people would still attempt to quantify and understand the natural world even if they did believe that consciousness is a natural parameter that seeks concentration and expression. Having fun under that pyramid are you? What on earth does "natural parameter" mean? As you seem to know what consciousness is please do explain to us precisely what it is and how exactly you know that? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,12:56    Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,12:39) I do not know why you'd want to believe that you're just a collection of cells and chemicals. But since that appears to be so, I'll just wish you the best of luck keeping it all together for as long as possible before you have to leave parts or all of it behind for someone else to use for awhile. You claim to be something other then "just" a collection of cells and chemicals (what are cells made of if not chemicals btw? ). Yet you cannot specify what that something else is. You just have faith that it is something else. And that it exists. I've a unicorn I'd like to sell you, and it lives in a teapot. Personally I prefer to not to pretend that there is a "magical something else". Yet I can understand why that idea is attractive. After all, if you believe one thing with no evidence whatsoever then why not believe 10. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,13:21    Quote You won't magically poof a life form into existence in your test tube either, no matter what pre-arranged matter you add to the stew. Therefore I can tell you with 100% certainty a specific fact about the deity you claim to worship. The deity in question is not sufficiently powerful to create a universe that could generate life without specific intervention. You see, the thing that makes me laugh about people like you is that you claim that life's origin required intervention. But when pressed "well, where did the entity that did the intervening come from" you simply say "ah, it was always there" or "it did not have a beginning". So life as we know it had to have a beginning. Yet you claim some special exception to your particular deity. "Oh, yes *All* life had a manual start *apart* from the deity I happen to worship. It was *always* there". And therefore you dodge the exact same question that you are trying to poke back at me. You make a big fuss about how "science" is inadequate to answer questions about the origin of life but fail to realise that the answers you have given yourself fail at the first examination. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Joy Posts: 188 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,13:59    oldman:     Quote I think we both know to what we are really taking about. I think this conversation would proceed much smoother if you stopped pretending to be some kind of mentalist or psychic and just dealt with what I actually write.     Quote Life arose from non-life at least once. Where? When? How? Please do tell...     Quote No, that's because it does not exist. And I don't find it productive to talk to things that don't exist. Me either. You're the one who brought it up, I just made a suggestion as to how you might use your knowledge to demonstrate the veracity of your belief. Perhaps you could avoid asserting things you 'know' to be untrue or nonexistent while not pretending to skills and talents you don't have. It would help a lot to avoid pointless sidetracks.     Quote Having fun under that pyramid are you? What on earth does "natural parameter" mean? Actually, the roof here is plainly pitched rather than pyramidal. I would have thought you have some conception of what is meant by a "natural parameter." Your basic forces of the universe, the number of dimensions we observe and/or experience directly or which affect the actions/interactions of forces, physical constants and their constructs, etc.     Quote As you seem to know what consciousness is please do explain to us precisely what it is and how exactly you know that? If you do not experience consciousness there is no way anybody can explain to you what it is. If you do experience consciousness then you don't need anyone to explain to you what it is. There are some basic concepts and definitions out there that you could access if you were conscious and able to use a computer to search on "consciousness," look around at the ongoing scientific projects to quantify it and philosophical projects to authoritatively define what they're attempting to quantify. All we 'know' is that which we perceive and/or experience. We have developed symbolic communicative technologies that allow us to share what we 'know' with other conscious human beings, even to accumulating knowledge over generations so that everything doesn't have to be learned from scratch as generations pass into history. Very handy. But when you tell me you 'know' that life spontaneously generates from non-organic matter, I get to weigh that against my own experience and observations of the world, what others in history who have tested that supposition say about it, and choose whether or not I believe you actually 'know' what you claim to know. Thus far I remain unconvinced. You'll have this from time to time. A pertinent question I can ask that will help me figure out how certain concepts can best be communicated to you would be how many dimensions you suspect exist in the totality of "reality." Not just the ones our physical equipment has evolved to perceive and/or experience directly, but as many as you think may exist in toto. Care to offer your guess?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2010,14:27    Quote I think this conversation would proceed much smoother if you stopped pretending to be some kind of mentalist or psychic and just dealt with what I actually write. Fine. Whatever. It's all there for anybody to read.       Quote Where? When? How? Please do tell... Link Link The where and when is ongoing. Some specific details are missing. I realise that's not as satisfying as the first few chapters of your book, but... What we can say is that so far there is no evidence whatsoever of any "designers" involvement, nor any need for such.   Quote Perhaps you could avoid asserting things you 'know' to be untrue or nonexistent while not pretending to skills and talents you don't have. It would help a lot to avoid pointless sidetracks. Whatever.   Quote I would have thought you have some conception of what is meant by a "natural parameter." Your basic forces of the universe, the number of dimensions we observe and/or experience directly or which affect the actions/interactions of forces, physical constants and their constructs, etc. What's your point?   Quote If you do not experience consciousness there is no way anybody can explain to you what it is. Cop out.   Quote If you do experience consciousness then you don't need anyone to explain to you what it is. Another cop out. Any evidence that consciousness is not a product of "just cells and chemicals"?   Quote There are some basic concepts and definitions out there that you could access if you were conscious and able to use a computer to search on "consciousness," look around at the ongoing scientific projects to quantify it and philosophical projects to authoritatively define what they're attempting to quantify. Why are they bothering eh? If they are looking at the "cells and chemical" level they'll never find what they are looking for, right?   Quote But when you tell me you 'know' that life spontaneously generates from non-organic matter, I get to weigh that against my own experience and observations of the world, what others in history who have tested that supposition say about it, and choose whether or not I believe you actually 'know' what you claim to know. Yet you claim to 'know' that life did not have a natural origin on what basis? Tell me Joy, in your own experience and observations of the world, how many times have you seen a god create life? None? Yet you 'know' it happened. At least the reasons that leave me to believe that it happened have a basis in rationality and empirical fact.   Quote Thus far I remain unconvinced. Yes, the intense scientific research into abiogenesis can't compete with an old book written by goat herders. I can see why you believe that case is far more convincing.   Quote A pertinent question I can ask that will help me figure out how certain concepts can best be communicated to you would be how many dimensions you suspect exist in the totality of "reality." The jury is out on that. It looks like more then the ones we can easily perceive, for sure. However, it seems that that eleven-dimensional supergravity arises as a low energy limit of the ten-dimensional Type IIA superstring, and that a recently conjectured duality between the heterotic string and Type IIA superstrings controls the strong coupling dynamics of the heterotic string in five, six, and seven dimensions and implies duality for both heterotic and Type II strings. So lets split the difference and say eight.   Quote Not just the ones our physical equipment has evolved to perceive and/or experience directly, but as many as you think may exist in toto. What possible difference would it make to anything you might say to me?   Quote Care to offer your guess? I'm not equipped to make such a guess. It's not my field of expertise. I prefer to leave the "guessing" to the experts, like the one I cribbed that paragraph from. And the "experts" all agree (with some notable exceptions) that unassisted abiogenesis is at least possible, and perhaps even likely given the right conditions. No serious "expert" is making any sort of case for "god did it". Are they? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard