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 Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291 292 293 ... >

PTET Posts: 133 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,06:55    Aaaaaaaah... Want ma hole I want ma hole I want ma hol-idays To see the cunt To see the cunt To see the count-ary Fuck you Fuck you For curios-ity I want ma hole I want ma hole I want ma hol-idays [Traditional Glasgow Singalong] -------------- "It’s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don’t deserve our time. Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,13:43    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 11 2008,15:44)   Be specific? Like your earlier statement?         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 11 2008,17:21)  It's not "we don't know all the answers", it's "we'll never know any of the answers". implying that science has no answers regarding anything? That's pretty damn funny. Did you read my Argument From Impossibility on which this discussion is based?  If you had, you'd know that the "answers" I'm talking about are answers to questions about how life's systems originated.  And yes, when it comes to origins, science has none (and never will).  That's my point. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,14:02    Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 11 2008,16:01)       Quote One in which origins were easily explainable by humans. What would force God to use only unexplainable methods, and why should humans assume that He/She is so forced? Henry God is not "forced" to limit himself to our level of understanding, but it is highly unlikely that he would do so.  For example, what is the likelihood that all of man's inventions would be so simplistic that monkeys could figure them out?  It's so highly unlikely it's almost impossible.  Even the stuff we're doing now is beyond a monkey's level of comprehension.  And all we're doing is being ourselves. The same goes for God.  Why would a being of infinite knowledge and intelligence purposefully limit himself to our level of understanding in designing a universe?  It makes no sense.  God, just by being himself, would produce creations that man could only marvel at. OTOH, a monkey cannot design anything beyond his level of understanding.  Neither can a man.  So if the universe was designed by a monkey, we'd be able to easily figure it out. If it was designed by a man, a monkey would never be able to figure it out.  If it was designed by God, neither man nor monkeys would ever be able to. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,14:12    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 12 2008,14:43)           Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 11 2008,15:44)   Be specific? Like your earlier statement?                     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 11 2008,17:21)  It's not "we don't know all the answers", it's "we'll never know any of the answers". implying that science has no answers regarding anything? That's pretty damn funny. Did you read my Argument From Impossibility on which this discussion is based?  If you had, you'd know that the "answers" I'm talking about are answers to questions about how life's systems originated.  And yes, when it comes to origins, science has none (and never will).  That's my point. Your "argument from impossibility" is misnamed. It is an argument to impossibility - the assertion that a solution to OOL will prove impossible. It fails on three counts: 1) Your argument that "OOL research must fail of necessity because life originated from an infinite intelligence" assumes its own conclusion and therefore has ZERO logical force. I've restored order by removing the "from" and replacing it with "to"; 2) It doesn't follow from the fact that OOL has yet to be solved that it will never be solved; 3) It wouldn't follow from the ultimate failure to solve OOL that an infinite intelligence originated life. Such efforts may prove futile for many reasons other than the conclusion you assume. And your argument provides no reason to prefer your particular tautological conclusion. But you are certainly welcome to embrace unsupported assumptions and useless tautologies that are incapable of guiding empirical research and will therefore play no role whatsoever in resolving these interesting questions. Your armchair awaits. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,14:31    Quote The same goes for God.  Why would a being of infinite knowledge and intelligence purposefully limit himself to our level of understanding in designing a universe?  It makes no sense.  God, just by being himself, would produce creations that man could only marvel at. Well, that buggers the Privileged Planet argument, then.  Dr. Gonzales can retire and spend the rest of his days on the Biologic Institute's payroll just staring at the stars. (yes, there is a serious point in here.  I'll let you find it) -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2008,17:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 12 2008,12:02) God is not "forced" to limit himself to our level of understanding, but it is highly unlikely that he would do so.  For example, what is the likelihood that all of man's inventions would be so simplistic that monkeys could figure them out?  It's so highly unlikely it's almost impossible.  Even the stuff we're doing now is beyond a monkey's level of comprehension.  And all we're doing is being ourselves. If god is beyond our level of understanding, how can you make any rational statement about the likelihood of his actions ? You are claiming that god is unfathomable, while at the same time making predictions based on the alleged characteristics of god. Your "argument from impossibility" appears to be a simple re-hash of the old argument from personal incredulity. Like most logical fallacies, it's a long time creationist favorite.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:17    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 12 2008,12:12)           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 12 2008,14:43)                       Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 11 2008,15:44)   Be specific? Like your earlier statement?                                 Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 11 2008,17:21)  It's not "we don't know all the answers", it's "we'll never know any of the answers". implying that science has no answers regarding anything? That's pretty damn funny. Did you read my Argument From Impossibility on which this discussion is based?  If you had, you'd know that the "answers" I'm talking about are answers to questions about how life's systems originated.  And yes, when it comes to origins, science has none (and never will).  That's my point. Your "argument from impossibility" is misnamed. It is an argument to impossibility - the assertion that a solution to OOL will prove impossible. It fails on three counts: 1) Your argument that OOL research must fail of necessity because life originated from an infinite intelligence assumes its own conclusion and therefore has ZERO logical force. I've restored order by removing the "from" and replacing it with "to"; How can one make a prediction without assuming their own conclusion?  When scientists make predictions based on the TOE, they're assuming that the TOE is correct and basing their predictions on that assumption.  I am basing my prediction (that no solution will ever be found for the OOL) based on the assumption that we live in a God-centered universe.           Quote 2) It doesn't follow from the fact that OOL has yet to be solved that it will never be solved; That is very true.  That's why it is called a "prediction".           Quote 3) It wouldn't follow from the ultimate failure to solve OOL that an infinite intelligence originated life. Such efforts may prove futile for many reasons other than the conclusion you assume. And your argument provides no reason to prefer your particular tautological conclusion.   I didn't say that it would "follow from the ultimate failure to solve OOL that an infinite intelligence originated life".  I said the opposite; that if an infinite intelligence originated life, it would follow that there would be an ultimate failure to solve OOL.  It's a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the world.         Quote But you are certainly welcome to embrace unsupported assumptions and useless tautologies that are incapable of guiding empirical research and will therefore play no role whatsoever in resolving these interesting questions. Your armchair awaits. I (obviously) don't see it that way.  When I look at life and its workings, I feel like I'm looking directly into the mind of God.  I view it as fascinating, mind-boggling technology.  It's an opportunity for man to learn about the workings of an infinite mind.  It should stir us to further study.   OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:23    dan dan dan we live in a yogurt centered universe.  how many times do you have to be told? ps as far as implicit teleological assumptions go, I prefer the privileged peanut butter argument.  god clearly designed the universe in such a manner that peanut butter was a determined result.  and it tastes so good.  and it disproves evolution. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:41    Quote (Reed @ Oct. 12 2008,15:56)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 12 2008,12:02) God is not "forced" to limit himself to our level of understanding, but it is highly unlikely that he would do so.  For example, what is the likelihood that all of man's inventions would be so simplistic that monkeys could figure them out?  It's so highly unlikely it's almost impossible.  Even the stuff we're doing now is beyond a monkey's level of comprehension.  And all we're doing is being ourselves. If god is beyond our level of understanding, how can you make any rational statement about the likelihood of his actions ? You are claiming that god is unfathomable, while at the same time making predictions based on the alleged characteristics of god. I'm basing my predictions on our understanding of "unfathomable" - an arguably imperfect starting point, but the only one we've got.  I'm saying that since God is unfathomable, we'll never be able to fathom his creation.  Now how can I know what an unfathomable God would do?  I can't.  Again it's a prediction based on my imperfect understanding of an unfathomable God.  I didn't say it was perfect, but it's the best I can do.         Quote Your "argument from impossibility" appears to be a simple re-hash of the old argument from personal incredulity. Like most logical fallacies, it's a long time creationist favorite. From that article: "a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true." That's not quite what I'm doing (although on the surface it may seem so).  I'm saying that if my view is true, you'll never be able to answer certain questions.  The main difference here is: my view can be proven false by simply answering the questions (one of which I posted on my blog - a very specific question about E. coli and amino acid synthesis).  Essentially I'm exposing my views to testing.  I've made a testable prediction based on a God-centered universe.  It can be proven wrong. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:42    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,12:17) How can one make a prediction without assuming their own conclusion?  When scientists make predictions based on the TOE, they're assuming that the TOE is correct and basing their predictions on that assumption.end IMO. So, you're claiming that 100,000 or so biologists have somehow been doing this for several decades without being called on it by their employers, clients, colleagues, or students?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,13:58    I don't think Daniel understandings what "assuming the conclusion" means.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,14:02    daniel a fathom is six feet.  does this mean that god is un-six-feet-able? i suggest you return to yogurt. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,14:04    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,19:17) How can one make a prediction without assuming their own conclusion? When scientists make predictions based on the TOE, they're assuming that the TOE is correct and basing their predictions on that assumption. Your prediction, and the test of that prediction, is based on a negative, which is a backwards way of going about things. What your are basically saying is "meet my demands or goddidit". You are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,19:17) I am basing my prediction (that no solution will ever be found for the OOL) based on the assumption that we live in a God-centered universe. What would it take to invalidate your prediction? Contrast that with the prediction that preceded the find of Tiktaalik. -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,15:22    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,13:17) OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO. Why? And is this the only evidence you can muster for a "god-centered" universe, or whatever it is you think you live in? You can't face the possibility that the world around you arose from a series of fortunate accidents, so you invent a teleological explanation just to make yourself feel better? Isn't that just a tad egocentric? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,15:42    Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis -------------- Bye.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2008,15:46    Quote OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO. How can we discriminate between phenomena that are the result of a "series of fortunate accidents" and phenomena that are NOT the result of a "series of fortunate accidents"? Is the distinction detectable, how, and why? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:19    Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 13 2008,12:04)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,19:17) How can one make a prediction without assuming their own conclusion? When scientists make predictions based on the TOE, they're assuming that the TOE is correct and basing their predictions on that assumption. Your prediction, and the test of that prediction, is based on a negative, which is a backwards way of going about things. What your are basically saying is "meet my demands or goddidit". You are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.".  Is this not "based on a negative"?  In order to falsify Darwin's theory you'd have to prove that something could not happen. My prediction is not based on a negative.  My prediction is that no one can provide an answer to life's basic questions.  You don't have to prove something couldn't happen to prove me wrong - all you have to do is answer one of the questions. So, in essence, the TOE is not falsifiable - yet my prediction is easily falsifiable.     Quote       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,19:17) I am basing my prediction (that no solution will ever be found for the OOL) based on the assumption that we live in a God-centered universe. What would it take to invalidate your prediction? Just answer one question!  It's that simple.  Are you really having that much trouble understanding this?   Quote Contrast that with the prediction that preceded the find of Tiktaalik. They predicted that something like the Tiktaalik would be found, and it was.  I'm predicting that you can't answer my question, and you can't.  If you answer my question, I'm wrong.  If they didn't find a Tiktaalik, would they be wrong?  I'm guessing No, because you'd just say that even though they didn't find one, one must've existed anyway. So who's prediction is easier to disprove? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:28    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42) Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis Louis, I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. So let me rephrase your question: What is the SPECIFIC (proposed, natural) process for the abiogenetic development of life on this planet?  I want the actual chemical process. Detail, I crave detail. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:34    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,19:28) Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42) Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis Louis, I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. So let me rephrase your question: What is the SPECIFIC (proposed, natural) process for the abiogenetic development of life on this planet?  I want the actual chemical process. Detail, I crave detail. Ok then, what do you want? The exact route taken, 100% certain to be the identical one traced back in the dim recesses of history? Because I seriously doubt we'll ever get that. Or do you want the detail of the myriad likely scenarios that exist (which is what we have now) with no optimum yet described? Also, there's quite a lot of chemistry involved I'm at least relatively certain you won't understand, I'll suggest a few books if it'll help. And lastly, you haven't answered the question or even tried to. You've merely appealed to current ignorance, and if that's the best you can do, I'll leave you with 'Ras and the yoghurt, because frankly, the yoghurt is about the right level. Louis -------------- Bye.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:38    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:28) Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42) Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis Louis, I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. You might want to reconsider this, as your position reduces to incoherence quickly.  Because if you don't want to characterize any step as impossible, you implicitly accept that the chemical steps are possible and, thus, render your God superfluous. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:42    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 13 2008,13:22)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,13:17) OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO. Why? And is this the only evidence you can muster for a "god-centered" universe, or whatever it is you think you live in? You can't face the possibility that the world around you arose from a series of fortunate accidents, so you invent a teleological explanation just to make yourself feel better? Isn't that just a tad egocentric? This is far from "the only evidence I can muster for a "god-centered" universe". There's lots of evidence out there.  It's everywhere you look.  I'd say the fact that all life is based on molecular programming encoded on polynucleotides and translated into polypeptides is another evidence for, as Dawkins calls it, a "creative super-intelligence". BTW, I'm not inventing anything here.  Yours is the theory that requires "imagination".  Just read any account of how some complex biosystem developed and you'll be told to "imagine a scenario", or that "it's not hard to imagine" such and such happened.  The problem is - that's all you've got!  Details are never provided.  Natural origins is just a series of imaginations. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:46    Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,11:38)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:28)   Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42) Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis Louis, I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. You might want to reconsider this, as your position reduces to incoherence quickly.  Because if you don't want to characterize any step as impossible, you implicitly accept that the chemical steps are possible and, thus, render your God superfluous. If you provide the steps, I'm sure there will be an abundance of biochemists out there who'll decide whether they are possible or not.  It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:47    Quote Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.".  Is this not "based on a negative"?  In order to falsify Darwin's theory you'd have to prove that something could not happen. That's only one of the predictions of the theory. Others include agreement of nested hierarchies from anatomical and DNA comparisons, agreement of fossil series with the nested hierarchy, geographic clustering of related species, and that some transitional fossils will be found. To falsify evolution, just find massive amounts of contradictory data in one or several of those areas. Sure, the theory wouldn't fold because one predicted fossil didn't get found, but that's only one experiment. Henry

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:50    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:42) This is far from "the only evidence I can muster for a "god-centered" universe". There's lots of evidence out there.  It's everywhere you look.   I've looked. I don't see it. Please show us some evidence besides your incredulity.   Quote I'd say the fact that all life is based on molecular programming encoded on polynucleotides and translated into polypeptides is another evidence for, as Dawkins calls it, a "creative super-intelligence". Incredulity, pure and simple. Furthermore, this is no more evidence for your god than it is for aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. How can we tell the difference?   Quote BTW, I'm not inventing anything here.  Yours is the theory that requires "imagination".  Just read any account of how some complex biosystem developed and you'll be told to "imagine a scenario", or that "it's not hard to imagine" such and such happened.  The problem is - that's all you've got!  Details are never provided.  Natural origins is just a series of imaginations. Strawman born of incredulity. Furthermore, just read your favored account (think-poof!) and tell me that imagination is not required. Details are never provided! Where's the evidence, please? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,13:59    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:46)   Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,11:38)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,13:28)   I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. You might want to reconsider this, as your position reduces to incoherence quickly.  Because if you don't want to characterize any step as impossible, you implicitly accept that the chemical steps are possible and, thus, render your God superfluous. If you provide the steps, I'm sure there will be an abundance of biochemists out there who'll decide whether they are possible or not.  It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible. I am not so much amazed that you are using an argument from ignorance (which has a storied history in creationist rhetoric) as I am that you freely admit as such.  I stand in awe. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:03    Quote (Louis @ Oct. 14 2008,11:34)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,19:28)         Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42) Daniel: At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross? I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail. Louis Louis, I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were. So let me rephrase your question: What is the SPECIFIC (proposed, natural) process for the abiogenetic development of life on this planet?  I want the actual chemical process. Detail, I crave detail. Ok then, what do you want? The exact route taken, 100% certain to be the identical one traced back in the dim recesses of history? Because I seriously doubt we'll ever get that. Or do you want the detail of the myriad likely scenarios that exist (which is what we have now) with no optimum yet described? Also, there's quite a lot of chemistry involved I'm at least relatively certain you won't understand, I'll suggest a few books if it'll help. And lastly, you haven't answered the question or even tried to. You've merely appealed to current ignorance, and if that's the best you can do, I'll leave you with 'Ras and the yoghurt, because frankly, the yoghurt is about the right level. Louis What I want is an undisputed (by the experts), verifiable (all chemical steps worked out), possible pathway from non-life to life, or (if you read my blog) from some plausible precursor to the present E. coli amino acid synthesis system for lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine.  There must be sufficient detail and the scientific community must reach a consensus that, 'yes, we've figured it out'. Now, I don't have the background in chemistry to fully understand most of this.  I'm currently studying a biochemistry textbook to try to learn as much as I can about such things.  In fact that's where I got the idea for this prediction in the first place.  I found the  E. Coli biochemical pathway in there and I thought, "how do they explain this?". As for your question:  You tell me.  What are the current hangups?  What are the big hurdles in OOL research?  You see, my prediction is not dependent on my limited understanding of chemistry and the issues, it's dependent on the understanding of the best and the brightest among us.  I'm predicting they'll never find the answer. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:09    Quote I'm predicting they'll never find the answer. And if they don't, what then? What would that tell us? Far as I can tell, all it would tell us is that there's an unanswered question. That by itself doesn't contradict anything in science.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:11    Incoherent         Quote lacking coherence: as a: lacking cohesion : loose b: lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent <an incoherent essay> c: lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought <incoherent with grief> Eighteen minutes apart:   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:28) I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:46) It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:14    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,12:03) Now, I don't have the background in chemistry to fully understand most of this. Daniel, please continue to not let that stop you.  This is much more entertaining than watching Heddle melt down on the poltics thread. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:18    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 14 2008,14:11) Incoherent           Quote lacking coherence: as a: lacking cohesion : loose b: lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent <an incoherent essay> c: lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought <incoherent with grief> Eighteen minutes apart:     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:28) I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:46) It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible. Oh, it is far worse than that, John. Far worse. Daniel essentially concedes that a natural sequence of chemical reactions could have, over time, led to life.  His whole argument is that, while it may be possible, we'll never figure it out.  He is essentially betting that our collective ignorance regarding the path of abiogenesis will never be solved. EDIT: He would have been better off just sticking to the party line that chemical abiogenesis is impossible.  But, he apparently doesn't have a silent inner voice. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Pages: (666) < ... 283 284 285 286 287 [288] 289 290 291 292 293 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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