A list of "Scientists who are not 'evolutionists'" [Archive] - Page 3

joobz

21st December 2007, 08:34 PM

I’d thought it’d be fun to go through this thread and follow Radrook’s argument.

Radrook originally claimed a naturalistic argument against evolution.
I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

When pressed for these proofs, he would say,
My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning.

Then again attempt to insult “evolutionists” trying to comparisons to religion.
Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.

He would offer more explanations of how his anti-evolutionist views are based upon reason, he said:
I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

And separating himself further from any religious argument, Radrook added
This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method.

And then provided a clear set of point to prove his argument is rationalist based.

1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

Radrook really wanted us to know that his argument is not religious. There is no religious reason for him to be anti-evolution…

3.I never mentioned religion in this discussion. In fact, I never even mentioned God. The ones who keep introducinmg religion and God, just as you just did, are the evolutionists on this forum.
Even though he continues to say that evolution is atheistic….

4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.

Merriam WebsMain Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

But would then follow this statement with…

5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

Following this very “clear” rational argument against evolution and establishing that Radrook’s point is not in any way religiously motivated, he explains
Godless Evolutionists do not constitute the universe. In fact, as was pointed out in the film "CONTACT" baed on a novel by Car l Sagan, they are a very small minority on this earth.

And then ends with a clear explanation of how he rationally opposes evolution
However, the only conviction I can reach is that the present universe is the result of imntelligent design. From my standpoint anything contradicting that basic fact is deception.

joobz

21st December 2007, 08:39 PM

Nonetheless, the truth of evolution was not upheld solely by one skull and a few drawings by a German naturalist. I personally find I can get on quite well without 'em.
I attempted this route with him
I've given you a chance to prove this statement. I'm still waiting to see why you are doubtful.

Such as?

This is a pure assertion with no proof.

I'm giving you a chance to prove that your argument is more than just incredulity. Provide substance, and people will listen.

To discount evolution, you'll have to come up with alternative, self-consistent, rational explanations for
Start with how you discount
1.) the fossil record
2.) molecular biology describing the fundemental mechanism of evolution
3.) the phylogenetic tree
4.) How the fact that how an evaluation of variation in sequence of each protein that presists between species matches what would be predicted by the phylogenic tree.
5.) ERVs
6.) human chromosome fusion
7.) multi drug resistent bacteria
8.) existence of RNAi
9.) Mitochondrial DNA
10.) Success of Directed evolution techniques

This list is far from exaustive. It is purely 10 I came up with in 5 minutes.
give me another two minutes and
11.) vestigal organs
12.) prions
13.) protein multifunctionality
14.) protein polymorphisms
15.) symbiosis
16.) interspecies viable offspring
17.) nylon-eating bacteria
18.) Persistence of Sickle Cell

It earned me a spot on the ignore list.

Prometheus

21st December 2007, 08:51 PM

Radrook,

Hypothetically speaking, what sort of evidence, if it were found and verified, would convince you to change your mind and accept evolution?

Achán hiNidráne

21st December 2007, 08:52 PM

It earned me a spot on the ignore list.

I have a sneaking suspicion he put me on ignore too. All I to do was asking to to provide evidence that feathered dinosaurs were frauds. He then lied by denying he made that claim <Angry glare at the mods.> then put me on his list.

bokonon

21st December 2007, 09:48 PM

Radrook has evidence on his ignore list, with the rationale that there were a couple of hoaxes along the line. Whether he claims to read what you write or not, engaging him in discussion is clearly a waste of time. When he makes an actual claim (which is rare), just refute it for the lurkers and move on.

Prometheus

21st December 2007, 09:54 PM

....But based on the fact that they do contradict my belief which I consider irrefutable. Since the belief is considered irrefutable it only logically follows that any belief contrary to it is false....

POW! :hit:

....I formulate my conclusions via induction leading to the deductive process. The very method supposedly always used by scientists....

BAM! :dc_O_o: :k:

Yes I am interested in whether any belief that I subscribe to is based on deception or fact. However, the only conviction I can reach is that the present universe is the result of imntelligent design. From my standpoint anything contradicting that basic fact is deception.

BOFF! :duel:

Radrook VS. Radrook, The Final Battle! :popcorn1:

:jedi:

Achán hiNidráne

22nd December 2007, 03:44 AM

I wish to apologize to the moderators and the forum community for my earlier outburst. While I retract the "insult," I still hold that Radook is a bald-faced liar. Such individuals grate on my sense of propriety when they can't be held accountable for their lies.

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2007, 03:54 AM

The recent ones were for y opinion purposes only. The others I have posted are for the purposes previously explained. Huh?

Not at all, I formulate my conclusions via induction leading to the deductive process. The very method supposedly always used by scientists. You've already had your butt kicked so thoroughly over this that I need hardly comment.

Not at all. Once the propensity to exagerrate and fake evidence proven then all evidence done by the group with that inclination becomes suspect. But you have not shown that the group has that propensity, have you?

That is the purpose of constantly remindng the public of the hoaxes-both past and most recent. Also, rate of discovery only makes the probability of a hoax more probable. More material to hoax with. LOL But makes the probability of any particular bit of evidence being a hoax lower.

I see nothing unusual in bringing past and most recent scientific mistakes to the public's attention. No, there is not. I, for example, have put an article on Haeckel's Embryos onto the SkepticWiki.

However, what is unusual, not to mention dishonest and shameful, is to try to use this as a way to smear hundreds of thousands of honest scientific professionals with the same brush.

Meanwhile, to add hypocrisy to your other errors, you link us to creationist propaganda that's full of lies and hoaxes and tell us that you can't be bothered to find out if it's fraudulent.

Actually, the only ones who should be concerned are those whose modus operandi includes an occasional well-thought-out hoax. The modus operandi of science is to detect and expose hoaxes. Who exposed Piltdown? Evolutionists. Who exposed Haeckel? Evolutionists. Who exposed Archaeoraptor? Evolutionists.

The modus operandi of creationists is to cling to hoaxes like so many shabby, soiled, threadbare security blankets. Still, it would be unfair to say that their modus operandi "includes an occasional well-thought-out hoax". It includes innumerable badly-thought-out hoaxes.

---

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

cyborg

22nd December 2007, 04:17 AM

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Or: you must correct your larger error before you correct your smaller error - otherwise the larger error still dominates.

The largest error you present to us is to offend an entity whose existence is predicated solely such that a choice whereby even if we correctly derrive the correct nature of the universe as not containing such an entity we still "lose the spirtual game" by offending this deity and hence will still "lose the game" overall.

The largest error we present to you is that if you are wrong then you will be more right about the correct nature of the universe but you will lose your god as part of it.

So is the larger error that if we are right we "lose" but if you are right we know less.

Who has the more and who has the beam?

Achán hiNidráne

22nd December 2007, 04:28 AM

Who exposed Archaeoraptor? Evolutionists.

Is that where Radook's lie that feathered dinosaurs are hoaxes comes from? One example of where a farmer (not the eeeeevil International Atheist Conspiracy) glued two separate known fossils together? One example out of over a dozen other verified specimens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs) Does Radook have proof to show that all these other dinosaur species are fakes too?

No, he doesn't.

Dancing David

22nd December 2007, 07:25 AM

Those are both exactly the same thing.

Not if you are a splitter, I think his name is Olsen. It would be like saying bears,pigs and racoons are the same in his eyes.

Dancing David

22nd December 2007, 07:30 AM

Kinda sorta in a semantic sense. The essence of the debate is whether the bird LCA was a dinosaur or a shared non-dinosaur reptile LCA with therapod dinosaurs. While working out the details are interesting, the anti-evolutionists are stuck with the same fact when quote mining - both sides think birds evolved from some sort of reptile and weren't specially created seperately.

For myself, I think the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaur species is convincing to the point that denying it borders on folly.

I agree I am a lumper, species are sometimes a post fact observation that has little to do with reality.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 08:04 AM

Clarification

Another clarification is in order due to the continued complaints that I am not being fully understood. So the info below should hopefully shed some light on my position in this discussion and reduce the number of posts which claim inability to understand where I am coming from or that I am merely trying to besmirch evolutionist pristine reputations.

First, I base my conclusions firmly on logic. So below I provide the logic used. This of course will lead to counter-arguments which is perfectly OK with me. : )

Inductive reasoning: The observation of phenomena forming a pattern and the conclusions derived based on those pattern repetitions. Probability of truth is related to the number of repetitions. It is a process which generates premises for deductive reasoning.

Example:

Inductive Observation: The sun has risen on earth for the past 5 billion years.

Inductive Conclusion: The sun will rise tomorrow. Or it is reasonable to expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

Conversely: It is unreasonable to expect the sun NOT to rise tomorrow. Or, it is unscientific to expect the sun not to rise tomorrow if things remain as they have been for the past 5 billion years.

Derived Deductive Premise and conclusion:

The sun rises every day.
Today is a day.
Today the sun will rise.

More to the point:

It is reasonable to expect the sun to rise today.
I expect the sun to rise today.
I am being reasonable.

Or yet again:

It is unscientific to ignore inductive evidence.
I ignore inductive evidence
I am being unscientific.

Relevance to subject:

Billions of observations for thousands of years justify the inductive conclusion and the subsequently derived premise that life is produced only by life. Which means simply that a person rejecting abiogenesis in favor of this observation has logic on his side while the person insisting on the opposite-abiogenesis doesn't really have a leg to stand on except for the unscientific use of a very fertile imagination.

Example of irrational and unscientific thinking:

Abiogenesis has never been observed to produce life. In other words, there is no basis for an inductive leap or conclusion that it does and if a basis is offered it can only mean that it is based on faith.

Abiogenesis has never been observed= no inductive evidence to justify a premise. Yet the premise is put forth tongue in cheek as if it were indisputable scientific fact. Which of course is BULLOCKS.

BTW
Since lists continue to be requested as evidence that ID scientists have relevant credentials I provide the following excerpt:

This is a partial list of non-ervolutionist scientists with relevant credentials. They are part of the original list posted and can be found at that original website. IF the list info is truncated it is to avoid breaking forum copyright posting rules.

Excerpt:

Matthew H. Sanders M.S. received a MS in Biology from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School.

Roger W. Sanders Ph.D. received a BA in Biology from the College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, a M.S. in Botany from the University of Michigan,

William Sandine Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Oregon State University. In 1994 he was appointed distinguished professor. In 1981 he was awarded an American Society of Microbiology Achievement Award.

John Sanford Ph.D. a Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University. His Ph.D. is in Plant Breeding/Plant

Genetics from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Dr. Sanford has over seventy publications and holds 27 patents.

Julie Sanford M.En.S. is instructor of Science at Cornerstone University. She has a BA from Grand Rapids Baptist College and a M.En. S, from Miami University in Ohio.

Charles G. Sanny is Professor of Biochemistry at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.

Robert Wolsieffer Ph.D. is Professor of Biochemistry at Bob Jones University. His BA is in Chemistry, his MS and
Ph.D. are both in Dental Science from Indiana University.

Paul G. Bartels Ph.D. received a BS in Biology and Chemistry

Ick-Dong Yoo Ph.D.is a Geneticist with the Korea Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KIST)

Further clarification:

This list is provided solely as a response for requests. It isn't offered as indisputable proof of my position since my position doesn't require this type of proof. Hope that is clear enough. If not please request further clarification and I weill try to simplify.

UnrepentantSinner

22nd December 2007, 08:11 AM

I agree I am a lumper, species are sometimes a post fact observation that has little to do with reality.

I'm probably a combination of both when it comes to extinct lineages. Once we get above the genus level we can make some pretty sure conclusions with extant species, but without DNA for comparison we can't even really make clear distinctions when it comes to the genus level. As some of the Homo finds indicate, it's pretty clear that Neanderthals were a seperate species, but some of the fossil finds indicate we (sapiens and neandertalus were interfertile.

That birds are not a seperate creation and evolved from dinosaurs can only be doubted by dedicated deniers though.

joobz

22nd December 2007, 08:32 AM

I thank radrook for his attempt at a logical argument. I think we need to establish some points before it can continue.
He says:

Billions of observations for thousands of years justify the inductive conclusion and the subsequently derived premise that life is produced only by life.
We would first need to ask Radrook to define life for us.

This isn't meant to be a insulting challenge rather "life" becomes hazy at the molecular level. Would Radrook consider viruses alive or prions alive? Or ogranelles like mitochondria which replicate seperately from the cells.
Is each cell alive, or simply the complete organism that they form?

UnrepentantSinner

22nd December 2007, 08:38 AM

I posted a number of links earlier which have apparently gone ignored about Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown Man. Since links don't appear to have any effect on Radrook here's me running my mouth.

A lot of hay has been made about Haeckel's drawings appearing in Biology textbooks over the last 100 years or so, but no Creationist organization has ever posted - that I'm aware of, any textbook published since the 1950s a photocopy or scan of these supposed textbook pages. Even in the most infamous example of this attempt, Well's Icons of Evolution he only gives "grades" to textbooks based on his own B.S. scale. We keep hearing about how Haeckel's drawings are being used "to this day" in Biology textbooks to "prove evolution" but the evidence of that being so, while easy in this day of .jpeg and uploading seems to rest solely on the words of Creationists like Wells, Ham, Hovind, Gish, etc.

Why are there not thousands of webpages posted by Creationists with scans of pages from these textbooks showing them asserting that Haeckel's drawings evidence evolution?

I'll even step back from the evidence precipice and ignore the fact that embryology does evidence evolutionary theory and ask again for one simple thing - where are the scans/photocopies of Biology textbooks that claim Haeckel's drawings are evidence of evolution?

Now, about Piltdown man. Despite providing Radrook with a link explaining the facts about that issue, he's continued to assert that it was a hoax perpetrated by scientists on the unsuspecting public. The truth could not be further from that.

Dawson was either the hoaxer or the dupe in an attempt that simply could not happen today. When the Piltdown skull was "unearthed" there was a melange of factors that buttressed it's acceptance including a strange reverse racism and the on going debate about whether hominds developed a big brain first or a bipedal stance.

Many British naturalists were convinced that a big brain developed first and were cheauvanistically seduced by the Piltdown find - btw, it's never been determined who actually was the hoaxer. It could have been Dawson, it could have been Arthur C. Doyle, it's not really known. And it would have been a great triumph for them for the first big brained "human" to have lived in England.

The problem was two-fold. Darwin himself had predicted that the closest hominid ancestors to humans would be found in Africa, and in 1924 Raymond Dart had unearthed Taung Child - a small brained Australepithecine with an intact anterior foramen magnum meaning it was bipedal and small brained. The big brain/bipedal controversy was settled with his discovery, but it would take another 25 years to put the nail in the coffin of Piltdown man again due to the cheauvanism of British naturalists.

Prior to 1924 we had found a handful of hominid fossil remains - a few Neanderthals and Java Man (which turned out to be an erectus so it's understandible that the big brain first dissenters could still have an audience. Since the 1930s we have found a bunch of erectus remains, habilis remains and Austral remains including Lucy and the Turkana Boy so it borders in rediculous for evolution deniers to even mention Piltdown in passing.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Radrook
The recent ones were for y opinion purposes only. The others I have posted are for the purposes previously explained.

Huh?

Exactly what I said.

Ass kicked?

Your usage of vulgarity proves nothing but your need and ability to use vulgarity. In any case, the statement is merely an opinion which coming from an evolutionist can be expected to be usually
biased in his pet idea's favor.

But you have not shown that the group has that propensity, have you?

That's a matter of opinion and mine is that they cannot be fully trusted to be objective, not just based on discovered hoaxes, but based on their inability or fanatical refusal to reason properly in full unashamed violation of the scientific method. You want to believe such buffoonery. Be my guest. But it will be a cold day on the day side of Venus when I join you in that mistake.

But makes the probability of any particular bit of evidence being a hoax lower.

Huh?

However, what is unusual, not to mention dishonest and shameful, is to try to use this as a way to smear hundreds of thousands of honest scientific professionals with the same brush. Meanwhile, to add hypocrisy to your other errors, you link us to creationist propaganda that's full of lies and hoaxes and tell us that you can't be bothered to find out if it's fraudulent.

Anything which contradicts your pet idea is propaganda. Dishonesty? Really? I link in response to your unethical, shameful, lies via false accusations that there are no real scientists who oppose evolution and embrace ID. When I provide evidence you call it propaganda and hypocrisy.

The modus operandi of creationists is to cling to hoaxes like so many shabby, soiled, threadbare security blankets. Still, it would be unfair to say that their modus operandi "includes an occasional well-thought-out hoax." It includes innumerable badly thought-out hoaxes.

Another unabashed boldfaced lie. Again, and as you well know, the only reason I originally brought those hoaxes to the thread was in response to the claim that evolutionists are 100% trustworthy. No-one on this earth is 100% trustworthy. I explained my motives before in my clarifications but am cunningly ignored in favor of setting up strawmean arguments. And that's what has kept this discussion in limbo for so long despite my efforts to purge it of irrelevancies perpetrated in an effort to obfuscate the issue.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

BTW

Very interesting! I am really surprised by your quoting scripture. I thought that was more appropriate to the religion forum. In any case, if you feel it applies to me, go ahead and quote.

Island Skeptic

22nd December 2007, 09:19 AM

Joobz: Thank you so much for this summary. This must have taken quite some time for you to compile as neatly as you did! You've helped me get a better idea of what Radrook's argument is all about --and, I am beginning to understand why Radrook did not respond to my question/s. Thanks again!

Re-posting Joobz's entry:

I’d thought it’d be fun to go through this thread and follow Radrook’s argument.

Radrook originally claimed a naturalistic argument against evolution.

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

When pressed for these proofs, he would say,

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning.

Then again attempt to insult “evolutionists” trying to comparisons to religion.

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.

He would offer more explanations of how his anti-evolutionist views are based upon reason, he said:

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

And separating himself further from any religious argument, Radrook added

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method.

And then provided a clear set of point to prove his argument is rationalist based.

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

Radrook really wanted us to know that his argument is not religious. There is no religious reason for him to be anti-evolution…

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
3.I never mentioned religion in this discussion. In fact, I never even mentioned God. The ones who keep introducinmg religion and God, just as you just did, are the evolutionists on this forum.

Even though he continues to say that evolution is atheistic….

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.
Merriam WebsMain Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

But would then follow this statement with…

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

Following this very “clear” rational argument against evolution and establishing that Radrook’s point is not in any way religiously motivated, he explains

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Godless Evolutionists do not constitute the universe. In fact, as was pointed out in the film "CONTACT" baed on a novel by Car l Sagan, they are a very small minority on this earth.

And then ends with a clear explanation of how he rationally opposes evolution

Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
However, the only conviction I can reach is that the present universe is the result of imntelligent design. From my standpoint anything contradicting that basic fact is deception.

Bravo!

Shalamar

22nd December 2007, 09:22 AM

]

Example of irrational and unscientific thinking:

Abiogenesis has never been observed to produce life. In other words, there is no basis for an inductive leap or conclusion that it does and if a basis is offered it can only mean that it is based on faith.

Abiogenesis has never been observed= no inductive evidence to justify a premise. Yet the premise is put forth tongue in cheek as if it were indisputable scientific fact. Which of course is BULLOCKS.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis, I suggest you start your own thread. Abiogenesis is a hypothosis. Not a fact. It is considered the best idea of what we have on where life came from, and there are promising leads in this area. But it isn't fact.

Again. Evolution cares only about life itself. Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

BTW
Since lists continue to be requested as evidence that ID scientists have relevant credentials I provide the following excerpt:

This is a partial list of non-ervolutionist scientists with relevant credentials. They are part of the original list posted and can be found at that original website. IF the list info is truncated it is to avoid breaking forum copyright posting rules.

Excerpt:

Further clarification:

This list is provided solely as a response for requests. It isn't offered as indisputable proof of my position since my position doesn't require this type of proof. Hope that is clear enough. If not please request further clarification and I weill try to simplify.

I gather you do not believe in evolution, simply because you don't. You look for lists of people (SOme of whom whos credentials are dubious) and say Look! These people don't like evolution either! Evolution MUST be wrong!

Evolution is still considered both a fact, and a theory. Is is far far far too much evidence to discount it. Though sadly, people continue to dismiss science.

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2007, 10:02 AM

Exactly what I said. But what you said was "The recent ones were for y opinion purposes only. The others I have posted are for the purposes previously explained", which didn't make much sense.

Ass kicked? Yes. But perhaps you have the relevant people on ignore, and didn't notice.

Your usage of vulgarity proves nothing but your need and ability to use vulgarity. Do you find that your imitation of a prissy schoolmarm is an effective rhetorical strategy?

That's a matter of opinion and mine is that they cannot be fully trusted to be objective ... Your blatant self-contradiction, however, is a matter of logic, not of opinion.

... not just based on discovered hoaxes, but based on their inability or fanatical refusal to reason properly in full unashamed violation of the scientific method. Mmm, I wonder who knows more about the scientific method, you, or scientists.

I guess it's the scientists. 'Cos you can't win a Nobel Prize without some knowledge of the scientific method, but you can provide links to half-baked creationist lies while knowing nothing of the scientific method.

Anything which contradicts your pet idea is propaganda. This is what we find, yes. I should be interested to see a piece of creationist literature that did not merit that name.

Dishonesty? Really? I link in response to your unethical, shameful, lies via false accusations that there are no real scientists who oppose evolution and embrace ID. I, of course, have told no such lies, which is why you cannot quote me doing so.

Will you stop making stuff up? It's tiresome.

When I provide evidence you call it propaganda and hypocrisy. No, I described the bunch of lies and hoaxes that you linked to as lies and hypocrisy, not your list of names.

Another unabashed boldfaced lie. A fact, which I will repeat. The modus operandi of creationists is to cling to hoaxes like so many shabby, soiled, threadbare security blankets. The link you provided is an example of such a thing.

Again, and as you well know, the only reason I originally brought those hoaxes to the thread was in response to the claim that evolutionists are 100% trustworthy. I do not well know that. You do make a lot of stuff up, don't you?

No-one on this earth is 100% trustworthy. If you'd simply said that no-one is 100% trustworthy, then I'd have agreed with you and moved on. Instead you pretended that all evolutionists have a "propensity" for fraud on the basis of a couple of cases in 150 years, which were, we may note, exposed and repudiated by evolutionists.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:08 AM

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2007, 10:17 AM

Billions of observations for thousands of years justify the inductive conclusion and the subsequently derived premise that life is produced only by life. Which means simply that a person rejecting abiogenesis in favor of this observation has logic on his side while the person insisting on the opposite-abiogenesis doesn't really have a leg to stand on except for the unscientific use of a very fertile imagination.

Example of irrational and unscientific thinking:

Abiogenesis has never been observed to produce life. In other words, there is no basis for an inductive leap or conclusion that it does and if a basis is offered it can only mean that it is based on faith.

Abiogenesis has never been observed= no inductive evidence to justify a premise. Yet the premise is put forth tongue in cheek as if it were indisputable scientific fact. Which of course is BULLOCKS. Billions of observations for thousands of years justify the inductive conclusion and the subsequently derived premise that all ammoths are dead. Which means simply that a person rejecting the idea that there were once living mammoths in favor of this observation has logic on his side while the person insisting on the opposite-that there were once living mammoths doesn't really have a leg to stand on except for the unscientific use of a very fertile imagination.

Example of irrational and unscientific thinking:

Living mammoths have never been observed. In other words, there is no basis for an inductive leap or conclusion that it does and if a basis is offered it can only mean that it is based on faith.

Living mammoths have never been observed= no inductive evidence to justify a premise. Yet the premise is put forth tongue in cheek as if it were indisputable scientific fact. Which of course is BULLOCKS.

---

(I do so hope that that use of the word "BULLOCKS" doesn't turn out to be vulgar. I know how Radrook hates vulgarity.)

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:20 AM

But what you said was "The recent ones were for y opinion purposes only. The others I have posted are for the purposes previously explained", which didn't make much sense.

It doesn't make sense for anyone who doesn't bother to read what I constantly am forced to explain because they don't take the time to read.

Yes. But perhaps you have the relevant people on ignore, and didn't notice.

That is for me to determine.

Do you find that your imitation of a prissy schoolmarm is an effective rhetorical strategy?

Not at all. I was simply disappointed since I expected more from you based on the manner in which you had approached the subjects in your previous posts. On forums such as this a poster is perceived in accordance with the manner in which he expresses himself. So I was a bit taken aback by your sudden out-of-character shift. But hey, if that's the way you want to proceed then be my guest. Adds nothing to your argument though. But you definitely are entitled to it.

The rest is vehemently expressed unsolicited irrelevant drivel which constitutes clutter. What a disappointment since I was sure this guy was going to take the logic challenge on. But, well, in any case, BYE!

Snip! Snip! Snip!

Island Skeptic

22nd December 2007, 10:21 AM

Perhaps I need to clarify that my "Bravo!" was merely in response to Joobz's nice work in summarizing the series of events in this thread. Not in response to Radrook's shaky rationalization for ID.

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2007, 10:22 AM

Instead of "God" I should have used ID. I realized this immediately but it was late and a computer crash aggravated the problem so I decided to leave it as was despite the danger of being told that I contradicted my previous statements. A bad mistake since what I really intended to convey was ID and not bring in religion with the usage of the noun "God". In any case, for those who read my comment I suggest that in order to keep this discussion within acceptable parameters that you substitute ID where I said "GOD" This leaves the argument essentially identical. Ipse dixit.

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 10:24 AM

Instead you pretended that all evolutionists have a "propensity" for fraud on the basis of a couple of cases in 150 years, which were, we may note, exposed and repudiated by evolutionists.

As was Radrook's own lie regarding the reason for the dishonest inclusion of scientists who died long before the theory of evolution on a list of scientists who rejected evolutionary theory. By Radrooks' own reasoning we have exposed his propensity for fraud.

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2007, 10:25 AM

snip! Snip! Snip! The rest is vehemently expressed unsolicited irrelevant drivel. What a disappointment since I was sure this guy was going to take the logic challenge on. But, well, in any case, BYE! Am I to take it that he's put his fingers in his ears, shut his eyes real tight, and declared himself the winner?

Aw, they're sweet when they do that, aren't they?

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 10:31 AM

Prior to being exposed as fakes, the claims made by Haeckal were made part of biology textbooks and put forth as indisputable fact creating staunch evolutionist believers by the hundreds of thousands and in that manner effectively discouraging and undermining any possible opposing viewpoint, both religious and scientific. The same holds true for Piltown Man and other such dubious claims.

While still doubting that the influence was very great, I understand what you mean, and will withdraw my objection.

As for the faked feathered dinosaur, that attempt was caught much quicker. As for these being ancestral to troday's birds, the opinion is still being debated. Just enter "feathered dinosaur" into search engine and se for youself. In any case, to me that's totally irrelevant to acceptance or non acceptance of evolution as fact.

The controversy, as I have had it explained to me elsewhere recently, is between those who claim birds originated within the group known as dinosaurs, or if it originated outside it, but may claim it as a sister group. Given the evidence I have seen, I see no reason to side with the latter group.

Have you had time to find the original article, yet?

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 10:33 AM

Do you consider the info on this site to be badly formatted lies as well? Just curious.
http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs___sea_serpents.htm

It is badly formatted, at least. And yes, while I haven't had time to look through all of it, several items are known to be lies, fakes, frauds, or misunderstandings. I will not claim all of it is, prior to having read it through, though (probably after Christmas some time, for easily understandable reasons).

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 10:35 AM

Am I to take it that he's put his fingers in his ears, shut his eyes real tight, and declared himself the winner?

Aw, they're sweet when they do that, aren't they?

He's been studying at T'ai Chi's dojo.

Shalamar

22nd December 2007, 10:37 AM

Am I to take it that he's put his fingers in his ears, shut his eyes real tight, and declared himself the winner?

Aw, they're sweet when they do that, aren't they?

Its actually quite sad. He's failed to post any real reasons why he objects to the Theory of Evolution (Except that he doesn't like abiogensis).

Well, at least he'll feel good about himself when he sees ONLY his own posts in this thread.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:37 AM

Perhaps I need to clarify that my "Bravo!" was merely in response to Joobz's nice work in summarizing the series of events in this thread. Not in response to Radrook's shaky rationalization for ID.

I think your Bravo was and still is understood as it was intended. As for shaky rationalization, I don't see you offering any effective logical counterargument to prove it shaky so your unsupported statement comes accross as mere chanting in chorus.

Needless to say, such chanting contributes nothing to the subject.

Bye!

skeptical

22nd December 2007, 10:40 AM

Relevance to subject:

Billions of observations for thousands of years justify the inductive conclusion and the subsequently derived premise that life is produced only by life. Which means simply that a person rejecting abiogenesis in favor of this observation has logic on his side while the person insisting on the opposite-abiogenesis doesn't really have a leg to stand on except for the unscientific use of a very fertile imagination.

Radrook has me on ignore, so this is for the lurkers.

As I pointed out to Radrook quite some time ago, the basis for this judgment very much depends on how one defines "life". This is far from a trivial task. While there are clear cases at the extremes, a cell is clearly alive for example whereas a rock is not, and there are certainly corner cases.

Life is generally characterized by 1) metabolism 2) reproduction and 3) adaptation, but there are clearly things that could reasonably be considered "alive" that don't fit these criteria.

For example:

1) Viruses - cannot reproduce on their own, yet they metabolize and adapt quite nicely to their environment

2) Mitochondria - they metabolize and have their own DNA, but are they alive? Are they alive only because they are part of a cell, or would they be alive outside of a cell as well?

3) coacervates - these are simple structures that form naturally and have primitive metabolism because they are selective about what they do and do not allow to pass through their membrane. This is a clear example of entities that are probably not "life" because they lack reproduction, but they are certainly closer than rocks

So, the difficult question is at what point between coacervates and viruses or mitochondria or simple cells does something "become life"? And what are the criteria for making this decision.

Without a precise definition of life, the statement "life comes only from life" is far too ambiguous to be meaningful. Its the sort of thing that sounds correct, but only if one is allowed to keep the definition of life ambiguous.

Example of irrational and unscientific thinking:

Abiogenesis has never been observed to produce life. In other words, there is no basis for an inductive leap or conclusion that it does and if a basis is offered it can only mean that it is based on faith.

Again, as I have pointed out to Radrook, all of the building blocks of life HAVE been observed to form naturally: lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, even simple metabolism in coacervates. To use a building analogy, we have the bricks, mortar and boards, and we have even seen them spontaneously form walls and roofs, but we haven't seen them form the entire building.

It is hard to see how believing that a building COULD form from various arrangements and permutations given a billion years is somehow "unscientific"

Abiogenesis has never been observed= no inductive evidence to justify a premise. Yet the premise is put forth tongue in cheek as if it were indisputable scientific fact. Which of course is BULLOCKS.

Now, he's stealing my use of bollocks, and that's just wrong, but I digress.

This is a misunderstanding of the inductive process. If we have seen the building blocks of life, which we have, it is not that much of a stretch to accept that they could form primitive life, however that is defined.

On top of which, I am not aware that any scientific THEORY is put forward as indisputable, only the actual DATA is indisputable. For example, that the building blocks of life form spontaneously is indisputable fact, whether they came together to form primitive life and how they did so would be a theory, until it is actually observed.

I would also add that for someone to say that something CANNOT have happened, is, by definition, non-scientific.

ArmillarySphere

22nd December 2007, 10:40 AM

In any case, for those who read my comment I suggest that in order to keep this discussion within acceptable parameters that you substitute ID where I meant "GOD"

Fixed that for you.

Shalamar

22nd December 2007, 10:44 AM

Found this. It seems to sum up this thread pretty well.

I'm so sorry.

http://static.mmoabc.com/my/P/u/n/ch/2007/12/13//1197585423160.png

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 10:47 AM

The modus operandi of science is to detect and expose hoaxes. Who exposed Piltdown? Evolutionists. Who exposed Haeckel? Evolutionists. Who exposed Archaeoraptor? Evolutionists.

So, do you have a reference to this exposure of Archaeoraptor, Dr Adequate? I have been too busy preparing my samples for sequencing to find time to look it up myself, and now I am away from the institute (also, I have been waiting for Radrook to provide me with the article, but he seems reluctant to do so).

skeptical

22nd December 2007, 10:50 AM

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:50 AM

While still doubting that the influence was very great, I understand what you mean, and will withdraw my objection.

Why do you believe that the influence wasn't great?

The controversy, as I have had it explained to me elsewhere recently, is between those who claim birds originated within the group known as dinosaurs, or if it originated outside it, but may claim it as a sister group. Given the evidence I have seen, I see no reason to side with the latter group.

Yes, that is the controversy among evolutionists.

Have you had time to find the original article, yet?

Sorry but I have not.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:52 AM

Fixed that for you.

Oh, a wiseguy right? Good try but no cigar.

Bye!

BTW
This is the kind of worthless tripe that some here insist that I keep on my screen. And this is the type of mindless heckling jeckling moron that I am often requested to interact with. To which I say--I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 11:02 AM

Why do you believe that the influence wasn't great?

Mainly because no evidence has been presented that the people swayed by the evolutionist data, which at the time included the Piltdown man and Haeckel's drawings, would not have been convinced of its veracity without these two specific pieces.

Sorry but I have not.

Did I misunderstand you, or wasn't there a link or other mention of the article in question at the bottom of the creationist page you linked to?

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 11:04 AM

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 11:04 AM

A question that might be posed by anyone not on Radrook's ever increasing ignore list:

"What evidence, short of seeing a fully formed functional cell, would you consider enough evidence for someone to believe that abiogenesis could occur? Are there enough naturally occurring building blocks that could occur, or will only the fully formed cell do?"

Alternatively, one could ask: "If we were to find functioning bacteria on Europa or some other planet that we could conclusively determine did not originate from Earth, would this be evidence for abiogensis?"

I would like to see a theory explaining the mechanism by which organic molecules could naturally form simple, self-replicating molecules. There would still be many questions left regarding the formation of much more complex forms of life such as eukaryotes, but understanding how self replicating molecules can form is probably the most important step. After that, it's all about the theory of evolution.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 11:13 AM

Mainly because no evidence has been presented that the people swayed by the evolutionist data, which at the time included the Piltdown man and Haeckel's drawings, would not have been convinced of its veracity without these two specific pieces.

I see, so the believe would have been present with or without that influence. I agree.
However, I disagree that the conviction would have become as strong as it did during the hoax time withoiut the hox being present. Whether the exposing of the hoaxes diminished the level of credulity back to pre- hoax levels is a matter beyond the scvope of this thread and requires statistical data which I am sure hasn't as yet been compiled. So perhaps this must remain simply a matter of differing opinions.

Did I misunderstand you, or wasn't there a link or other mention of the article in question at the bottom of the creationist page you linked to?

I assumed that being aware of any link you would have tried it-that you did try it-and found no available evidence and that then you proceeded to request it from me. Resulting in amy inability to find it. I was unaware that you had not visited the website and tried the links to find out.

Well, must leave. Been interesting. Thanx for feedback. Peace!

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 11:15 AM

Oh, a wiseguy right? Good try but no cigar.

Bye!

BTW
This is the kind of worthless tripe that some here insist that I keep on my screen. And this is the type of mindless heckling jeckling moron that I am often requested to interact with. To which I say--I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Someone who is not on Radrook's ignore list (but would like to be soon) is welcome to post this:

Radrook, the "morons" that you've placed on ignore have almost universally exposed weaknesses in your reasoning that you are unwilling to confront lest you be required to alter your preferred views to fit with observed reality. Most of these people have come nowhere near offering personal insult to you. Even when you are caught in a bald-faced lie you respond with denial and forced indignation. It is clearly obvious to everyone that you are placing people on ignore because of your inability to respond to their points without admitting error. You can feign personal insult all you like, but you have shown yourself an intellectual coward and a liar.

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 11:17 AM

I assumed that being aware of any link you would have tried it-that you did try it-and found no available evidence and that then you proceeded to request it from me. Resulting in amy inability to find it. I was unaware that you had not visited the website and tried the links to find out.

Well, must leave. Been interesting. Thanx for feedback. Peace!

I read that as "I must leave before anyone suggests that I might check the link myself in order to back up my claim".

Hokulele

22nd December 2007, 11:21 AM

Someone who is not on Radrook's ignore list (but would like to be soon) is welcome to post this:

Radrook, the "morons" that you've placed on ignore have almost universally exposed weaknesses in your reasoning that you are unwilling to confront lest you be required to alter your preferred views to fit with observed reality. Most of these people have come nowhere near offering personal insult to you. Even when you are caught in a bald-faced lie you respond with denial and forced indignation. It is clearly obvious to everyone that you are placing people on ignore because of your inability to respond to their points without admitting error. You can feign personal insult all you like, but you have shown yourself an intellectual coward and a liar.

QFT

ArmillarySphere

22nd December 2007, 12:12 PM

Aww, I'm touched. Feels like back in first grade when you were looking to get those gold stars.

I suppose I could've said something more verbose, but the point would have been the same: Whenever an ID'er says something about the designer, we all know he meant "god".

skeptical

22nd December 2007, 12:18 PM

I see, so the believe would have been present with or without that influence. I agree.
However, I disagree that the conviction would have become as strong as it did during the hoax time withoiut the hox being present. Whether the exposing of the hoaxes diminished the level of credulity back to pre- hoax levels is a matter beyond the scvope of this thread and requires statistical data which I am sure hasn't as yet been compiled. So perhaps this must remain simply a matter of differing opinions.

Again, I am on Radrook's ignore list, but this little gem I can't let pass.

Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax in 1953. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Haeckel's embryo drawings were exposed in 1868. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing

Even assuming that some measurable number of people had their acceptance of evolution increased in some measurable way by either or both of these proposed pieces of data, which is probably unprovable, it is hard to see what if anything this has to do with the acceptance of the mountain of evidence for evolution today.

More than 50 years removed from Piltdown and over 100 years removed from Haeckel, the question is what does any of this have to do with modern day acceptance of evolution?

As far as I can tell, this is entirely irrelevant to anything related to the existence of a large body of data supporting evolutionary theory in the modern world.

Even if we assume that there are people alive right now who accept evolution for reasons that include Piltdown and Haeckel, it just doesn't follow that the other evidence is weak, it just follows that the people need to be more educated. In short, they would have accepted what is true for bad reasons, but that doesn't make the mountain of evidence supporting evolution any less.

In other words, this is a non sequitur.

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 12:48 PM

Why would I be reluctant? It has no bearing on my reasons in believing in ID.
I have tried but have been unable. Sorry.

Ah, perhaps I was careless in my choice of words. English is my second language, and I try to be as precise as possible, but I have spent large parts of the evening in the other evolution thread I participate in, and have obviously slipped. What I meant was that it seems I will not the reference from you, as you don't have it.

Perhaps I already have it if I just take time to look through my extensive pile, though. But work or discussions elsewhere has come between all the time.

Kotatsu

22nd December 2007, 12:52 PM

I see, so the believe would have been present with or without that influence. I agree.
However, I disagree that the conviction would have become as strong as it did during the hoax time withoiut the hox being present. Whether the exposing of the hoaxes diminished the level of credulity back to pre- hoax levels is a matter beyond the scvope of this thread and requires statistical data which I am sure hasn't as yet been compiled. So perhaps this must remain simply a matter of differing opinions.

Naturally. And it is a minor point, so maybe we should just abandon it.

I assumed that being aware of any link you would have tried it-that you did try it-and found no available evidence and that then you proceeded to request it from me. Resulting in amy inability to find it. I was unaware that you had not visited the website and tried the links to find out.

Well, must leave. Been interesting. Thanx for feedback. Peace!

No, I usually don't follow links to answersingenesis and some other known creationist sites, as my experience is that they are unnecessarily verbose to hide the lies, misrepresentation, slander, and plain idiocy they advocate. In this case, I was also waiting for you, as I didn't --- and still don't --- care to go there just for a link that, or so I believes, you could provide as easily as the link to their page. I assumed there would be a handy list of references on the page you linked to, and that copying the reference there would be the work of seconds. Apparently, there was no such reference.

Foster Zygote

22nd December 2007, 01:03 PM

QFT

You just want to be on Radrook's ignore list with the cool kids.;)

joobz

22nd December 2007, 01:13 PM

Yes, I can fully understand why you say "Bravo!" Instead of "God" I should have used ID. I realized this immediately but it was late and a computer crash aggravated the problem so I decided to leave it as was despite the danger of being told that I contradicted my previous statements.
How does this matter or explain the multiple quotes I made from several posts? You claim to have a non-religious reason for questioning evolution. You even go so far as to say you are only against "Atheist evolution". Why would there be such a distinction made in science? Why would YOU make such a destinction if you didn't mean to imply that you believe in "theistic" evolution? You claimed to have rational/scientific reasons to doubt evolution, yet you have relied ENTIRELY on theistic reasons for your anti-evolution stance. Nearly every supportive link you have offered has been from creationist websites.
As such, your argument is religious and not scientific, regardless of what you wish us to believe.

A bad mistake since what I really intended to convey was ID and not bring in religion with the usage of the noun "God".
Then, again, why claim atheistic evolution? ID could be non-religious, you are correct. But this wouldn't be a god and wouldn't be in voliation of any atheistic stance. Your own words give lie to your intent. You say ID, you mean GOD. Don't be so daft as to believe this nonsense fools anyone.

In any case, for those who read my comment I suggest that in order to keep this discussion within acceptable parameters that you substitute ID where I said "GOD" This leaves the argument essentially identical without unnecessarily deviating it to religious channels which belong more on the religious forum.
That's hard to do, because you mean GOD when you say ID. This is obvious.

The discrepancy is merely one of semantics and not logic. So the argument actually loses nothing from the interchange of words except to keep evolutionists from unfounded accusations of faith-based beliefs.
Physician, Heal thyself.

BTW
Pointing out inconsistency might or might not prove a premise wrong. In this case it pitifully leaves the premise untouched. So much for the "Bravo!"
Actually, it kills your entire premise. You've claimed a logical/rational/non-religious reason to discount evolution. I've proven that you haven't provided one.
Game-set-match.

Also, for those who will imediately question my computer crashes, let it be known that my computer was purchased in is 1995 making it 13 years old and is only functioning due to my constant tweaking.I could care less. Your logic crashes have been much more severe and proven you to be little more than a parrot of poor ideas.

BTW, I'm ignored, so I felt it would be fun to be meaner than I usually am.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 08:46 PM

Naturally. And it is a minor point, so maybe we should just abandon it.

No, I usually don't follow links to answersingenesis and some other known creationist sites, as my experience is that they are unnecessarily verbose to hide the lies, misrepresentation, slander, and plain idiocy they advocate. In this case, I was also waiting for you, as I didn't --- and still don't --- care to go there just for a link that, or so I believes, you could provide as easily as the link to their page. I assumed there would be a handy list of references on the page you linked to, and that copying the reference there would be the work of seconds. Apparently, there was no such reference.

Is the use of inductive reasoning in order to reach conclusions unscientific?

BTW
I consider the convenient selective rejection of inductive reasoning I find at the evolutionist sites hipocritical and an absolute idiocy. That's why I avoid them like a plague.

UnrepentantSinner

22nd December 2007, 08:55 PM

So, do you have a reference to this exposure of Archaeoraptor, Dr Adequate? I have been too busy preparing my samples for sequencing to find time to look it up myself, and now I am away from the institute (also, I have been waiting for Radrook to provide me with the article, but he seems reluctant to do so).

The Wiki entry on Archeoraptor does a good job describing what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeoraptor

Must like Nebraska man, it was not a case of scientists trying to perpetrate a hoax, it was an example of overzealous journalists/editors making a full story out of one that was only half-written. As soon as paleontologists were able to actually look at the fossils the jig was up.

UnrepentantSinner

22nd December 2007, 08:58 PM

Again, I am on Radrook's ignore list, but this little gem I can't let pass.

I'm I on your ignore list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3269269&postcount=530)? ;)

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 09:00 PM

Clarification

The reason I am approaching this subject from a strictly non-religious angle is because this is not the religion forum. Because of this I use the term ID and not God. Now, I did use it once but posted a disclaimer to keep the thread on the right track. Whereupon someone here insisted that I meant God and that I should therefore continue to use the term because according to him this is what I really MEANT. Now, please understand that if I do believe in God, which I do, I still feel it my obligation
to keep this subject on the nondescript ID approach because that does not require us to delve deeply into the religious issues which would inevitably crop up if I did use the term God. Once those issues are raised, then the thread would need to be moved to the religious forum and I don't wish to discuss religion on the religious forum.

I do admit that this thread has had its fits and starts and has seemed to wander aimlessly. But the reason for this has been the constant misunderstandings which demand an explanation and the constant side issues brought to bare followed by my
fruitless efforts at clarification. So to avoid this from continuing ad infinitum. I will try top narrow down exactly what I feel should be discussed from this point onward.

Now, in my previous clarification I pointed out that I base my conclusion on inductive reasoning which is reasoning via the observation of repeating patterns and the reaching of a conclusion based on this. This type of reasoning,provides us with a premise for our deductive conclusion. In short, induction is the scientific reasoning methods providing us
with a steady flow of premises.

Example:

A scientist observes that under normal conditions all normal chickens he has examined lay eggs. The observation that all the examined and observed normal chickens lay eggs leads to the inductive conclusion which can be expressed as the premise for
a syllogism.

All normal chickens lay eggs
That animal is a normal chicken.
That animal lays eggs.

So we go from induction to deduction. One cannot exist without the other. In fact, science itself is crippled without it.inductive reasoning since it would be deprived of conclusions via observations and would make the scientific method of experimentation, observation of results and conclusions followed by deductive premise impossible.

Now, if we are to stay properly focused on this subject and not drift -- then those opposing my claim that observation supports ID while it condemns abiogenesis have to prove via logic how observation supports abiogenesis and casts doubt on ID. Since I don't see how this can possibly be done without violating the principles of cogent reasoning, I have concluded that it is far more justifiable and logical to believe in ID and that life comes only from previous life than in mindless evolution and abiogenesis.

So in short, the onus is on you to prove otherwise or at least attempt to do so without becoming illogical in the process.

BTW

The scientific conclusion that all normal chickens lay eggs is buttresses by the thousands of years and millions of observations during that time which confirm that all normal chickens can be expected to lay eggs under normal conditions. The same observation applies to the sun rising each day, and the observation that life comes only from previous life and that things which require organization of a complex type can only be assembled by an organizing mind. From these observations the inductive conclusion of ID and the conclusion that life comes only from life is unavoidable.

Now notice carefully that though the conclusions are fully supported by inductive observation which is considered indispensable to science it isn't applied in this area. In short, evolutionist scientists violate their own rules, expect us not to notice, while assuring us that they play by the rules. Which of course is an insult to a thinking person's intelligence and smacks of arrogance and presumptuousness. In short if young stars seen repeatedly in relation to cosmic nebulas then the inductive leap is justified, If life is seen to come from life repeatedly billions upon billions of times, then the inductive leap isn't justified. Organization toward purpose is interpreted as requiring a mind in relation to artifacts such as arrowheads and other such comparatively trivial things but the observation is not applicable to the infinitely far more complex organization which is evident in a human cell.

In short, the inductive process of reaching conclusions is rejected when convenient. This, of course, smacks of poorly undesguised quackery and a desperate attempt to buttress otherwise unjustifiable ideas motivated by a pernicious aversion against acknowledging concepts which are far more worthy of believability. All because being objectively consistent in their scientific criteria might indicate what they deem unnacceptable.

Now, for those who might have gotten swamped in a jumble of words or might feign to not understand plain English, or simply prefer to respond with a Huh? I will try to simplify via enumeration:

1. Abiogenesis has no inductive support and therefor lacks a justifiable supporting deductive premise.

2. Id has inductive observation support.
3, Biogenesis, or that life comes from life has inductive deductive support.

Conclusion? Belief in biogenesis and ID is far more logically justifiable while abiogenesis and mindless godless evolution is not.

As for evolution per se, it is the biased modus operandi as described aboive abd the resulting interpretation of evidence resulting from that bias which is suspect.

Why? Because those who interpret the evidence are the same ones who refuse to objectively apply their scientific observation criteria if it involves a possibility of ID or biogenesis.

Instead, they proceed to hold a double standard while expecting or demanding trust. Unfortunately, people who hold double standards of that kind are generally considered untrustworthy and to have self-serving ulterior motives. And this is not in reference to the few hoaxes mind you-it is a modus operandi abided by all evolutionists because if it isn't abided by, they aren't published by peer reviewed scientific journals and their views are considered unscientific and shunted aside. In short, irrationality presently has a stranglehold on the hallowed neck of academe and as long as it does real science will suffer the consequences.

BTW
As soon as I took Joobz of my ignore list he announced his intention of becoming extra nasty. So I figure he doesn't really want a discussion, he wants to drivel. Which is OK by me as long as he harmlessly drivels in his little corner over there.

UnrepentantSinner

22nd December 2007, 09:07 PM

Interesting, trying to apply logic to science. Unfortunately an argument from incredulity is not logical.

joobz

22nd December 2007, 09:12 PM

As soon as I took Joobz of my ignore list he announced his intention of becoming extra nasty. So I figure he doesn't reall want a discussion, he wans to drivel. Which is OK by me as long as he harmlessly drivels in his little corner over there.I noticed you completely ignored my actual points and simply reposted your same argument. This is rather foolish since the argument you make is terrible. You wouldn't do this if you stopped putting people on ignore. You may even learn something.

I know I've learned a lot here.

Prometheus

22nd December 2007, 09:59 PM

Radrook, thank you very much for the longer, and very clear, explanation of your position, from which I've taken the two excerpts below.

....Now, if we are to stay properly focused on this subject and not drift -- then those opposing my claim that observation supports ID while it condemns abiogenesis have to prove via logic how observation supports abiogenesis and casts doubt on ID. Since I don't see how this can possibly be done without violating the principles of cogent reasoning, I have concluded that it is far more justifiable and logical to believe in ID and that life comes only from previous life than in mindless evolution and abiogenesis.

It seems to me, that this argument could be simplified thusly:

1. Observation supports ID
2. Observation condemns abiogenesis
3. Observation cannot support abiogenesis, nor can it condemn ID.
4. Premise: abiogenesis is mindless
5. Premise: evolution requires abiogenesis
6. Conclusion: ID is true.
7. Conclusion: abiogenesis AND mindless evolution are not true.
8. Conclusion: evolution is not true.

However, although your reasoning is valid, it is not sound. In fact, even if all of your observations are true, conclusions 6 and 7 will be true, but conclusion 8 will not be, because Premise 5 is false. Evolution does not require abiogenesis.

....Conclusion? Belief in biogenesis and ID is far more logically justifiable while abiogenesis and mindless godless evolution is not.

The problem is that nothing requires evolution to be mindless or godless (I happen to believe that it is both mindless and godless, but that issue belongs, as you've pointed out, in the religion forum). All your argument succeeds in doing (if, in fact, your observations actually hold up; others have pointed out reasons why they might not) is asserting that if evolution is true, then it cannot be mindless/godless. You have proven nothing whatsoever about whether or not evolution is true.

joobz

22nd December 2007, 10:18 PM

The problem is that nothing requires evolution to be mindless or godless (I happen to believe that it is both mindless and godless, but that issue belongs, as you've pointed out, in the religion forum). All your argument succeeds in doing (if, in fact, your observations actually hold up; others have pointed out reasons why they might not) is asserting that if evolution is true, then it cannot be mindless/godless. You have proven nothing whatsoever about whether or not evolution is true.
And this is the part of the argument where Radrook had originally claimed that he knows evolution doesn't require atheism. That he is only against atheistic evolution. He then reverts to attacking evolution saying it isn't logical.

If we could get him to stabilize on one concept, perhaps the discussion could move forward.

Unfortunately, I think there is a fat chance of that happening.

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 10:55 PM

Radrook, thank you very much for the longer, and very clear, explanation of your position, from which I've taken the two excerpts below.

It seems to me, that this argument could be simplified thusly:

1. Observation supports ID
2. Observation condemns abiogenesis
3. Observation cannot support abiogenesis, nor can it condemn ID.
4. Premise: abiogenesis is mindless
5. Premise: evolution requires abiogenesis
6. Conclusion: ID is true.
7. Conclusion: abiogenesis AND mindless evolution are not true.
8. Conclusion: evolution is not true.

However, although your reasoning is valid, it is not sound. In fact, even if all of your observations are true, conclusions 6 and 7 will be true, but conclusion 8 will not be, because Premise 5 is false. Evolution does not require abiogenesis.

The problem is that nothing requires evolution to be mindless or godless (I happen to believe that it is both mindless and godless, but that issue belongs, as you've pointed out, in the religion forum). All your argument succeeds in doing (if, in fact, your observations actually hold up; others have pointed out reasons why they might not) is asserting that if evolution is true, then it cannot be mindless/godless. You have proven nothing whatsoever about whether or not evolution is true.

Yes I understand your objection. It has been mentioned several times before during this discussion and I have responded identically each time it seems to no avail. But I will mention it again since perhaps you missed my previous explanation.

I am well aware that there are two groups of evolutionists. Those who believe in God or ID and those who do not. My argument is specifically designed to counter the atheistic or non-ID evolutionist view. The other evolutionist viewpoint would require a different approach focusing strictly on the validity or legitimacy of the evidence being presented in support of the evolution process in reference to those rbelieving in a non-descript ID-initiated evolution, and an additional biblical scriptural angle for those claiming to believe in the Bible or being Christian while believing that God used the evolutionary process.

I narrowed it down to the atheistic non ID approach for the sake of simplification. However, after this thread has run its course we can consider it from the ID evolutionist angle perhaps.

In any case, thanx for the feedback. : )

Prometheus

22nd December 2007, 11:03 PM

Yes I understand your objection. It has been mentioned several times before during this discussion and I have responded identically each time it has to seemingly no avail. But I will mention it again since perhaps you missed my previous explanation.

I am well aware that there are two groups of evolutionists. Those who believe in God or ID and those who do not. My argument is aimed specifically designed to counter the atheistic or non ID evolutionist view. In any case, thanx for the feedback.

Then do you believe that theistic evolution is correct?

Radrook

22nd December 2007, 11:10 PM

Then do you believe that theistic evolution is correct?

I personally remain unconvinced. However, I don't find it as illogical as I find non ID or atheistic evolution. That's why I focused on the latter.

BTW
Just being skeptical as required by the Randi board.

Prometheus

22nd December 2007, 11:18 PM

I personally remain unconvinced. However, I don't find it as illogical as I find non ID or atheistic evolution. That's why I focused on the latter.

Okay, but, it's important to realize that, from the point of view of strict scientific reasoning, there are not 2 camps of evolution called "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution"; in fact, whether or not one happens to be an atheist is completely irrevelevant to evolution. It's sort of like saying some evolutionists are brunette and some are blonde. Yes, it's true, but it's trivial because there is no relationship between hair color and acceptance of evolution. It's just a coincidence.

joobz

22nd December 2007, 11:45 PM

And this is the part of the argument where Radrook had originally claimed that he knows evolution doesn't require atheism. That he is only against atheistic evolution. He then reverts to attacking evolution saying it isn't logical.

If we could get him to stabilize on one concept, perhaps the discussion could move forward.

Unfortunately, I think there is a fat chance of that happening.

I am well aware that there are two groups of evolutionists. Those who believe in God or ID and those who do not. My argument is specifically designed to counter the atheistic or non-ID evolutionist view. The other evolutionist viewpoint would require a different approach focusing strictly on the validity or legitimacy of the evidence being presented in support of the evolution process in reference to those rbelieving in a non-descript ID-initiated evolution, and an additional biblical scriptural angle for those claiming to believe in the Bible or being Christian while believing that God used the evolutionary process.

I narrowed it down to the atheistic non ID approach for the sake of simplification. However, after this thread has run its course we can consider it from the ID evolutionist angle perhaps.

In any case, thanx for the feedback. : )

I personally remain unconvinced. However, I don't find it as illogical as I find non ID or atheistic evolution. That's why I focused on the latter.

BTW
Just being skeptical as required by the Randi board.
I'm a prophet!

fishbob

22nd December 2007, 11:51 PM

Really, What replaces the bone?
You know during the fossilization process?

Oh look, the master distracter asks another irrelevant question. The fact that minerals sometimes replace bone makes no difference whatsoever to the question at hand.

fishbob

22nd December 2007, 11:59 PM

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_02.php

This is evidence which defies history—an impossible fossil.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-9/60546.html

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/living_fossils/fossils_07.php

Demonstrable untruths from crackpot websites and misrepresentation of factual reports.
Not particularly convincing, but exemplifies yet again that trait we see over and over - creationist dishonesty.

fishbob

23rd December 2007, 12:14 AM

Here are some of the geologists names whose non-evolutinist opinion I prefer to believe as requested: . . .

I have not read the research from all these guys, however I have read some of the stuff that Austin and Morris have written.

Austin - sloppy agenda driven misinterpretation of real data.
Morris - utter crap.

2 points:
1 - Engineers are terrible at geology.
2 - Anybody that can handle a keyboard should be able to recognize poor logic and agenda driven crap when they see it.
3 - A preference for agenda driven crap is an indicator of creationist dishonesty.

fishbob

23rd December 2007, 12:22 AM

The impact of evolutionary teaching via hoaxes need no statistical data to back them up-they are an established fact. . . . . .

2 points:

1 - Your statement makes no sense.
2 - Your prior references to 'facts' have not led to very many.
3 - You make a claim, you provide support. Asserting that data is not needed is not particularly convincing.

Acleron

23rd December 2007, 01:54 AM

Now, in my previous clarification I pointed out that I base my conclusion on inductive reasoning which is reasoning via the observation of repeating patterns and the reaching of a conclusion based on this. This type of reasoning,provides us with a premise for our deductive conclusion. In short, induction is the scientific reasoning methods providing us
with a steady flow of premises.

Example:

A scientist observes that under normal conditions all normal chickens he has examined lay eggs. The observation that all the examined and observed normal chickens lay eggs leads to the inductive conclusion which can be expressed as the premise for
a syllogism.

All normal chickens lay eggs
That animal is a normal chicken.
That animal lays eggs.

I liked the sun rises everyday better but this one will do. First of all did you know that syllogism can also mean specious argument. ie a subtle piece of reasoning that is actually false or deceptive?

But to progress, you leave out a major part of science. The question of why. This leads to a mechanism and a hypothesis that explains why that animal lays eggs. If further work is performed this may become a theory. It is only accepted as a theory if it leads to predictions that can be tested. If it passes those tests it becomes more accepted as part of the general area of knowledge known as science. Interestingly, we can predict from the Theory of Evolution that all birds lay eggs, this can be tested and if found to be wrong we would have a problem.

But you like to move the goal posts to conclude that if abiogensis was done by god it invalidates the TofE. It doesn't but lets have a look at it.
Abiogenesis is a very difficult area of study because the present environment is fiercely hostile to any but the hardiest of lifeforms so it is likely that living organisms only started once or at most a few times. However, experiments and observations are showing that amino acids, nucleotides and carbohydrates can form in the suspected environment at the time life started on this planet. It has also been shown that RNA can have enzymic activity and can be transcribed into DNA. There are still huge holes in the supposed mechanisms but we are nearer now than 50 years ago. Hypotheses are put forward and argued about. Ones that are proven incorrect are discarded and we move on. Compare this with the stance of the id/creationists. It was done by a god. This isn't a theory as defined above. It cannot be tested, it leads to no conclusions and it cannot be falsified. Where does this idea come from? An interpretation of a text which has been translated through at least two languages until it became English and has been subjected to idealogical editing at every translation.

Your argument is that god did everything (you can interchange god and an id all you want, they are indistinguishable), if you want to make arguments in a science forum you have to argue about the science. You have stated many times that your conclusions are based on observations and reasoning, but nowhere do you state what are your observations or what is your reasoning that such a being exists and bothered to insert lifeforms on a rather insignificant planet, orbiting around a rather common star in the backwaters of a particular galaxy.

skeptical

23rd December 2007, 06:52 AM

I'm I on your ignore list (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3269269&postcount=530)? ;)

Ummmm, no? Was that a joke? I don't even know how you put people on ignore, that seems rather silly on a discussion forum.

skeptical

23rd December 2007, 07:00 AM

I am well aware that there are two groups of evolutionists. Those who believe in God or ID and those who do not. My argument is specifically designed to counter the atheistic or non-ID evolutionist view.

This is completely irrelevant to what the evidence of evolution IS. What a particular person or persons might believe about HOW the processes of evolution came to be has nothing whatsoever to do with THAT the processes are what they are.

The other evolutionist viewpoint would require a different approach focusing strictly on the validity or legitimacy of the evidence being presented in support of the evolution process in reference to those rbelieving in a non-descript ID-initiated evolution, and an additional biblical scriptural angle for those claiming to believe in the Bible or being Christian while believing that God used the evolutionary process.

And any such discussion would be, by definition, not scientific but religious. The only claims that the scientific method can address are claims about the natural world. Any other claims are not ones that can be evaluated by empirical methods.

I narrowed it down to the atheistic non ID approach for the sake of simplification. However, after this thread has run its course we can consider it from the ID evolutionist angle perhaps.

False dichotomy, once again. Non-ID is not necessarily atheistic, although it certainly can be. This is getting a little ridiculous. Radrook keeps posting the same thing over and over again long after it has been explained why he is wrong. No wonder he has so many people on ignore.

Foster Zygote

23rd December 2007, 07:51 AM

Really, What replaces the bone?
You know during the fossilization process?
Radio-carbon dating relies on the carbon that was present in the living organism. It matters not that living tissue has been replaced with minerals, the carbon remains. In fact, as you yourself have pointed out, other traces may remain as well, although you are incorrect when you say that DNA has been extracted from dinosaur fossils. DNA is very fragile and is unlikely to be preserved. The proteins that DNA codes for can be quite durable however. What has been found are traces of proteins that can reveal fragmentary sequences of DNA that can be used phylogenetically to determine the relationship of the subject species to other species.

UnrepentantSinner

23rd December 2007, 09:31 AM

Ummmm, no? Was that a joke? I don't even know how you put people on ignore, that seems rather silly on a discussion forum.

It was just a snarky joke since I'd posted this for the lurkers earlier that same day. :)

I posted a number of links earlier which have apparently gone ignored about Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown Man. Since links don't appear to have any effect on Radrook here's me running my mouth.

A lot of hay has been made about Haeckel's drawings appearing in Biology textbooks over the last 100 years or so, but no Creationist organization has ever posted - that I'm aware of, any textbook published since the 1950s a photocopy or scan of these supposed textbook pages. Even in the most infamous example of this attempt, Well's Icons of Evolution he only gives "grades" to textbooks based on his own B.S. scale. We keep hearing about how Haeckel's drawings are being used "to this day" in Biology textbooks to "prove evolution" but the evidence of that being so, while easy in this day of .jpeg and uploading seems to rest solely on the words of Creationists like Wells, Ham, Hovind, Gish, etc.

Why are there not thousands of webpages posted by Creationists with scans of pages from these textbooks showing them asserting that Haeckel's drawings evidence evolution?

I'll even step back from the evidence precipice and ignore the fact that embryology does evidence evolutionary theory and ask again for one simple thing - where are the scans/photocopies of Biology textbooks that claim Haeckel's drawings are evidence of evolution?

Now, about Piltdown man. Despite providing Radrook with a link explaining the facts about that issue, he's continued to assert that it was a hoax perpetrated by scientists on the unsuspecting public. The truth could not be further from that.

Dawson was either the hoaxer or the dupe in an attempt that simply could not happen today. When the Piltdown skull was "unearthed" there was a melange of factors that buttressed it's acceptance including a strange reverse racism and the on going debate about whether hominds developed a big brain first or a bipedal stance.

Many British naturalists were convinced that a big brain developed first and were cheauvanistically seduced by the Piltdown find - btw, it's never been determined who actually was the hoaxer. It could have been Dawson, it could have been Arthur C. Doyle, it's not really known. And it would have been a great triumph for them for the first big brained "human" to have lived in England.

The problem was two-fold. Darwin himself had predicted that the closest hominid ancestors to humans would be found in Africa, and in 1924 Raymond Dart had unearthed Taung Child - a small brained Australepithecine with an intact anterior foramen magnum meaning it was bipedal and small brained. The big brain/bipedal controversy was settled with his discovery, but it would take another 25 years to put the nail in the coffin of Piltdown man again due to the cheauvanism of British naturalists.

Prior to 1924 we had found a handful of hominid fossil remains - a few Neanderthals and Java Man (which turned out to be an erectus so it's understandible that the big brain first dissenters could still have an audience. Since the 1930s we have found a bunch of erectus remains, habilis remains and Austral remains including Lucy and the Turkana Boy so it borders in rediculous for evolution deniers to even mention Piltdown in passing.

joobz

23rd December 2007, 10:13 AM

Your argument is that god did everything (you can interchange god and an id all you want, they are indistinguishable), if you want to make arguments in a science forum you have to argue about the science. You have stated many times that your conclusions are based on observations and reasoning, but nowhere do you state what are your observations or what is your reasoning that such a being exists and bothered to insert lifeforms on a rather insignificant planet, orbiting around a rather common star in the backwaters of a particular galaxy.

Yup, this is exactly his game. I tried early on to have a polite discussion with him. His claim of having evidence based reasons to doubt evolution, I wanted to hear his argument. It why I presented him with my list of 10(which became 18) independant scientific observations/effects which all rely on TofE to function. I was hoping to hear what his scientific explanation would be that would fit all of that data as well as TofE does.

Unfortunately, The Radrook argument has gone.
1.) Claim science based reason to doubt evolution.
2.) Give random evidence of evolution being suspect
random evidence pool= hoaxes, lists of scientists, etc.
3.) Upon being corrected on how those points do not disprove evolution, respond with a claim that random evidence wasn't provided to disprove evolution go back to step 1.
4.) Upon being asked for evidence, respond with abiogenesis is illogical
5.) Upon being told Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis, respond with atheism evolution.
6.) Upon being told evolution isn't about god/atheism, respond with this isn't a religion discussion go back to step 1.
7.) Upon being told how evolutionary processes can be ID or naturalistic based, respond with a claim to understand that atheistic evolution is unscientific. Go back to step 1 or step 6.

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 10:29 AM

I am well aware that there are two groups of evolutionists. Those who believe in God or ID and those who do not.
It looks like you're trying to sneak an error in here: that evolutionists who believe in God will also subscribe to ID. It is true that there are evolutionists who believe in God and evolutionists who do not, but their belief in God has no bearing on what kind of evolutionist they are. While there may be evolutionists who also advocate "Intelligent Design," it is unlikely, and certainly not something you can assume as you appear to do here. Unless you can provide examples, I'd be inclined to say that a person can be either an ID'er, or an evolutionist, but not both.

The question of abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Evolution deals with the question of how diversity arises once life has been established.

Island Skeptic

23rd December 2007, 10:45 AM

Now, if we are to stay properly focused on this subject and not drift -- then those opposing my claim that observation supports ID while it condemns abiogenesis have to prove via logic how observation supports abiogenesis and casts doubt on ID. Since I don't see how this can possibly be done without violating the principles of cogent reasoning, I have concluded that it is far more justifiable and logical to believe in ID and that life comes only from previous life than in mindless evolution and abiogenesis.

So in short, the onus is on you to prove otherwise or at least attempt to do so without becoming illogical in the process.

Radrook, the onus is on you to prove your ID theory. Not the other way around. So far, you have failed.

You have suggested i keep my trap shut because i have not contributed anything worth while to this argument. You are correct; i have not contributed anything to this argument, and thus i have been trying to keep my trap shut.

I was hoping to learn something new from you, but i have not.

From these observations the inductive conclusion of ID and the conclusion that life comes only from life is unavoidable.

I cannot see how you come to this conclusion. Inductive reasoning + evidence supports the side of non-ID far greater than ID, and i am still waiting for you to provide me reasons to feel otherwise.

1. Abiogenesis has no inductive support and therefor lacks a justifiable supporting deductive premise.

In what way does this justifiably support ID? I just don't understand. What am i missing??

Conclusion? Belief in biogenesis and ID is far more logically justifiable while abiogenesis and mindless godless evolution is not.

I still do not see how your belief is more strongly supported than the non-ID evolutionist's.

Because those who interpret the evidence are the same ones who refuse to objectively apply their scientific observation criteria if it involves a possibility of ID or biogenesis.

Instead, they proceed to hold a double standard while expecting or demanding trust. Unfortunately, people who hold double standards of that kind are generally considered untrustworthy and to have self-serving ulterior motives.

If we were to create a comparison model of "double standards" and "bias" between evolution scientists and ID'ers, the double standards and bias would shoot clear off the charts on the side of ID'ers.

Ooops, sorry, I forgot; I have nothing to contribute to this dialog except questions, and it seems that you are opposed to questions...

**Climbing back into my hole**

Radrook

23rd December 2007, 11:09 AM

It looks like you're trying to sneak an error in here: that evolutionists who believe in God will also subscribe to ID.

That is your idea not mine! WOW! This is really amazing!

It is true that there are evolutionists who believe in God and evolutionists who do not, but their belief in God has no bearing on what kind of evolutionist they are. While there may be evolutionists who also advocate "Intelligent Design," it is unlikely, and certainly not something you can assume as you appear to do here. Unless you can provide examples, I'd be inclined to say that a person can be either an ID'er, or an evolutionist, but not both.

What you are saying is self-contradictory. You really don't see that do you?

The question of abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Evolution deals with the question of how diversity arises once life has been established.

Is English your second language? This is the only way I can understand why you continue to misunderstanding the simple things I say. If indeed you can't understand plain Englishg then you really have little to contribute except irrelevant clutter.

BYE!

JJM

23rd December 2007, 11:13 AM

Recommended reading for Radrook:
Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, by John A. Moore.

Acleron

23rd December 2007, 11:13 AM

It is interesting, given RadRook's beliefs, that the only thing he apologised for was for mentioning god.

Island Skeptic

23rd December 2007, 11:18 AM

That is your idea not mine! WOW! This is really amazing!

Is English your second language? This is the only way I can understand why you continue to misunderstanding the simple things I say. If indeed you can't understand plain Englishg then you really have little to contribute except irrelevant clutter.

Radrook: Can you see how condescending, sarcastic and disrespectful you are? Can you see why members respond to you in the manners they do? I feel that all of us (including myself) would do better to try and be more respectful towards one another. Can we all at least agree on that?

I am sincerely here to learn & will be the first to apologize for any disrespect towards anyone.

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 11:22 AM

Clarification

I base my conclusion on inductive reasoning which is reasoning via the observation of repeating patterns and the reaching of a conclusion based on this. This type of reasoning,provides us with a premise for our deductive conclusion. In short, induction is the scientific reasoning methods providing us
with a steady flow of premises.

Now, if we are to stay properly focused on this subject and not drift -- then those opposing my claim that observation supports ID while it condemns abiogenesis have to prove via logic how observation supports abiogenesis and casts doubt on ID. Since I don't see how this can possibly be done without violating the principles of cogent reasoning, I have concluded that it is far more justifiable and logical to believe in ID and that life comes only from previous life than in mindless evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution only deals with life that comes from previous life, so this abiogenesis/ID dichotomy is completely beside the point. Since evolution does not require abiogenesis, the claim that observation does not support abiogenesis is moot.

If you want to argue an evolution/ID dichotomy, it seems to me that you need to provide support for the claim that observation supports ID. The two precepts of evolution (random mutation and natural selection) have been observed. Has the intelligent designer been observed? It seems to me that it has not. You are simply assuming an intelligent designer, based on nothing more than the complexity of some forms of life.

[...]things which require organization of a complex type can only be assembled by an organizing mind.
This assumes the thing you are arguing -- namely, that something which is complex requires intelligent organization. The layers of the geologic column are complex, but self-organizing under the forces of weathering and gravity. Snowflakes are complex, but self-organizing given suspended water molecules at a certain temperature. The patterns displayed by the aurora borealis are complex, but self-organizing given solar wind and the earth's magnetic field.

Evolution argues that complexity arises from life's random mutation and the competitive pressures of natural selection. Both random mutation and the competitive pressures of natural selection have been observed; to my knowledge, an intelligent designer has not.

From these observations the inductive conclusion of ID and the conclusion that life comes only from life is unavoidable.
I am prepared to discuss the issue of evolution from a position that assumes the premise that life comes only from life. Whether that premise is strictly true or not has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution deals only with life that comes from other life.

In short if young stars seen repeatedly in relation to cosmic nebulas then the inductive leap is justified, If life is seen to come from life repeatedly billions upon billions of times, then the inductive leap isn't justified.
Seven billion years ago, we might have been justified in saying that light came only from stars. Today, we know that light can also come from fires, fireflies, light bulbs, and LEDs. I'm not prepared to claim that life can come ONLY from other life, since it seems to me that this assumes life has always existed. Nevertheless, for the purposes of our discussion on evolution, I'm prepared to concern myself only with life that comes from other life, since that's the only kind of life with which evolutionary theory concerns itself.

Organization toward purpose is interpreted as requiring a mind in relation to artifacts such as arrowheads and other such comparatively trivial things but the observation is not applicable to the infinitely far more complex organization which is evident in a human cell.
The organization of stars and planets in a galaxy is even more complex than the organization in a human cell, but all the complexity can be explained by simple principles without invoking "mind." The creation of arrowheads is not attributed to intelligence because arrowheads are complex. You seem to be tossing out a lot of ideas without a lot of coherence.

Now, for those who might have gotten swamped in a jumble of words or might feign to not understand plain English, or simply prefer to respond with a Huh? I will try to simplify via enumeration:

1. Abiogenesis has no inductive support and therefor lacks a justifiable supporting deductive premise.
Evolution does not depend in any way on abiogenesis, so let's assume this is is true and move on to more relevant discussions.

2. Id has inductive observation support.
Perhaps you could enumerate some of these observations, beginning with the observations of the intelligent designer.

3, Biogenesis, or that life comes from life has inductive deductive support.
Assumed by evolutionary theory, and therefore not an issue.

Conclusion? Belief in biogenesis and ID is far more logically justifiable while abiogenesis and mindless godless evolution is not.
Ah, the false dichotomy again. Evolution is based on "life from life," so biogenesis is completely compatible with evolution. Assuming biogenesis does not require assuming ID.

Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, so equating the two is nothing more than constructing a straw man.

Mindless godless evolution is supported by observations of random mutation and natural selection.

Support for ID is still a bit sparse, in this thread and in the scientific literature. As far as I know, an "intelligent designer" has not been observed, but is simply being assumed. I await your evidence to the contrary.

joobz

23rd December 2007, 11:23 AM

Is English your second language? This is the only way I can understand why you continue to misunderstanding the simple things I say. If indeed you can't understand plain Englishg then you really have little to contribute except irrelevant clutter.

BYE!
bolding added to enhance irony.
:id:

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 11:32 AM

What you are saying is self-contradictory. You really don't see that do you?
I see that when I asked for examples of evolutionists who also believe in ID, this is your reply. If you are saying that no examples can be provided because "evolutionists who believe in ID" is an oxymoron, then I agree. That's the point I was making.

JJM

23rd December 2007, 11:56 AM

It looks like you're trying to sneak an error in here: that evolutionists who believe in God will also subscribe to ID. It is true that there are evolutionists who believe in God and evolutionists who do not, but their belief in God has no bearing on what kind of evolutionist they are. While there may be evolutionists who also advocate "Intelligent Design," it is unlikely, and certainly not something you can assume as you appear to do here. Unless you can provide examples, I'd be inclined to say that a person can be either an ID'er, or an evolutionist, but not both. {snip}There are many scientists who believe in god and do not dispute the fact of evolution nor the power of the explanatory theory we use, Kenneth Miller comes to mind (his book-Finding Darwin's God).

On the other hand, there are scientists who claim to accept both evolution and ID; but they are either massively confused or lying. I used to think that Michael (Darwin's Black Box) Behe was the former, now I think he is the latter.

The reason an informed scientist cannot accept ID is that it is only an argument from ignorance. That is, there is no supporting evidence- just, "I find it hard to believe there was no creator." No person can insist that his/her imagination is able to trump a process (evolution) that took place on a global scale over billions of years.

I have not really followed this thread; but it seems to me that Radrook keeps appealing to logic. Logic only works when it is based on correct premises. In addition, there are facts a person must know in order to make reliabe arguments. That is why I recommended a book that will give Rad a good background in science, generally, and biology/evolution in particular.

edge

23rd December 2007, 01:10 PM

The fact that minerals sometimes replace bone makes no difference whatsoever to the question at hand.

Then what are you dating bone or the replacement?
The bone has been replaced has it not?
It's acually become stone.
The only real fossil bones are from the ice age am I right?

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 01:12 PM

The reason an informed scientist cannot accept ID is that it is only an argument from ignorance.
This seems to be the real motivation behind Radrook's ever-growing "ignore" list. It's the only way to maintain the necessary ignorance while being bombarded by inconvenient facts.

edge

23rd December 2007, 01:21 PM

1. Assumes that the rate of Carbon 14 production (and hence the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth) has been constant (through the past 70,000 years).
Assumes!

· Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.
To date a sedimentary rock, it is necessary to isolate a few unusual minerals (if present) which formed on the seafloor as the rock was cemented.
[/quote]
You need lots of faith.

Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However,
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_14.php

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_13.php#23

The Miracle of Creation That Confounds Evolution
THE EYE OF THE TRILOBITE
Near the bottom of that page.

With all those millions of years I have to wonder why there are no man/dinos?

They had plenty of time heck they were walking in a up right position.

Foster Zygote

23rd December 2007, 01:30 PM

Then what are you dating bone or the replacement?
Neither. The amount of carbon 14 is being measured. C14 dating is but one method of radiometric dating and is good back to about 60,000 years. Other, longer range methods include uranium-lead, potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium.

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 01:33 PM

With all those millions of years I have to wonder why there are no man/dinos?

They had plenty of time heck they were walking in a up right position.
It isn't just a matter of time. The dinosaurs filled a niche in the ecologies in which they lived. With enough food and mating opportunities, there may have been no evolutionary pressure to favor branches of more intelligent dinosaurs. It looks like there was evolutionary pressure to become bigger, and more armored.

Spiders have been around longer than dinosaurs, and while they've developed a lot of variety in terms of size, venom, coloration, web style, eyesight, etc. they've still found a way to survive as spiders.

edge

23rd December 2007, 01:36 PM

By Dr. Dennis Swift Ph.D.
There are many other problems associated with Dipeso's spurious allegations. He fails to mention that the ceramic artifacts of varying clay composition and styles had been individually and not mold-made. There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.

The ceramic collection has unsurpassed variety and beauty that has won the admiration of professional artists. No peasant family could possibly make thousands and thousands of non-duplicated sculptures with such skill and artistic finesse.

The famous Earle Stanley Gardner, whose detective mysteries became the basis for the famous Perry Mason television programs, was a forensic pathologist and attorney who served as District Attorney for the city of Los Angeles for over 20 years. Mr. Gardner examined the collection and voiced the expert opinion of an experienced prosecuting attorney when he said that if a group of fakers had made all the pieces, their style would be recognizable on the whole collection.

"Every criminal, every criminal gang has its own method of operations. Police can often identify a criminal or gang from the method of a crime. It is obvious that no one individual or group could have made the pieces."

By Dr. Dennis Swift Ph.D.

http://www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html

I know this site has been de-bunked.

http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html

Foster Zygote

23rd December 2007, 01:36 PM

1. Assumes that the rate of Carbon 14 production (and hence the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth) has been constant (through the past 70,000 years).
Assumes!

Incorrect. It is known that various factors like variability of cosmic ray intensity, volcanic activity, changes in solar wind activity, changes in the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field and even nuclear bomb tests can cause variations in the amount of C14 production. These variations are checked against other dating methods in order to make corrections to the dating scale.

Hokulele

23rd December 2007, 01:41 PM

Then what are you dating bone or the replacement?
The bone has been replaced has it not?
It's acually become stone.
The only real fossil bones are from the ice age am I right?

No, you are not right.

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/TRex.html

This article mentions tests being performed on mastodon bones that ranged in age from 100,000 to 300,000 years old. The main stuff about the T Rex is pretty cool too.

JJM

23rd December 2007, 01:47 PM

{snip} Example:

A scientist observes that under normal conditions all normal chickens he has examined lay eggs. The observation that all the examined and observed normal chickens lay eggs leads to the inductive conclusion which can be expressed as the premise for
a syllogism.

All normal chickens lay eggs
That animal is a normal chicken.
That animal lays eggs.

{snip}I have had normal chickens, under normal conditions, that did not lay eggs- we called them "roosters". So, the premise is invalid. Moreover, according to your intro- we must establish that a hen is living under "normal" conditions to assert it lays eggs. For example, hens stop laying eggs on hot days. You omitted that consideration from your syllogism. This exemplifies my assertion (previous post) that there are things you have to know before you can reason successfully.

Hawk one

23rd December 2007, 01:52 PM

Why does Radrook still talk about "atheistic evolution" when he's been repeatedly corrected that there is in fact no such thing?

Foster Zygote

23rd December 2007, 01:58 PM

By Dr. Dennis Swift Ph.D.
There are many other problems associated with Dipeso's spurious allegations. He fails to mention that the ceramic artifacts of varying clay composition and styles had been individually and not mold-made. There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.
So what?

The ceramic collection has unsurpassed variety and beauty that has won the admiration of professional artists.
So what?

No peasant family could possibly make thousands and thousands of non-duplicated sculptures with such skill and artistic finesse.
Why not? Are these peasants too stupid?

The famous Earle Stanley Gardner, whose detective mysteries became the basis for the famous Perry Mason television programs, was a forensic pathologist and attorney who served as District Attorney for the city of Los Angeles for over 20 years. Mr. Gardner examined the collection and voiced the expert opinion of an experienced prosecuting attorney when he said that if a group of fakers had made all the pieces, their style would be recognizable on the whole collection.
Gee, too bad he isn't an expert in archeology. What does his auto mechanic think?

"Every criminal, every criminal gang has its own method of operations. Police can often identify a criminal or gang from the method of a crime. It is obvious that no one individual or group could have made the pieces."
Obvious to whom? A lawyer with no expertise in archeology?

Achán hiNidráne

23rd December 2007, 01:58 PM

Why does Radrook still talk about "atheistic evolution" when he's been repeatedly corrected that there is in fact no such thing?

Atheists are social and cultural pariahs, especially in American society. By associating evolution with a vilified group, you vilify evolution.

bokonon

23rd December 2007, 01:59 PM

Why does Radrook still talk about "atheistic evolution" when he's been repeatedly corrected that there is in fact no such thing?

Like Ovid's Pygmalion, he's fallen in love with his own straw man, and can't bear to abandon it.

Foster Zygote

23rd December 2007, 02:01 PM

The ceramic collection has unsurpassed variety and beauty that has won the admiration of professional artists. No peasant family could possibly make thousands and thousands of non-duplicated sculptures with such skill and artistic finesse.
It helps to actually see some examples of what they're talking about.

Dr Adequate

23rd December 2007, 02:15 PM

1. Assumes that the rate of Carbon 14 production (and hence the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth) has been constant (through the past 70,000 years).
Assumes!

· Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.
To date a sedimentary rock, it is necessary to isolate a few unusual minerals (if present) which formed on the seafloor as the rock was cemented.
You need lots of faith. Edge, you know nothing about how rocks are dated, don't you think you should learn something about it before pontificating.

Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. And we have the intermediate forms to prove it.

However,
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_14.php The second sentence on that page contains two flagrant lies, do I need to read any further?

Dr Adequate

23rd December 2007, 02:25 PM

It helps to actually see some examples of what they're talking about. :dl:

Achán hiNidráne

23rd December 2007, 02:42 PM

It helps to actually see some examples of what they're talking about.

Cripes! Who sculpted those? Art Clokey? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Clokey)

Kotatsu

23rd December 2007, 02:48 PM

I consider the convenient selective rejection of inductive reasoning I find at the evolutionist sites hipocritical and an absolute idiocy. That's why I avoid them like a plague.

Understandable. Do you have any specific example?

Kotatsu

23rd December 2007, 02:50 PM

The Wiki entry on Archeoraptor does a good job describing what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeoraptor

Must like Nebraska man, it was not a case of scientists trying to perpetrate a hoax, it was an example of overzealous journalists/editors making a full story out of one that was only half-written. As soon as paleontologists were able to actually look at the fossils the jig was up.

Ah, thank you! This is something for me to look forward to when I get back to work after New Year's!

Kotatsu

23rd December 2007, 02:58 PM

Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years. However,
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_14.php

But the group that put together that book --- which I, as I mentioned before, have studied somewhat --- only escape being prize-winning morons and liars only because they have not won any prizes for it! It is a complete mish-mash of rubbish, and the author has not even checked what the pictures he is comparing are pictures of! You might as well use the last two seconds of a sock commercial as support for your claim.

However, the book does contain nice pictures of rabbits.

Kotatsu

23rd December 2007, 03:00 PM

I overlooked this:

With all those millions of years I have to wonder why there are no man/dinos?

They had plenty of time heck they were walking in a up right position.

Because there is no reason to expect any group of organisms to evolve a resemblance to any other group of organisms to which they are not at least somewhat related. Why should they have evolved into human-like dinosaurs? Because you feel that is the perfect shape?

Kotatsu

23rd December 2007, 03:04 PM

The second sentence on that page contains two flagrant lies, do I need to read any further?

I think you would really appreciate the hard-copy book. It is beautiful, with those pictures on the cover that appear to be moving when you tilt the cover just so.

It's also extremely large and heavy, and from personal experience, it can handle being thrown away in disgust several times.

Also, as I said before, the pictures of rabbits are cute.

Prometheus

23rd December 2007, 06:27 PM

Then what are you dating bone or the replacement?

Er, neither. Carbon dating dates the carbon :mgduh

Halcyon Dayz

23rd December 2007, 07:00 PM

It helps to actually see some examples of what they're talking about.

With a bit of practise, minutes to make one off those. :eek:

I think you would really appreciate the hard-copy book. It is beautiful, with those pictures on the cover that appear to be moving when you tilt the cover just so.

It's also extremely large and heavy, and from personal experience, it can handle being thrown away in disgust several times.

Also, as I said before, the pictures of rabbits are cute.

:)

Radrook

24th December 2007, 12:49 AM

Recommended reading for Radrook:
Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, by John A. Moore.

You STILL can't understand what I'm saying! Otherwise you wouldn't bring up irelevancies. In other words you are very possibly not reading my explanations or simply can't understand a simple idea expressed inclear English or else simply are striving to annoy-all which is a complete waste of time.

BYE!

Radrook

24th December 2007, 12:54 AM

I have had normal chickens, under normal conditions, that did not lay eggs- we called them "roosters". So, the premise is invalid. Moreover, according to your intro- we must establish that a hen is living under "normal" conditions to assert it lays eggs. For example, hens stop laying eggs on hot days. You omitted that consideration from your syllogism. This exemplifies my assertion (previous post) that there are things you have to know before you can reason successfully.

Valid premise? Conclusions are the ones which are valid or invalid.
The premise isn't referred to with that term. Which shows immediately your ignorance of the whole syllogistic process. The premise is either true or untrue. The conclusion is either valid or invalid.

Establish that WHAT? That the hen is living under normal conditions? You don't even seem to be able to understand that the animal in question isn't any particular animal. Hot days? Well, those are not normal egg laying conditions if these interfere with egg laying are they? Also, you demand the impossible. That I go into endless specifics in a premise statement. Which again demonstrates your profound ignorance. Furthermore, it should be quite obvious to a person of normal intelligence that I am not including roosters. To people of normal intelligence the mention of egg laying automatically eliminates that possibility. So you aren't playing with a full deck on many fronts my friend.

BTW

I'm sure you understood fully what I mean. Which goes to show that you are more interested in your ridiculous ineffective irrelevant nitpicking than in the intended concept involved. So since that is the case you are hopeless in terms of true discussion.

Also, for your ad-hominem diatribe drivel to be at leastr moderately effective it needs more intellectual ummph! Maybe if you reincarnate?

Bye!

Radrook

24th December 2007, 12:58 AM

Why does Radrook still talk about "atheistic evolution" when he's been repeatedly corrected that there is in fact no such thing?

Is feigning incomprehension of previously-explained concepts all that you have? This is more boring than it is annoying.

Acleron

24th December 2007, 01:17 AM

RadRook has been to shown to be wrong in the original list, wrong in his logic and wrong in his facts (little as they may be). It is of little surprise he is bored, the same thing happens every time he posts. As he has put so many people on ignore (he says;)) he must be looking at a nearly blank screen when he logs in.

Radrook

24th December 2007, 01:18 AM

Understandable. Do you have any specific example?

Did you read my inductive reasoning explanation which has a direct bearing on your question? If so, please either agree or disagree. Also, if you do disagree, then please provide logical reasons for your disagreement with my inductive reasoning argument.

Radrook

24th December 2007, 01:25 AM

Neither you nor anyone here has proven anything except that you fanatically hold a one sided view which you consider irrefutable but which in true reality doesn't have a logical leg to stand on. If it did, then you would respond to the logic and not attempt ad hominem. Ad hominem is used by those whose ideas are impoverished that they can think of nothing else to say-so they-umm-mindlessly ad hominem.

As for boredom-I'm not bored with what's on my screen since I make sure that I keep it relevant via the ignore of all irrelvant drivel option.

BTW

I understand the frustration of those ignored who want to continually call me names and portray me as ignorant, unreasonable, liar, etcetera. But unfortunately I would rather have a productive conversation and avoid the uneccessary screen clutter which tends to slow down my surfing via distraction.

Sorry!

JJM

24th December 2007, 01:28 AM

Did you read my inductive reasoning explanation which has a direct bearing on your question? If so, please either agree or disagree. Also, if you do disagree, then please provide logical reasons for your disagreement with my inductive reasoning argument.I remember when I was in 10th grade.

Radrook

24th December 2007, 01:39 AM

Okay, but, it's important to realize that, from the point of view of strict scientific reasoning, there are not 2 camps of evolution called "theistic evolution" and "atheistic evolution"; in fact, whether or not one happens to be an atheist is completely irrevelevant to evolution. It's sort of like saying some evolutionists are brunette and some are blonde. Yes, it's true, but it's trivial because there is no relationship between hair color and acceptance of evolution. It's just a coincidence.

I understand the statement that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution but I disagree that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution as understood by those who believe that abiogenesis started life. If I, as an evolutionist, do not prefer to believe in abiogeneis to provide the life that will evolve, then my evolution will not happen unless abiogeneisis happens. Agreed? No abiogenesis no life. No life no evolution. So in that sense they are inextricably connected since one provides the material for the other to begin.

It seems to me as if you are claiming that evolutionists who require abiogenesis to start life do not believe that abiogenesis is necessary for the evolution process to have started? But that's a blatant contradiction. So I suspect that's not really what you are saying is it?

BTW

That abiogenesis is necessary for evolution as believed by atheists is not my original idea since to is repeatedly stated on the Internet by scientists who are also creationists. So I am not pulling the concept out of a hat as you and others here seem to be imagining.

Acleron

24th December 2007, 02:22 AM

JoeEllison

24th December 2007, 02:25 AM

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 04:29 AM

Did you read my inductive reasoning explanation which has a direct bearing on your question?

I see in your post no specific example of "convenient selective rejection of inductive reasoning". I may see examples of selective rejection of illogical religious claptrap, but the terms are not synonymous.

UnrepentantSinner

24th December 2007, 07:06 AM

No abiogenesis no life. No life no evolution. So in that sense they are inextricably connected since one provides the material for the other to begin.

Falacious equivocation.

It does not matter if life on Earth started with abiogenesis, panspermia, fiat creation by a diety or if it's the result of an experiment by hyperdimensional high schoolers. Whatever started life on Earth has no influence - at least that we can tell - on how evolution has occured since that beginning.

Edit - why is it woos like DOC and Radrook that waste so much time bitching about being understood, "substanceless" replies and such instead of just addressing the points raised by those opposed to them?

I've done my fair share of bitching about the content of posts by people who oppose me, but it's usually a sentence or two in a response where I go on to substantively reply rather than just rant about how people are being mean to me, etc.

joobz

24th December 2007, 07:36 AM

Neither you nor anyone here has proven anything except that you fanatically hold a one sided view which you consider irrefutable but which in true reality doesn't have a logical leg to stand on.
Really? Have you established a logical argument that proves this?
If it did, then you would respond to the logic and not attempt ad hominem. Ad hominem is used by those whose ideas are impoverished that they can think of nothing else to say-so they-umm-mindlessly ad hominem.You see insults when your arguments are shown to be baseless. The only shame is you would rather continue to parrot these terrible arguments than actually read what others, who are much smarter than yourself, have said to you.

As for boredom-I'm not bored with what's on my screen since I make sure that I keep it relevant via the ignore of all irrelvant drivel option.Keep telling yourself that. But I get the feeling you know better or else you wouldn't try so hard to convince us otherwise.

BTW

I understand the frustration of those ignored who want to continually call me names and portray me as ignorant, unreasonable, liar, etcetera. You've been proven
ignorant, unreasonable, a liar, a parrot, etc.
But unfortunately I would rather have a productive conversation and avoid the uneccessary screen clutter which tends to slow down my surfing via distraction.thou dost protest too much.

Most of us would improve our shortcomings to avoid such labels. You choose to simply ignore those pointing out the obvious. What ever makes you happy.

bokonon

24th December 2007, 09:51 AM

I understand the frustration of those ignored who want to continually call me names and portray me as ignorant, unreasonable, liar, etcetera. But unfortunately I would rather have a productive conversation and avoid the uneccessary screen clutter which tends to slow down my surfing via distraction.
I'm not frustrated at all. I can still present my arguments to those with sense enough to comprehend them. The last time I demolished the feeble arguments you presented, your response was to call me names and portray yourself as an ignorant, unreasonable liar. But that's par for the course when one attempts to discuss science with a creationist.

Why people laugh at creationists (part 11) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttnU8Tbwtd0)

Radrook

24th December 2007, 12:08 PM

I see in your post no specific example of "convenient selective rejection of inductive reasoning". I may see examples of selective rejection of illogical religious claptrap, but the terms are not synonymous.

What a sudden transformation! But it wasn't really unexpected. Corner an atheist evolutionist and all rebuttal attempts cease, blindess to facts is conveniently claimed, and discussion comes to end. But in a way I don't bvlame you since there is no way to discredid the inductive process and any attempt on your part would necessitate your playing the intellectual buffoon. Not that you aren't doing this now, but since ypou consider it the lesser of the two evils in order to protect your pet idea you choose to bow out in this equally deceitful way. No problemo and no hard feelings. In any case, thanx for your previous logicalk approach. Twas interesting. Now? Well, sadly there is nothing more to expect but more evasive maneuvers via unfounded claims and emotionally laden accusations. So for the sake of avoiding additional thread clutter. Peace! : )

BYE!

joobz

24th December 2007, 12:19 PM

What a sudden transformation! But it wasn't really unexpected. Corner an atheist evolutionist and all rebuttal attempts cease, blindess to facts is conveniently claimed, and discussion comes to end. But in a way I don't bvlame you since there is no way to discredid the inductive process and any attempt on your part would necessitate your playing the intellectual buffoon. Not that you aren't doing this now, but since ypou consider it the lesser of the two evils in order to protect your pet idea you choose to bow out in this equally deceitful way. No problemo and no hard feelings. In any case, thanx for your previous logicalk approach. Twas interesting. Now? Well, sadly there is nothing more to expect but more evasive maneuvers via unfounded claims and emotionally laden accusations. So for the sake of avoiding additional thread clutter. Peace! : )

BYE!
Kotatsu!
One of us!
One of us!
One of us!

Radrook

24th December 2007, 12:26 PM

Why would someone use the term "evolutionist", except as a dishonest ploy to equate science with creationist stupidity? If you're an intellectually honest and educated person, you're an "evolutionist" by default. There's no need for the term, except as part of promoting superstitious nonsense.

This is really hilarious!

Anyone using the term evolutionist is being dishonest.
That evolutionist used the term evolutionist
That evolutionist is dishonest.

All evolutionists are intellectually honest
The scientists who lied hoaxed were evolutionists.
THe scientists who lied and hoaxed were intellectually honest.

All anti-evolutionist arguments are efforts to promote superstitious nonsense
That inductive reasoning argument is anti evolutiuonist
That anti evolutionist inductive reasoning argument is superstitious nonsense.

Now comes the humdinger!

There is no need to use the term "evolution" when discussing evolution.
The term "evolution" was used while discusing evolution.
The term "evolution" was needlessly used.

BTW

Thanx for the laugh!

Foster Zygote

24th December 2007, 12:36 PM

Thanx for the laugh!

Likewise.

edge

24th December 2007, 01:00 PM

Bump on that Radrook!

skepHick

24th December 2007, 01:01 PM

Kotatsu, I can hardly believe you lasted this long, what with all your logic and facts and fancy book learnin' in that biolowhatsit stuff. You get an A+++ for patience and effort, though.

So...are we officially here yet?

Evilution is a not a valid scientific theory because [insert creationist spew here].

You are so right! Obviously anyone buying into it is either a stupid-head or a liar with an atheist agenda!

Absolutely! Well, looks like I showed them, because nobody is here presenting any opposing arguments anymore, are they?

Yeah, buddy! BTW, you do have your finger poised over the ignore button just in case another one sneaks in here with all their propoganda and disinformation, right?

[twitches finger] Oh, yeah! Locked and loaded!

edge

24th December 2007, 01:03 PM

Er, neither. Carbon dating dates the carbon :mgduh

One of your buddys says,
It is known that various factors like variability of cosmic ray intensity, volcanic activity, changes in solar wind activity, changes in the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field and even nuclear bomb tests can cause variations in the amount of C14 production.
Acambaro,

John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro and in 1956, in Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Victor J. Bortolet, Director of Research of Daybreak Nucleari Archaeometrics Laboratory Services for dating. Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit of age to 2,000 years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago. (8)

John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team at Ohio State University. The team of experts consisted of Dr. J.0. Everhart (Chairman of the Department of Ceramic Engineering) Dr Earle R Caley, (among the world's most respected archaeological chemist) and Dr Ernest G Ehlers (mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University). They reported that they could not believe the artifacts were made in modern times nor could they believe they were made by some amateur who tried to perpetuate a fraud. Upon my notifying them that they had authenticated Julsrud artifacts they lapsed into a profound and apparent permanent silence.

Herrejon and Julsrud did not realize that the absence of patina on the objects would later erupt into accusations that they could not be old or authentic. Julsrud ignorantly commenced the cleaning of all the artifacts back in the 1940's. The job was completed by Tinejero and his helpers.

However, there are many eyewitnesses who saw Julsrud's excavating of the ceramic pieces and confirm that the artifacts had patina and dirt on them.

In my handling of several hundred pieces of the Julsrud collection, I have observed pieces that still have dirt embedded in the crevices as well as some patina on the surface.

Edge, you know nothing about how rocks are dated, don't you think you should learn something about it before pontificating.
These aren’t good enough?
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm

Quote:
Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates that appear in the Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years.
And we have the intermediate forms to prove it.

The Cambrian fossil record has revealed the characteristics of an enormous variety of living things, all appearing suddenly and independently of one another. And these are not the descendents of the organisms described above!
The California University evolutionist biologist James W. Valentine makes this confession:
The fossil record is of little use in providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the phyla or of invertebrate classes. Each phylum with a fossil record had already evolved its characteristic body plan when it first appeared, so far as we can tell from the fossil remains. And no phylum is connected to any other via intermediate fossil types [emphasis added]. Indeed, none of the invertebrate classes can be connected with another class by a series of intermediates. The relationships among phyla and classes must be inferred on the basis of their resemblance. However, even the most sophisticated techniques of phylogeny analysis have thus far failed to resolve the great differences of opinion concerning the relationships among phyla (or among many classes as well).14

Instead of imaginary pre-Cambrian intermediate-form fossils, we encounter an increasing number of complex Cambrian organisms. This fact prompted Bruce Runnegar, the California University evolutionist and professor of paleontology, to make this admission:

http://www.harunyahya.us/books/darwinism/cambrian/cambrian3.php
But when, 140 years later, Prof. Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1999, the fossil record still posed the same problem.
About half of the major animal groups appear, fully formed, in the Cambrian strata of rocks, with out any fossilised ancestors. This is how Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, describes it:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/48/65/

Evidence of gradualism between phyla, classes and even orders is either non-existent or is much disputed. Certainly, no pervasive pattern of gradualism exists. George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged this decades ago as he described the situation in these terms:

"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
· Simpson, G. G. (1944)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution
Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107
Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.
· Darwin, Charles
On the Origin of Species, 1st edition
Harvard Univ. Press, facsimile reprint, 1964, p. 307
Note: In Darwin's time, the "Silurian" was the name given the oldest known fossil-bearing strata. "Cambrian" does not occur as an index entry in this edition of the Origin.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/cambrian.html
o
o "From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107).
o
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html#fsslrcrdgpsncmbrnxplsnrmnspzzlhwvr

Well where are they?

For you Hokulele
The only real fossil bones are from the ice age am I right?

I should have said the mammalian era.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/dinosaur-pictures/index.html

The fossil interruption of this animal was somewhat wrong before this discovery.
Now lets see bone that isn’t fossilized and a mummified fossil?
Dinosaurs still alive today.
According to God we de-evolved we fell, according to evolutionists we evolved, we fell up.
I don’t buy it just because I have seen and felt and touched.

Acleron

24th December 2007, 01:07 PM

This is really hilarious!

Anyone using the term evolutionist is being dishonest.
That evolutionist used the term evolutionist
That evolutionist is dishonest.

All evolutionists are intellectually honest
The scientists who lied hoaxed were evolutionists.
THe scientists who lied and hoaxed were intellectually honest.

All anti-evolutionist arguments are efforts to promote superstitious nonsense
That inductive reasoning argument is anti evolutiuonist
That anti evolutionist inductive reasoning argument is superstitious nonsense.

Now comes the humdinger!

There is no need to use the term "evolution" when discussing evolution.
The term "evolution" was used while discusing evolution.
The term "evolution" was needlessly used.

BTW

Thanx for the laugh!

You can refrain from stupidity when it suits you. All of the above is quite idiotic. Try ignoring the creationists and join the free thinkers, it may open your mind.

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 01:17 PM

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 01:22 PM

Kotatsu, I can hardly believe you lasted this long, what with all your logic and facts and fancy book learnin' in that biolowhatsit stuff. You get an A+++ for patience and effort, though.

Oh please, you make me blush for practically nothing. If you want patience and effort, look at the Ron Paul thread, although even there I believe it is slowly wearing thin.

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 01:24 PM

Kotatsu!
One of us!
One of us!
One of us!

I'm in the ingroup!

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 01:26 PM

According to God we de-evolved we fell, according to evolutionists we evolved, we fell up.

"Falling up" to me implies some kind of universal progress towards perfection. The theory of evolution states no such thing.

edge

24th December 2007, 02:02 PM

"Falling up" to me implies some kind of universal progress towards perfection. The theory of evolution states no such thing.

Tell me that's a joke?

Part 1: "Examining the Record"
In the first part of The Case for Christ, Strobel defends the historical reliability of the New Testament. He considers five lines of evidence: (a) the eyewitness evidence, (b) documentary evidence, (c) corroborating evidence, (d) scientific evidence, and (e) rebuttal evidence.
(a) Eyewitness Evidence: Strobel dedicates two chapters to summarize his interview of Craig Blomberg concerning the four gospels. Blomberg acknowledges that "strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous" (p. 26). Nonetheless, Blomberg suggests that the four gospels were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and therefore the canonical gospels are eyewitness testimony. According to Blomberg, this fact is confirmed by Papias (writing circa CE 125) and Irenaeus (writing circa 180); the authorship of the gospels was never in doubt among early Christians. And Blomberg dismisses the Q hypothesis as "nothing more than a hypothesis" (p. 31). Yet the two-source hypothesis--that Matthew and Luke were written with a copy of Mark and Q in front of them--is not just an arbitrary assumption held only by liberal scholars. The evidence has led even conservative scholars to accept the existence of Q. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary has written an excellent paper, "The Synoptic Problem," which argues for both Markan priority and the existence of Q.[4] Yet if the two-source hypothesis is correct, Matthew and Luke are based heavily on Mark; it is therefore unlikely that Matthew and Luke constitute independent accounts. Moreover, the traditional authorship of Mark is open to serious question.[5] Finally, it is unlikely that John was authored by John, son of Zebedee, for it seems to have been heavily edited and reworked.

Read as much as you can or you can rent it from movie gallery.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

Myth your eye!
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi

There's a lot of fact there.

By the way Merry Christmas!

edge

24th December 2007, 02:08 PM

One more thing, the battle I fight isn't with a straw dragon but one of spirit, the spirit of the dragon of deceptions!

Foster Zygote

24th December 2007, 02:13 PM

One of your buddys says,
You are attempting a lie of omission. Let me fix it for you:
It is known that various factors like variability of cosmic ray intensity, volcanic activity, changes in solar wind activity, changes in the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field and even nuclear bomb tests can cause variations in the amount of C14 production. These variations are checked against other dating methods in order to make corrections to the dating scale.
Why did you quote the part that, taken alone, you can represent as a support of your claim, while omiting the part that shows that you are wrong? BTW, the anomalies that are corrected for amount to only a few percent error.

John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures...
When you provide a quote it is customary to cite the source. The source of this quote is "Dr." Dennis Swift, who represents himself as a Ph.D. when in fact he has a degree in theology from the University of South Africa. He has no credentials in the fields of paleontology or archeology at all. As for the "dating":
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acambaro_figures). Don Patton, another young-earth creationist supporter of the figures, has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years. The laboratories that produced these dates have claimed that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the laboratories discovered what they were dating, they retracted their original dates in order to keep with the science community’s agenda of suppressing “real” knowledge.
The very idea that they claim to have used radiocarbon dating on inorganic clay figures shows just how inept they are.

CapelDodger

24th December 2007, 02:55 PM

The very idea that they claim to have used radiocarbon dating on inorganic clay figures shows just how inept they are.

It almost beggars belief. It certainly casts doubt on their veracity.

CapelDodger

24th December 2007, 03:16 PM

Tell me that's a joke?

Is what follows that is a joke?

Part 1: "Examining the Record"
In the first part of The Case for Christ, Strobel defends the historical reliability of the New Testament. He considers five lines of evidence: (a) the eyewitness evidence, (b) documentary evidence, (c) corroborating evidence, (d) scientific evidence, and (e) rebuttal evidence.
(a) Eyewitness Evidence: Strobel dedicates two chapters to summarize his interview of Craig Blomberg ...

Hearsay evidence, inadmissable.

... concerning the four gospels. Blomberg acknowledges that "strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous" (p. 26).

Strictly speaking?

Nonetheless, Blomberg suggests that the four gospels were in fact
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ...

We're told he suggests that, but again suggestions are inadmissable. They're just suggestions.

... and therefore the canonical gospels are eyewitness testimony.

Only if the authors were there at the time, and even then we'd have to question their veracity. Whoever they were they were propagandists.

Mark, Matthew and Luke contain errors concerning Jewish practices of the time. Mark in particular seems to get his ideas from Vespasian's triumph and the dioramas it included (for which we have historical evidence).

According to Blomberg, this fact is confirmed by Papias ...

"According to ... is confirmed ..." by somebody else who was certainly not an eyewitness.

... (writing circa CE 125) and Irenaeus (writing circa 180) ...

See what I mean about not being eyewitnesses?

... the authorship of the gospels was never in doubt among early Christians.

Most won't have had access to any of them, let alone all; John in particular is hardly Christian at all. Consider this : if early Christians had no doubt about the gospels, why did only these four become canonical, and others heretical? When do you think doubt started to intrude?

Kotatsu

24th December 2007, 03:20 PM

Tell me that's a joke?

Read as much as you can or you can rent it from movie gallery.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

I am too tired to look at that properly at the moment, but is this review of a book about religion supposed to convince me that the theory of evolution claims that all organisms are striving towards some future perfect state of being?

By the way Merry Christmas!

Too late for that, as we celebrate it on Christmas Eve here in Sweden, but the same to you.

Prometheus

24th December 2007, 03:36 PM

I understand the statement that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution but I disagree that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution as understood by those who believe that abiogenesis started life. If I, as an evolutionist, do not prefer to believe in abiogeneis to provide the life that will evolve, then my evolution will not happen unless abiogeneisis happens. Agreed? No abiogenesis no life. No life no evolution. So in that sense they are inextricably connected since one provides the material for the other to begin.

Evolution is the same to those who believe that life was started by a deity of some sort, as it is to those who believe that abiogenesis started life. It's exactly the same theory of evolution. I was once a member of the first group, and I later became a member of the second group, but my idea of evolution did not change in any way when I made that transition. Evolution happened, and it continues to happen. I know this. I don't know what started life, though I believe it was abiogenesis. There is no contradiction between my knowlege of the first idea and my belief of the second.

It seems to me as if you are claiming that evolutionists who require abiogenesis to start life do not believe that abiogenesis is necessary for the evolution process to have started? But that's a blatant contradiction. So I suspect that's not really what you are saying is it?

You are correct to infer that that is not what I am claiming. What I'm claiming is that there are no evolutionists who require abiogenesis to start life. There are evolution scientists who infer that abiogenesis did start life from some of the same evidence which is also used to prove the hypothesis that evolution led to the current diversity of life. However, this is an entirely separate inference.

That abiogenesis is necessary for evolution as believed by atheists is not my original idea since to is repeatedly stated on the Internet by scientists who are also creationists. So I am not pulling the concept out of a hat as you and others here seem to be imagining.

I don't believe I've ever accused you of pulling anything out of a hat. I'm aware that that particular belief is often repeated by some creationists, but that's not why it's wrong. Abiogenesis is simply not required for evolution, regardless of who espouses it. I became an atheist at around the same time that I realized that some of the evidence which convinced me of the fact of evolution could also support an additional inference, that there is no god. However, that inference is certainly no where near as strong as the demonstration of evolution. That evolution has occurred and continues to occur is a falsifiable description of the natural world, and as such, can be, and has been, tested by science. That there is no god is a non-falsifiable, non-naturalistic claim, which may be logically inferred from certain evidence, so it cannot ever be tested by science. However, even if it should turn out that this inference is wrong, and God suddenly shows up and proves His existence to me, that will in no way affect my understanding of evolution.

Hokulele

24th December 2007, 03:52 PM

For you Hokulele

I should have said the mammalian era.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/dinosaur-pictures/index.html

The fossil interruption of this animal was somewhat wrong before this discovery.
Now lets see bone that isn’t fossilized and a mummified fossil?
Dinosaurs still alive today.
According to God we de-evolved we fell, according to evolutionists we evolved, we fell up.
I don’t buy it just because I have seen and felt and touched.

Thanks, but I have seen the articles on the fossilized hadrosaurs already (there are more than one).

And honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say in the rest of this. Please note that there is no such thing as de-evolution. Everything changes to better fit their environment. It does not mean that creatures must become more complex. Read about parasites and see how evolution can appear to work backwards by moving from complexity to simplicity.

joobz

24th December 2007, 08:13 PM

You are attempting a lie of omission. Let me fix it for you:

Why did you quote the part that, taken alone, you can represent as a support of your claim, while omiting the part that shows that you are wrong? BTW, the anomalies that are corrected for amount to only a few percent error.

When you provide a quote it is customary to cite the source. The source of this quote is "Dr." Dennis Swift, who represents himself as a Ph.D. when in fact he has a degree in theology from the University of South Africa. He has no credentials in the fields of paleontology or archeology at all. As for the "dating":

The very idea that they claim to have used radiocarbon dating on inorganic clay figures shows just how inept they are.
Very nicely presented.
I think your post demands a response from Edge. In order to maintain any sense of credibility, he must account for why he purposefully took a quote out of context which gave a different meaning than what was intended.

Radrook

24th December 2007, 11:10 PM

wollery

25th December 2007, 12:40 AM

Hokulele

25th December 2007, 12:45 AM

It is being claimed as a requirement during the time it is being said to have started the life process since otherwise under that assumed concept evolution would be impossible.

One can only hold one solid position at a time. So my argument was addressed to the hypothetical of the necessary abiogenesis scenario. The problem arises when a pro abiogenesis as necessary for life position is taken, and then other scenarios are brought in and I am accused of applying my anti-abiogenesis argument to those non-abiogenesis scenarios as well.

If I claim that raindrops are the tears of the gods and that if they did not cry then it wouldn't rain-then that's the position which will be argued against. If I bring in other hypotheticals and claim that the person is applying his argument against those as well, then that constitutes a false accusation.

Of course if you shift from an abiogenesis evolution scheme to one not requiring abiogenesis I would never have claimed that you are believing abiogenesis is necessary to evolution. It is only necessary to evolution if it is postulated as the process by which life emerged and that then evolution followed.

Whether other positions not requiring abiogenesis and yet believing in evolution is possible is a side issue irrelevant to the abiogenesis as necessary position I was addrerssing and under which my argument is valid and irrefutable.

You are still wrong in that you are still equating abiogensis with atheism. There have been many other origin of life arguments that do not require any deities, most of which make as little sense as a literal interpretation of Genesis. For example, one such is Panspermia. In this case, you would still have evolution working exactly as it is observed, and neither an intelligent designer nor abiogenesis is necessary. So once again, evolution does not require abiogenesis and can be evaluated on its own merits. Only in your mind does evolutionary theory and the observations that support it require this.

Since I have just provided one example of an atheistic version of life on earth's history that does not require abiogenesis, your argument is invalid and refuted.

joobz

25th December 2007, 10:19 AM

It is being claimed as a requirement during the time it is being said to have started the life process since otherwise under that assumed concept evolution would be impossible.

One can only hold one solid position at a time. So my argument was addressed to the hypothetical of the necessary abiogenesis scenario. The problem arises when a pro abiogenesis as necessary for life position is taken, and then other scenarios are brought in and I am accused of applying my anti-abiogenesis argument to those non-abiogenesis scenarios as well.

If I claim that raindrops are the tears of the gods and that if they did not cry then it wouldn't rain-then that's the position which will be argued against. If I bring in other hypotheticals and claim that the person is applying his argument against those as well, then that constitutes a false accusation.

Of course if you shift from an abiogenesis evolution scheme to one not requiring abiogenesis I would never have claimed that you are believing abiogenesis is necessary to evolution. It is only necessary to evolution if it is postulated as the process by which life emerged and that then evolution followed.

Whether other positions not requiring abiogenesis and yet believing in evolution is possible is a side issue irrelevant to the abiogenesis as necessary position I was addrerssing and under which my argument is valid and irrefutable.
Hokulele got the right of it.
Wollery also explains the truth clearly.

So, we are back to where we all were before you placed us all on ignore.
Let's just pretend that all of us don't believe in abiogenesis and think that god did it. How does this matter to the debate of evolution?

Remember, you have already claimed to doubt theistic evolution. (what ever that is.)

So, Why do you think evolution is irrational?
What theory do you have that ties together all 18 fully seperate points I made previously that are clearly explained by the simple concept of evolution?

Radrook

25th December 2007, 10:25 AM

Conclusion

Well, I had hopes that my explanations clarifications would diminish misunderstanding or at the least the repeated misrepresentation of my viewpoint. Sadly that has not been thecase. To my dismay, my induction argument in support of ID is totally ignored in favor of clouding the issue which elicits another clarification which would be invariably followed by another evasive tactic. In view of this, it is best that I not continue. However, as a parting gesture and in order to illustrate the futility of continuing, I provide the follwiong hypothetical conversation between myself and an evolutionist based on the responses I received on this thread.

Example I

Radrook: Induction justifies the conclusion of ID.

Evo: abiogenesis isn't necessary for evolution to be true.

Radrook: It is for those thinking it a necessary start to life.

Evo: I could find out there is a God right now who created all and still would believe in evolution.

Radrook: I was directing my argument specifically at those who believe that abiogenesis started life.

Evo: Such people would still believe even if abiohgenesis was found to be false.

Radrook: But that's irrelevant to the ones who believe it necessary when they are believing it necessary.

Evo: abiogenesis isn't necessary for evolution to be true.

ad infinitum

Exampe II

Radrook: Would you please consider the induction justification for ID I offered.

Evo: There is plenty of evidence proving that evolution is a fact.

Radrook: The induction process makes an ID conclusion logical and justified.

Evo: What you are saying is claptrap just as all the info found at creationist sites is claptrap.

Radrook: Well, I consider what evolutionists say as claptrap.

Evo: The only reason you use the word evolution is to bring in creationist drivel.

Radrook: Is it drivel to reach a justifiable conclusion based on inductive reasoning?

Evo: All chickens aren't hens!

Example III

Radrook: I only provided the list in response to a comment indicating that only morons
would be creationists.

Evo: Your list proves nothing in terms of the reality of evolution.

Radrook: That was not the reason I posted it for.

Evo: There are far more scientists in favor of evolution than there are creationists.

Radrook: That's bandwagon.

Evo: But it applies if the creationist scientists are jerks.

Example IV

Radrook: There is an inconsistency of scientific method in reference to ID evidence.

Evo: You only mention ID in order to bring in God!

Radrook: No, I want to keep this subject non-religious.

Evo: Then why bring in God?

Radrook: I am using the term ID in order to keep God out of the subject.

Evo: That's just a cover to bring in God.

Radrook: Why don't you address the inconsistency of scientific method application instead of creating strawman arguments?

Evo: There goes Radrook again being a crybaby.

Conclusion:

In short, the primary reason for most "participants" here seems to be is heckling and jeckling with the hope that the nonevolutionist will flee proving to the participants' satisfaction that a blow has been struck in favor of evolution.

A true pity since this website deserves a true skeptical approach to subjects discussed and a true skeptical approach doesn't include ignoring explanations and logical counterarguments while creating strawmen.

IMHO

bokonon

25th December 2007, 10:38 AM

I addressed your inductive argument, and you chose to call me ignorant and put me on ignore. You won't be missed.

joobz

25th December 2007, 10:38 AM

how about I show the way the conversation goes. I'll even use actual quotes. Hey, I already did this, but you know...

I’d thought it’d be fun to go through this thread and follow Radrook’s argument.

Radrook originally claimed a naturalistic argument against evolution.
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3246478#post3246478)

I have never stated that personally dislike is the reason for not accepting evolution. I clearly stated that evolution doesn't offer me the necessary evidence to convince me.

When pressed for these proofs, he would say,
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3248722#post3248722)
My sole effort is to show that the basis for ATHEISTIC evolutionary acceptance violates cogent reasoning.

Then again attempt to insult “evolutionists” trying to comparisons to religion.
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3246478#post3246478)
Most evolutionists have Darwinian texts in there libraries and other such textbooks they follow religiously. But I don't judge them on that. I focus on their claims and the validity of the evidence they present which I find unconvincing.

He would offer more explanations of how his anti-evolutionist views are based upon reason, he said:
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3246478#post3246478)
I don't depend on the arguments on any specific scientist list for my conclusions.

And separating himself further from any religious argument, Radrook added
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3246478#post3246478)
This has nothing to do with religious affiliation, beliefs, quackery ad infinitum. It has to do with the quality of evidence, applicability of logic, and the adherence or lack of adherence to the scientific method.

And then provided a clear set of point to prove his argument is rationalist based.

Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3251421#post3251421)
1. I'm not a young earth creationist.

2. Abiogeneisis is not an observed phenomenon-it is inferred. Neither is it demonstrable undr controled laboratory conditions. So calling it a fact requires a dismissal of both logic and the scientific method.

Radrook really wanted us to know that his argument is not religious. There is no religious reason for him to be anti-evolution…
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3251421#post3251421)
3.I never mentioned religion in this discussion. In fact, I never even mentioned God. The ones who keep introducinmg religion and God, just as you just did, are the evolutionists on this forum.

Even though he continues to say that evolution is atheistic….
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3251421#post3251421)
4. If God is involved as you describe then it isn't abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires the absence of life producing life. If life initiates life in onbe way or another, then it isn't abiogenesis.

Merriam WebsMain Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: \ˌā-ˌbī-ō-ˈje-nə-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
Date: 1870
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter

But would then follow this statement with…
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3251421#post3251421)
5. I didn't say that evolution requires atheism. Didn't I just make that clear in one of my most recenrt posts?

Following this very “clear” rational argument against evolution and establishing that Radrook’s point is not in any way religiously motivated, he explains
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3251836#post3251836)
Godless Evolutionists do not constitute the universe. In fact, as was pointed out in the film "CONTACT" baed on a novel by Car l Sagan, they are a very small minority on this earth.

And then ends with a clear explanation of how he rationally opposes evolution
Originally Posted by Radrook http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3267995#post3267995)
However, the only conviction I can reach is that the present universe is the result of imntelligent design. From my standpoint anything contradicting that basic fact is deception.

Radrook has failed to offer any critique of evolution. Only what he calls atheistic evolution. If he feels that such a shifting of focus (from being against evoution to being against "athiesitic evolution) that's fine. However, then, he must admit that all of science supports evolution (regardless of the biogenesis of the process) as a real and consistent process which describes much of biology.

bokonon

25th December 2007, 10:41 AM

I do think there's one point here which deserves to be addressed: Edge's questions about the dating of fossils found in sedimentary rock. I don't have time right now (some friends are coming over), but I plan on getting to it in the next couple of days.

Achán hiNidráne

25th December 2007, 10:46 AM

So Radrook's "debate" procedure is thus:

1. Radrook makes some wild ass claim.
2. Poster tell him how he wrong and/or lying.
3. Radrook feigns indignity and puts the poster on his Ignore List.
4. Repeat until all dissenting posters are silenced.
5. No longer receiving any challenges to his bullcrap, Radrook declares victory and proclaims the debate concluded.

What a piece of fecal material.

Olowkow

25th December 2007, 10:51 AM

This is part of a rant by P.Z. Meyers that I find delightful prose.

Disclaimer: Not directed at anyone on the forum!

P.Z. Meyers: Somebody is seriously overcompensating, aren't they? That's some piece of twisty-turny logic couched in arch and overwrought language. Just a suggestion, Mr Wood: you can't fill a vacuum with pedantry, no matter how much you try to shovel in.

Let me help. I get this argument all the time: "you wouldn't be so angry if the Designists/Creationists/Illuminati/Holocaust Deniers/Second Gunmen/Flat Earthers weren't right!" It's a very silly rationale, and no, writing it in a more longwinded style doesn't help.

For the full text, and the original lengthy email go to:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/i_get_email_5.php#more

joobz

25th December 2007, 10:52 AM

So Radook's "debate" procedure is thus:

1. Radook makes some wild ass claim.
2. Poster tell him how he wrong and/or lying.
3. Radook feigns indignity and puts the poster on his Ignore List.
4. Repeat until all dissenting posters are silenced.
5. No longer receiving any challenges to his bullcrap, he declares victory and proclaims the debate concluded.

What a piece of fecal material.
yes. But it does offer some funny moments. Like when he posts arguments that those of us on ignore have predicted he will make and haev already refuted.

Radrook

26th December 2007, 09:49 AM

Radrook

26th December 2007, 09:50 AM

deleted double post

Foster Zygote

26th December 2007, 10:17 AM

So the majority of scientist evolutionists reject abiogenesis? That's untrue. The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the commencement of life. It's mentioned repeatedly in astronomy when extraterrestrial life possibilities are discussed. Mentionewd repetedly when the emergence of life on earth is considered. And it is constantly put forth as an accepted fact.

The argument goes as followes:

1. Presence of water = higher probability of abiogenesis.

2. Absence of water = less or no probability of abiogenesis.

The same applies to all the other ingredients considered necessary for abiogenesis to have chance. So when creationists or non-evolutionists focus on abiogenesis, they do so for a very good and justifiable reason-it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the starter of life. This is so well-known as to make any claim to the contrary ridiculous.

Suggestion: If evolutionist scientists do not wish to have abiogenbesis as a necessary first then they should stop describing it as a necessary first. In short, you can't have your pie and eat it too.

BTW
Whether nonscientists do or do not consider it necessary to evolution is irrelevant to the fact that such is the scientific OFFICIAL stand on the issue. And it is to that stand that I am obviously speaking in my arguments.

I realize that Radrook has placed so many of us on ignore because he doesn't want to have to admit that he is wrong, but as Joobz noted, it looks really sad because everyone else can still see that he is wrong.

For example: Radrook will not now learn that when we say abiogenesis isn't necessary for evolution, we mean that it isn't necessary to understand abiogenesis in order to understand evolution. Similarly, one needn't understand how iron ore is processed in order to know how to repair an automobile. Abiogenesis is virtually certain to be a component of the grand story of life, but we don't need to understand how life generates to understand how it can change once formed.

I wonder if Radrook will eventually abandon this thread to avoid further embarrassment, or if he will keep it going indefinitely, ignoring all and repeating the same falsified arguments over and over like Kleinman.

fishbob

26th December 2007, 10:19 AM

Numbered for my convenience:
1 - So the majority of scientist evolutionists reject abiogenesis? That's untrue. The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the process leading to the commencement of life. . . .

2 - . . . Whether nonscientists do or do not consider it necessary to evolution is irrelevant to the fact that such is the scientific OFFICIAL stand on the issue. And it is to that stand to which I am obviously referring in my arguments.

1 - No, you have made a faulty conclusion. The theory of evolution does not require abiogenesis. The validity of abiogenesis is independent from evolution. The two ideas are not linked. They are separate concepts.
Science 'requires' nothing other than valid data and honest interpretation.

2 - Can you get me a copy of the OFFICIAL science rule book?
I seem to have never seen one.

Hokulele

26th December 2007, 10:28 AM

... So when creationists or non-evolutionists focus on abiogenesis, they do so for a very good and justifiable reason-it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the starter of life. This is so well-known as to make any claim to the contrary ridiculous...

The only time I see creationists leap to a discussion of abiogenesis is when they realize that their arguments against evolution are failing, and need to move the goalposts to a field where they feel they have a stronger argument. Pity that is not the case.

Radrook

26th December 2007, 10:28 AM

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - No, you have made a faulty conclusion. The theory of evolution does not require abiogenesis. The validity of abiogenesis is independent from evolution. The two ideas are not linked. They are separate concepts.
Science 'requires' nothing other than valid data and honest interpretation.

2 - Can you get me a copy of the OFFICIAL science rule book?
I seem to have never seen one.

You are arguing against your own idea-not mine.
As for science rule book, if the shoe fits wear it. In fact, no need since you already are. Also, a course in basic English reading comprehension is recommended.

JJM

26th December 2007, 10:55 AM

I realize that Radrook has placed so many of us on ignore because he doesn't want to have to admit that he is wrong, but as Joobz noted, it looks really sad because everyone else can still see that he is wrong.But it lets us write admiringly about his "logic" without him seeing it.

{snip} I wonder if Radrook will eventually abandon this thread to avoid further embarrassment, or if he will keep it going indefinitely, ignoring all and repeating the same falsified arguments over and over like Kleinman.I doubt it. By ignoring all detractors he can demonstrate his superiority and claim a Pyrrhic victory (without the actual victory).

Foster Zygote

26th December 2007, 11:21 AM

Also, a course in basic English reading comprehension is recommended.

I couldn't hear him over the noise of the irony.

Prometheus

26th December 2007, 08:36 PM

So the majority of scientist evolutionists reject abiogenesis? That's untrue. The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the process leading to the commencement of life.

There are evolution scientists who believe life started on this planet as a result of abiogenesis.
There are evolution scientists who believe life started on this planet as a result of exogenesis.
There are evolution scientists who believe life started on this planet as a result of panspermia.
There are evolution scientists who believe life started on this planet as a result of a deity/designer.

All of them agree that evolution is well supported by literally millions of pieces of verified, physical evidence. They all agree that evolution best describes what has happened to life after it got started. But how life got started is a completely different question from what happened to it after it got started. No part of the theory of evolution says anything at all about which of the above possibilities is the way in which life got started.

It's mentioned repeatedly in astronomy when extraterrestrial life possibilities are discussed. Mentionewd repetedly when the emergence of life on earth is considered.

Of course it is. Why on earth would scientists who study life not be interested in how life arises? This is the most important question in the field, and everyone in the field is interested whenever anyone finds something that might point toward an answer.

And it is constantly put forth as an accepted fact.

I've never seen abiogenesis put forth as an accepted fact. I have seen it put forth as the most likely possibility that can be logically inferred from available evidence, and that's exactly what it is, so far. If you can find an example of an evolution scientist who does put forth abiogenesis as a settled fact, then I will happily admit that that scientist is dishonest and/or incompetent and should not be trusted.

The same applies to all the other ingredients considered necessary for abiogenesis to have chance. So when creationists or non-evolutionists focus on abiogenesis, they do so for a very good and justifiable reason-it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the starter of life. This is so well-known as to make any claim to the contrary ridiculous.

Again, yes, abiogenesis is generally accepted as the most likely starter of life. And evolution scientists, being biologists, are certainly interested in the origin of life, as are all other biologists. But it's still a separate question from what happened to life after it got started. Evolution only speaks to what happened after life got started. If it turns out that abiogenesis did not start life on this planet, that discovery will in no way affect what we know about what happened to life after it started.

Suggestion: If evolutionist scientists do not wish to have abiogenbesis as a necessary first then they should stop describing it as a necessary first. In short, you can't have your pie and eat it too.

Scientists do not describe it as "necessary" only as most likely.

Whether nonscientists do or do not consider it necessary to evolution is irrelevant to the fact that such is the scientific OFFICIAL stand on the issue. And it is to that stand to which I am obviously referring in my arguments.

There is no "OFFICIAL stand" on any issue in science. The scientific community forms a consensus as to what is the most likely explanation for available evidence. It then repeatedly attempts to test that consensus opinion. If it never fails a test, then it remains the most likely explanation. If it does fail a test, then it is scrapped in favor of a new explanation. Use of the word "official" to describe this process makes no sense.

joobz

26th December 2007, 08:46 PM

Do I need to make any new additions to the Radrook play book?
1.) Claim science based reason to doubt evolution.
2.) Give random evidence of evolution being suspect
random evidence pool= hoaxes, lists of scientists, etc.
3.) Upon being corrected on how those points do not disprove evolution, respond with a claim that random evidence wasn't provided to disprove evolution go back to step 1.
4.) Upon being asked for evidence, respond with abiogenesis is illogical
5.) Upon being told Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis, respond with atheism evolution.
6.) Upon being told evolution isn't about god/atheism, respond with this isn't a religion discussion go back to step 1.
7.) Upon being told how evolutionary processes can be ID or naturalistic based, respond with a claim to understand that atheistic evolution is unscientific. Go back to step 1 or step 6.
Nope.

wollery

27th December 2007, 12:08 AM

But nobody here holds that abiogenesis is necessary to evolution, that's a strawman argument. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the first life, just the process by which life changes form over time. It doesn't make any difference to evolution how the life got there in the first place.

No one other than a creationist equates abiogenesis with evolution, in any way, shape or form.

So the majority of scientist evolutionists reject abiogenesis? That's untrue. Yes, it is untrue, largely because it bears absolutely no resemblance to what I said.

I said that evolution is unaffected by how life got started, so abiogenesis is not required for evolution. That's not to say that most scientist in the field don't think that abiogenesis is how life got started, but that it doesn't have any impact on evolution.

The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the process leading to the commencement of life.No, they don't.

It's mentioned repeatedly in astronomy when extraterrestrial life possibilities are discussed.Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganic chemistry and planetary science.

Mentionewd repetedly when the emergence of life on earth is considered.Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganic chemistry and planetary science.

And it is constantly put forth as an accepted fact. No, it's usually put forth as the most likely naturalistic explanation.

The argument goes as followes:

1. Presence of water = higher probability of abiogenesis.

2. Absence of water = less or no probability of abiogenesis.No, that's the argument for Terrestrial abiogenesis, since all Terrestrial life requires water. It's possible that life on other planets could use a different liquid, such as Methane on cold worlds.

The same applies to all the other ingredients considered necessary for abiogenesis to have chance.Yes. Was there a point to that?

So when creationists or non-evolutionists focus on abiogenesis, they do so for a very good and justifiable reason-it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the starter of life.Let me correct that last bit for you - it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the most probable starter of life.

This is so well-known as to make any claim to the contrary ridiculous.Apparently, so well known that you get it completely wrong.

Suggestion: If evolutionist scientists do not wish to have abiogenbesis as a necessary first then they should stop describing it as a necessary first.Nobody describes it as a necessary first. It is the most likely first, but as has been explained to you over and over again, evolution would work just as well if God created the first living organisms. Evolution does not care where the life comes from, it is only concerned with what happens once it is there.

In short, you can't have your pie and eat it too.Because it's an imaginary pie, baked in an imaginary oven from imaginary ingredients. And it looks remarkably like a gingerbread man. No wait, that looks more like straw.

BTW
Whether nonscientists do or do not consider it necessary to evolution is irrelevant to the fact that such is the scientific OFFICIAL stand on the issue. And it is to that stand to which I am obviously referring in my arguments.No, it isn't. Science has no OFFICIAL stand on anything. And I say that as a research scientist.

ABIOGENESIS IS NOT NECESSARY TO EVOLUTION.

If it were, then there would be no way anyone who believed that abiogenesis was wrong could also believe that evolution was right. But there are people who believe that abiogenesis is wrong, and evolution right. There are evolutionary scientists who believe that abiogenesis is wrong, and evolution right.

You are arguing against your own idea-not mine.
As for science rule book, if the shoe fits wear it.Do you know where I can purchase this rule book? Because as far as I am aware the only rule in science is, "Keep asking questions."

Also, a course in basic English reading comprehension is recommended.This from someone who takes, "A is not necessary for B" to mean, "Most people who believe B reject A"!!!

ArmillarySphere

27th December 2007, 01:31 AM

Logic doesn't seem to be Radrook's strong point, does it?
I liked the attempt at humour (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3274177&postcount=640) he posted before ... it's almost a textbook example of the difference between A -> B and B -> A

bokonon

27th December 2007, 04:17 AM

Conclusion

It is best that I not continue. However, as a parting gesture...
I've got your parting gesture right here. Or is that a gesturing part?

Back so soon? Shouldn't you wait until you have something new and/or pertinent to say?

Radrook

27th December 2007, 07:57 AM

Yes, it is untrue, largely because it bears absolutely no resemblance to what I said.

I said that evolution is unaffected by how life got started, so abiogenesis is not required for evolution. That's not to say that most scientist in the field don't think that abiogenesis is how life got started, but that it doesn't have any impact on evolution.

And I clearly keep saying that I am referring to evolutionists who believe that abiogenesis is how life got started while you keep bringing in the others because you seem unable to understand plain English.

Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganic chemistry and planetary science.

Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganic chemistry and planetary science.

No, it's usually put forth as the most likely naturalistic explanation.

[No, that's the argument for Terrestrial abiogenesis, since all Terrestrial life requires water. It's possible that life on other planets could use a different liquid, such as Methane on cold worlds.

So according to you, terrestrial abiogenesis isn't seen as possible on other planets because it is terrestrial and can only happen here. So scientists are not saying that they are looking for life on other planets and moons because abiogenesis might have occurred but because it might have been created buy ID as well.

That's the biggest pile of BULLOCKs anyone has posted here in a long time. Do you really expect people to be that gullible?

Actually, your denial of what is patently evident for all to see is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who sees that non-ID abiogenesis is the position taken by most scientists as evidenced by their constanbtluy harping on how water determines life emergeance prtobabilities.

Let me correct that last bit for you - it is the viewpoint generally accepted in scientific circles as the most probable starter of life.

It is spoken of as if it were a fact--not just a remote or likely possibility as you want us to believe.

Apparently, so well known that you get it completely wrong.

Nobody describes it as a necessary first. It is the most likely first, but as has been explained to you over and over again, evolution would work just as well if God created the first living organisms. Evolution does not care where the life comes from, it is only concerned with what happens once it is there.

And I have repeatedly explained to the seemingly blind and deaf explainers that they are arguing against their own premise and am ignored in favor of chanting the same tiresome mindless song to which I eventually am forced to respond via the ignore option in order to get rid of the constant mindless irrelevant chatter.

BTW

Evolution might not care but the most scientists who fanatically subscribe to it do and show it clearly by their constant harping on it as the starter of life-not only here, but everywhere it might happen be found. A pre-bio evolution of sorts.

Because it's an imaginary pie, baked in an imaginary oven from imaginary ingredients. And it looks remarkably like a gingerbread man. No wait, that looks more like straw.
No, it isn't. Science has no OFFICIAL stand on anything. And I say that as a research scientist.

Credentials don't make you immune to irrationality in behalf of your own pet idea as is evident by your constant penchant for going off on irrelevant tangents based on your own arguments concocted by yourself and argued against by yourself.

ABIOGENESIS IS NOT NECESSARY TO EVOLUTION.

If it were, then there would be no way anyone who believed that abiogenesis was wrong could also believe that evolution was right. But there are people who believe that abiogenesis is wrong, and evolution right. There are evolutionary scientists who believe that abiogenesis is wrong, and evolution right.

Do you know where I can purchase this rule book? Because as far as I am aware the only rule in science is, "Keep asking questions."

This from someone who takes, "A is not necessary for B" to mean, "Most people who believe B reject A"!!!

Since you continue to misrepresent my premise--cponcoct your own, attribute them to me ad then arfue against it, my recommendation of English comprehension classes remains. Also, perhaps a revision of how inductive reasoning applies the the scientific method is in order as well.

Excerpt:

If abiogenesis is such a "non-issue," then why do Dawkins, Gould and many other major darwinists trouble themselves to explain how it must have happened? Why such excited headlines over the possible evidence of life on a Mars rock?

Why all the money and effort spent by SETI, NASA (recently on the Mars Rover probes), a probe to Saturn's moon, and many others to find life (and/or conditions for its abiogenesis) in space? (...or to find water, which --to some-- makes abiogenesis an easily assumed result).

And why does every newly discovered planet (or moon) that might have (or does have) water on it cause such a hopeful stir (such as the March 2006 discovery of water geysers on Saturn's moon "Enceladus" ...called "the greatest space discovery in 25 years")?

This abiogenesis quest is admittedly NASA's main reason for much of their efforts.

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKd...iogenesis.html

Radrook

27th December 2007, 08:23 AM

Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganicchemistry and planetary science.

Yes. It's a reasonable hypothesis given what is known about organic and inorganic chemistry and planetary science.

Reasonable? That's really laughable!

What is known about inorganic chemistry is that it doesn't result in abiogenesis but trhat life proceeds only from life. But that little fact is unimportant isn't it? As is the fact that you cannot reproduce the phenomenon under controlled conditions of a laboratory. As is the fact that inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against abiogenesis and in favor of ID.

Those are very unimportant facts considered unimporatant when it comes to your pet idea because you consider the alternative unpalatable.

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

BTW

I strongly suggest that you become familiar with what being reasonable is really all about.

cyborg

27th December 2007, 08:28 AM

Those are very unimportant facts considered unimporatant when it comes to your pet idea because you consider the alternative unpalatable.

Irony.

unable to understand plain English.

Irony.

Prometheus

27th December 2007, 09:34 AM

And I clearly keep saying that I am referring to evolutionists who believe that abiogenesis is how life got started while you keep bringing in the others because you seem unable to understand plain English.

Okay, let's leave all the others out of it. The following is still true: For only those evolution scientists who are convinced that life formed on this planet via abiogenesis, abiogenesis is still completely and utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is important to them because, as biologists, they are justifiably interested in the origins of life. Evolution is also important to them because, as biologists, they are interested in how life changes regardless of how it gets started. Your arguments against abiogenesis belong in a thread about abiogenesis, not in a thread about evolution. They could also possibly be used in an attempt to refute atheism, in a religion thread.

Evolution might not care but the most scientists who fanatically subscribe to it do and show it clearly by their constant harping on it as the starter of life-not only here, but everywhere it might happen be found. A pre-bio evolution of sorts.

So what? Suppose you know a guy who keeps insisting that: 1) The sun will rise tomorrow; and 2) The moon is made of green cheese. Suppose you disabuse him of belief number 2 by, say, handing him a moon rock. Would you really want to say that, because he was wrong about belief number 2, that therefore he must also be wrong about belief number 1? This is an exact analogy for what you seem to be trying to do by bringing abiogenesis into the argument.

Credentials don't make you immune to irrationality in behalf of your own pet idea as is evident by your constant penchant for going off on irrelevant tangents based on your own arguments concocted by yourself and argued against by yourself.

You might want to take a look at some of the people you have on ignore, who have demonstrated very clearly, with quotations from your posts, that this is exactly what you have been doing.

Since you continue to misrepresent my premise--cponcoct your own, attribute them to me ad then arfue against it, my recommendation of English comprehension classes remains. Also, perhaps a revision of how inductive reasoning applies the the scientific method is in order as well.

I teach English comprehension classes, at the college level. I'm sure your posts here are not the full picture, so I'm not making any claim as to what your level of English comprehension really is. However, with no other evidence but your posts here to go on, I'd have to say that you would likely have difficulty earning anything above a "C" in my class.

Inductive reasoning is a necessary but insufficient first step in the scientific method. In other words, yes, you have to have it, but if that's all you've got then you don't have science.

bokonon

27th December 2007, 09:42 AM

And I clearly keep saying that I am referring to evolutionists who believe that abiogenesis is how life got started while you keep bringing in the others because you seem unable to understand plain English.
Why don't you just concede that your arguments thus far have nothing to do with evolution, and that you're essentially only questioning the possibility of abiogenesis?

So according to you, terrestrial abiogenesis isn't seen as possible on other planets because it is terrestrial and can only happen here. So scientists are not saying that they are looking for life on other planets and moons because abiogenesis might have occurred but because it might have been created buy ID as well.

That's the biggest pile of BULLOCKs anyone has posted here in a long time. Do you really expect people to be that gullible?
Are you saying that ID is a falsifiable hypothesis? Would the discovery of life on other planets refute ID?

By definition, terrestrial anything can only happen on earth. That's what terrestrial means. I would think that someone who constantly chides others for failing to understand English would know that.

wollery

27th December 2007, 10:08 AM

And I clearly keep saying that I am referring to evolutionists who believe that abiogenesis is how life got started while you keep bringing in the others because you seem unable to understand plain English.No, you claimed that you were arguing against scientists who required that abiogenesis was a necessary precursor for evolution.
The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the process leading to the commencement of life.Which is untrue.

So according to you, terrestrial abiogenesis isn't seen as possible on other planets because it is terrestrial and can only happen here. So scientists are not saying that they are looking for life on other planets and moons because abiogenesis might have occurred but because it might have been created buy ID as well.For someone who keeps saying that I have difficulty with English comprehension, your own is incredibly poor. I said;
It's possible that life on other planets could use a different liquid, such as Methane on cold worlds.It's possible. Scientists look for water, because for the one and only planet that we know has life on it water is a vital ingredient. And I never mentioned ID, but suggested that abiogenesis may have started life on other planets by other methods.

That's the biggest pile of BULLOCKs anyone has posted here in a long time. Do you really expect people to be that gullible?It's entirely factually accurate. What's crap is your misrepresentation of my position, by suggesting that I said ID was involved. I said no such thing. You said it.

Actually, your denial of what is patently evident for all to see is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who sees that non-ID abiogenesis is the position taken by most scientists as evidenced by their constanbtluy harping on how water determines life emergeance prtobabilities.Yes, most scientists believe in non ID abiogenesis. Of course, the "non ID" part is superfluous.

It is spoken of as if it were a fact--not just a remote or likely possibility as you want us to believe.I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between someone saying what they believe based on the balance of probabilities and someone spouting pseudo-religious claptrap, but that's your problem.

And I have repeatedly explained to the seemingly blind and deaf explainers that they are arguing against their own premiseWhich premise would that be?

and am ignored in favor of chanting the same tiresome mindless song to which I eventually am forced to respond via the ignore option in order to get rid of the constant mindless irrelevant chatter.You ignore people who point out where you are wrong. That they do so repeatedly is because you seem to have problems understanding what they are saying.

BTW

Evolution might not care but the most scientists who fanatically subscribe to it do and show it clearly by their constant harping on it as the starter of life-not only here, but everywhere it might happen be found. A pre-bio evolution of sorts.It's the most probable naturalistic explanation. Of course it's the most commonly offered explanation by those who favour naturalistic explanations. To offer a less probable explanation would be stupid. You still haven't shown anybody who claims that it is a necessary precursor to evolution, which is what you stated earlier.

Credentials don't make you immune to irrationality in behalf of your own pet idea as is evident by your constant penchant for going off on irrelevant tangents based on your own arguments concocted by yourself and argued against by yourself.I am responding to your arguments, and your arguments alone. Please point out where I have done anything else. Where have I gone off on a tangent? Where have I concocted arguments? Please provide quotes, and quotes of what I was responding to to demonstrate this, or retract it.

Since you continue to misrepresent my premise--cponcoct your own, attribute them to me ad then arfue against it I quoted your premise above, but I'll do it again here.

The majority of scientists evolutionists require abiogenesis as the process leading to the commencement of life.Which is untrue.

my recommendation of English comprehension classes remains.What part of the above quote did I misinterpret? If you wish to retract it, then fine, I'll stop pointing out that it's wrong.

Also, perhaps a revision of how inductive reasoning applies the the scientific method is in order as well.I understand perfectly how inductive reasoning applies to the scientific method. It's how I earn a living.

Reasonable? That's really laughable!

What is known about inorganic chemistry is that it doesn't result in abiogenesis but trhat life proceeds only from life. But that little fact is unimportant isn't it? As is the fact that you cannot reproduce the phenomenon under controlled conditions of a laboratory. As is the fact that inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against abiogenesis and in favor of ID.Wrong. That something has never been observed does not make it wrong. Inductive evidence is irrelevant since nobody has ever observed the first origins of life, one way or the other. By your logic life has always been around.

Those are very unimportant facts considered unimporatant when it comes to your pet idea because you consider the alternative unpalatable.The alternative is perfectly palatable. If you can show evidence of Intelligent biogenesis then I'll happily accept that. Do you have any evidence, or just your reasoning?

fishbob

27th December 2007, 10:45 AM

You are arguing against your own idea-not mine.
As for science rule book, if the shoe fits wear it. In fact, no need since you already are. Also, a course in basic English reading comprehension is recommended.

It can't be irony (an expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning) ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony) because it is definitely not deliberate.

What the heck is it then?

Prometheus

27th December 2007, 11:00 AM

It can't be irony (an expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning) ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony) because it is definitely not deliberate.

What the heck is it then?

Actually, as a literary device, the deliberate form is referred to as "Socratic irony". If it's not deliberate (the audience sees it but the protagonist does not) then it's referred to as "tragic irony"

Acleron

27th December 2007, 11:03 AM

It is all resolved in RadRook's signature
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion,

No evidence, no thinking, no logic and little civility, just a brain churning around in itself.

For the nth time, if your confusion of abiogenesis and evolution was true, then the fact that I believe a lightly poached piece of cod in a Mornay sauce tastes good and that I believe in evolution because of the evidence then there must be a connection between the two.

I know you won't see the sarcasm in that, but we have really tried with you.

joobz

27th December 2007, 02:29 PM

What is known about inorganic chemistry is that it doesn't result in abiogenesis but trhat life proceeds only from life. But that little fact is unimportant isn't it? As is the fact that you cannot reproduce the phenomenon under controlled conditions of a laboratory. As is the fact that inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against abiogenesis and in favor of ID.
Why would you invoke inorganic chemistry? Why would you think this is a smart thing to say?

Radrook

27th December 2007, 04:17 PM

Okay, let's leave all the others out of it. The following is still true: For only those evolution scientists who are convinced that life formed on this planet via abiogenesis, abiogenesis is still completely and utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is important to them because, as biologists, they are justifiably interested in the origins of life. Evolution is also important to them because, as biologists, they are interested in how life changes regardless of how it gets started. Your arguments against abiogenesis belong in a thread about abiogenesis, not in a thread about evolution. They could also possibly be used in an attempt to refute atheism, in a religion thread.

And there is the crux of the matter summarized in one fell-swoop sentence-the all-pervasive insistent pernicious suspicion that this isn't really about anything other than religion-or that my motives are to be suspected as religiously motivated. Which of course is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand:

1. Are people believing in evolution justified in accusing those who believe in ID as being irrational and not having evidence to support their conclusion?

You see, during this whole discussion I have been perceived as being on the attack against evolution and abiogenesis. Or that it has been the main thrust of my argument. Being perceived thus of course initiate's a counterattack defending evolution and abiogenesis. As a consequence, I became embroiled in the inexorable gist of the misunderstanding and deviated from my prime directive-the refutation of that particular accusation. Not that my responses weren't valid, only that the main thrust of my argument was neglected and the irrelevant drift perpetuated.

As for abiogenesis being completely irrelevant to scientists who embrace it as the starter of pre-biotic evolution leading to evolution proper, that makes no sense at all since it would effectively demolish the foundation or the initial stages of the process leading to the process they claimed happened based on the process.

In short, that kind of claim sounds very much like double talking your way around the conundrum in order to perpetuate a conundrum-or postulating a paradox while refusing to acknowledge it as a paradox.

The sad thing about it is that if you ask any scientist worth his salt he would admit that an abiogenesis claim logically links it to evolution based on its temporal priority and the removal of the first would logically require the nonexistence of the latter. Saying otherwise is like saying that the process of star formation could have happened without the Big Bang while claiming that the Big Bang as the starter of the universe.

So in reality what we have here is essentially gobbledygook trying to be passed off as science and fallacious reasoning trying to be passed off as cogent reasoning. It wouldn't be so sad if it weren't so easy to detect.

So what? Suppose you know a guy who keeps insisting that: 1) The sun will rise tomorrow; and 2) The moon is made of green cheese. Suppose you disabuse him of belief number 2 by, say, handing him a moon rock. Would you really want to say that, because he was wrong about belief number 2, that therefore he must also be wrong about belief number 1? This is an exact analogy for what you seem to be trying to do by bringing abiogenesis into the argument.You might want to take a look at some of the people you have on ignore, who have demonstrated very clearly, with quotations from your posts, that this is exactly what you have been doing.

That is a false analogy since there is absolutely no causal relation between sun rising and moon being made of green cheese in this hypothesis. Now, if the guy tells me that the existence of one is dependent on the other due to temporal priority, then one would expect the one which came after, the moon, to not be able to exist unless the sun did first. Which is exactly what abiogenesis evolutionists are saying when they accept or postulate abiogenesis as the starting point for life.

In reference to arguments put forth by others whom I was forced to place on ignore due to heckling, deviating from subject, ad hominem etcetera, I'm pretty certain that the gist of the message is approx. the same with very few exceptions.

I teach English comprehension classes, at the college level. I'm sure your posts here are not the full picture, so I'm not making any claim as to what your level of English comprehension really is. However, with no other evidence but your posts here to go on, I'd have to say that you would likely have difficulty earning anything above a "C" in my class. Inductive reasoning is a necessary but insufficient first step in the scientific method. In other words, yes, you have to have it, but if that's all you've got then you don't have science.

If indeed you really are an English comprehension instructor then I feel apprehension for any of your students since you are only now coming around to understanding a position that I had clearly explained repeatedly. As for my English comprehension and expression ability it was officially evaluated to be at the doctoral level which is more than suffice for the purposes of this discussion. As for comprehension, I would give you an "F" if you had continued to claim incomprehension, but since you are beginning to see the light I will grant you a D +--and I am being generous.

As for your dismissal of inductive reasoning as irrelevant to conclusions leading to premises, leading to scientific conclusions--that's absurd. Science cannot operate without inductive reasoning to generate premises because if you remove the inductive process you very effectively lobotomize all your hypothetical scientists making them virtual zombies incapable of thought not only in reference to science-but in reference to everyday living as well.

Now, I don't know what your educational level is apart from what you claim it to be, but if I were to judge by that statement, I would have to place you somewhere in the grammar school level of thought.

Radrook

27th December 2007, 05:06 PM

No, you claimed that you were arguing against scientists who required that abiogenesis was a necessary precursor for evolution.
Which is untrue.

For someone who keeps saying that I have difficulty with English comprehension, your own is incredibly poor. I said;
It's possible. Scientists look for water, because for the one and only planet that we know has life on it water is a vital ingredient. And I never mentioned ID, but suggested that abiogenesis may have started life on other planets by other methods. It's entirely factually accurate. What's crap is your misrepresentation of my position, by suggesting that I said ID was involved. I said no such thing. You said it. Yes, most scientists believe in non ID abiogenesis. Of course, the "non ID" part is superfluous.

Scientist look for water because we live on this watery planet and life is present on this watery planet and evolution theory claims we all originated in the primeval seas after abiogenesis took place and the evolution process then had a chance to begin. It's all tied together very neatly. But that neatness in itself means nothing.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference between someone saying what they believe based on the balance of probabilities and someone spouting pseudo-religious claptrap, but that's your problem.

There you go again Jimmy! Why is it that you must constantly bring in religion? In order to give the impression that the whole argument is based on blind faith. Why not ethically and honestly direct your attention at the argument itself instead of this constant annoying effort to malign my motives? Do you really believe that by misrepresenting my approach you are making your ideas more believable. Don't you realize that you are in fact diminishing your credibility by showing yourself capable of deceit?

Which premise would that be?
You ignore people who point out where you are wrong. That they do so repeatedly is because you seem to have problems understanding what they are saying.

That's YOUR interpretation of why I ignore certain people. Your interpretation despite my clear explanations as to why.

It's the most probable naturalistic explanation. Of course it's the most commonly offered explanation by those who favor naturalistic explanations. To offer a less probable explanation would be stupid. You still haven't shown anybody who claims that it is a necessary precursor to evolution, which is what you stated earlier.

My inductive reasoning tells me otherwise. As for statements, they are being constantly made as clear as day whenever they say that all that's needed is a little bit of water and some amino acids for life to emerge and begin evolving. Your denial doesn't obliterate reality.

I am responding to your arguments, and your arguments alone. Please point out where I have done anything else. Where have I gone off on a tangent? Where have I concocted arguments? Please provide quotes, and quotes of what I was responding to demonstrate this, or retract it. I quoted your premise above, but I'll do it again here.
Which is untrue. What part of the above quote did I misinterpret? If you wish to retract it, then fine, I'll stop pointing out that it's wrong. I understand perfectly how inductive reasoning applies to the scientific method. It's how I earn a living.

As long as you keep accusing me of saying that belief in evolution requires belief in abiogenesis you are misrepresenting my clearly stated viewpoint since I have never taken that position which I am constantly challenged to defend regardless of how many times I
explain myself. Which ultimately convinces me that the person doesn't understand clear English and that further attempts at mutual communication would be futile.

Wrong. That something has never been observed does not make it wrong. Inductive evidence is irrelevant since nobody has ever observed the first origins of life, one way or the other. By your logic life has always been around.

1. There is no logical basis to assume that life has always been around simply because we observe it's reproduction today.

2. I never said that because something has never been observed it is automatically untrue or that believe in it is wrong.

3. Inductive reasoning makes direct observation unnecessary.

BTW

No 3 is in response to statement.

The alternative is perfectly palatable. If you can show evidence of Intelligent biogenesis then I'll happily accept that. Do you have any evidence, or just your reasoning?

All observations are in favor of life coming only from prior life. All observations are that complex machinery is the product of mind. Abiogenesis and godless evolution deny these observations. So I consider such conclusions illogical.

Foster Zygote

27th December 2007, 05:26 PM

Why would you invoke inorganic chemistry? Why would you think this is a smart thing to say?

Even I know that "organic chemistry" simply refers to chemistry based on the carbon atom. Given that life is carbon based it seems extremely likely that abiogenesis would involve carbon atoms, although inorganic chemistry may have been involved at some point as a sort of "scaffolding".

One more thing that Radrook will likely never learn.

bokonon

27th December 2007, 05:29 PM

It is all resolved in RadRook's signature
Even there, he misspelled "swill."

Foster Zygote

27th December 2007, 05:29 PM

As for my English comprehension and expression ability it was officially evaluated to be at the doctoral level which is more than suffice for the purposes of this discussion.

Would someone please press Radrook for details on this. It smells of DavidJayJordan claiming to have a "science degree".

ETA: I mean come on! Just the fact that he missuses the verb "suffice" in place of the adjective "sufficient" while bragging about his expert command of English is self-parody gold.

bokonon

27th December 2007, 06:12 PM

1. Are people believing in evolution justified in accusing those who believe in ID as being irrational and not having evidence to support their conclusion?
In cases like yours, where no evidence is being presented beyond "abiogenesis has never been observed, therefore evolution is impossible," the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"

Is there a "2" here? No, I guess not. Add "short attention span" to "irrational."

As for abiogenesis being completely irrelevant to scientists who embrace it as the starter of pre-biotic evolution leading to evolution proper, that makes no sense at all since it would effectively demolish the foundation or the initial stages of the process leading to the process they claimed happened based on the process.
Again, your argument comes down to conflating "evolution" and "abiogenesis," and erroneously concluding that evolution cannot be valid unless and until abiogenesis can be demonstrated. That's simply not true, and repeating the assertion will never make it true.

If you want to discredit evolution, you will have to do the hard work of discrediting the evidence that supports evolution. After 18 pages of posts, you still haven't managed to address a single one of the points that were raised in support of evolution. Instead, you've simply continued to repeat your abiogenesis mantra.

The sad thing about it is that if you ask any scientist worth his salt he would admit that an abiogenesis claim logically links it to evolution based on its temporal priority and the removal of the first would logically require the nonexistence of the latter.
Name one scientist worth his salt who would say something so outlandish. That's your straw man, your "Johnny one note" fallacy.

Saying otherwise is like saying that the process of star formation could have happened without the Big Bang while claiming that the Big Bang as the starter of the universe.
The process of star formation could have happened without the big bang. Fifty years ago, when science was still giving equal weight to "big bang" and "steady state" models of the universe, the 1950s understanding of the evolution of stars could have applied to either. If the big bang theory were overturned tomorrow, it wouldn't mean astronomers were mistaken about star formation and the life cycle of stars.

Copernicus overturned Ptolemy's theory that the earth was the center of the planetary system, but he still had the planets moving in circular orbits. When Kepler later showed that the orbits were actually ellipses, he didn't go back and try to make the Ptolemaic system work.

Abiogenesis is a likely explanation for the origin of life, but if abiogenesis was shown tomorrow to be impossible, that would not invalidate any aspect of evolutionary theory. You have been told time and time again that the two are independent, but it doesn't seem to penetrate to the level of understanding.

So in reality what we have here is essentially gobbledygook trying to be passed off as science and fallacious reasoning trying to be passed off as cogent reasoning. It wouldn't be so sad if it weren't so easy to detect.
Even though it's easy to detect your gobbledygook, I find it more amusing than sad. It would be sad if 99% of scientists believed as you do, but since they believe pretty much the opposite of what you believe, and have actual evidence to support their beliefs, I don't find it sad at all.

Now, if the guy tells me that the existence of one is dependent on the other due to temporal priority, then one would expect the one which came after, the moon, to not be able to exist unless the sun did first. Which is exactly what abiogenesis evolutionists are saying when they accept or postulate abiogenesis as the starting point for life.
This new term you've introduced, "temporal priority," seems to assume that one thing depends on the other. All evolution has to assume is that life on earth began at some point. It doesn't matter how it began as far as evolution is concerned.

Let's say that I assume the lumber used to build my house came from Home Depot. At some point, you come along and point out that my house was built in 1990, but there was no Home Depot in my town until 1997. You may have convinced me that the lumber used to build my house didn't come from Home Depot, but the "temporal priority" doesn't mean that my house couldn't have been built. I may have to find some other explanation for where the lumber came from, but that doesn't invalidate the evidence that my house was, in fact, built.

As for my English comprehension and expression ability it was officially evaluated to be at the doctoral level which is more than suffice for the purposes of this discussion.
Your ability to express yourself in English may pass for "doctoral" at the Ken Hovind Bible College, but anyone who uses phrases like (to take just one example) "which is more than suffice for the purposes of this discussion," is obviously posturing beyond his ability to compose.

fishbob

27th December 2007, 06:29 PM

Since 'tragic irony' is my word of the day today, I would like to provide another fine example:

As for abiogenesis being completely irrelevant to scientists who embrace it as the starter of pre-biotic evolution leading to evolution proper, that makes no sense at all since it would effectively demolish the foundation or the initial stages of the process leading to the process they claimed happened based on the process.

In short, that kind of claim sounds very much like double talking your way around the conundrum in order to perpetuate a conundrum-or postulating a paradox while refusing to acknowledge it as a paradox.

Achán hiNidráne

27th December 2007, 07:49 PM

So? "Only life can create life," eh?

Is "god" alive?

If so, who created the "god" who Radrook and his Creationist ilk claim created us?

Who created the being who created the "god" who Radrook and his Creationist ilk claim created us?

Who created the being who created the being who created the "god" who Radrook and his Creationist ilk claim created us?

Who created the being who created the being who created being... Awww... you get the point.

Prometheus

27th December 2007, 10:18 PM

Evolution is also important to them because, as biologists, they are interested in how life changes regardless of how it gets started. Your arguments against abiogenesis belong in a thread about abiogenesis, not in a thread about evolution. They could also possibly be used in an attempt to refute atheism, in a religion thread.

And there is the crux of the matter summarized in one fell-swoop sentence-the all-pervasive insistent pernicious suspicion that this isn't really about anything other than religion-or that my motives are to be suspected as religiously motivated. Which of course is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand:

1. Are people believing in evolution justified in accusing those who believe in ID as being irrational and not having evidence to support their conclusion?

You see, during this whole discussion I have been perceived as being on the attack against evolution and abiogenesis. Or that it has been the main thrust of my argument. Being perceived thus of course initiate's a counterattack defending evolution and abiogenesis. As a consequence, I became embroiled in the inexorable gist of the misunderstanding and deviated from my prime directive-the refutation of that particular accusation. Not that my responses weren't valid, only that the main thrust of my argument was neglected and the irrelevant drift perpetuated.

First, while I realize that others in this thread have accused you of holding a religious motive, I have not. In the paragraph of mine that you quoted above, I pointed out that one of your arguments could possibly be useful in a religious discussion. This commentary does not speak to your motives in any way; it is strictly a criticism of the utility of that argument as regards the subject of evolution.

Second, I have not accused you or anyone else believing in ID of being irrational. As I've pointed out several times, I was once a sort of ID'er myself, in that I once believed that God created the universe and that He designed physical laws such that evolution would take place. At the same time, I was certain that abiogenesis had not taken place. I do not believe that I was irrational when I held these beliefs, as they were based on the same sort of inductive reasoning that you are using, but I now believe that I was wrong.

As for abiogenesis being completely irrelevant to scientists who embrace it as the starter of pre-biotic evolution leading to evolution proper, that makes no sense at all since it would effectively demolish the foundation or the initial stages of the process leading to the process they claimed happened based on the process.

In short, that kind of claim sounds very much like double talking your way around the conundrum in order to perpetuate a conundrum-or postulating a paradox while refusing to acknowledge it as a paradox.

I never said that abiogenesis is "completely irrelevant to scientists..." In fact I took great pains to point out that the question of how life originated is of vital interest to any biologist. Here is where you display a serious lack of comprehension skills, since you quote my words, and then scarcely ten sentences later you've apparently either completely forgotten them, or else you just don't understand them. I said:
....For only those evolution scientists who are convinced that life formed on this planet via abiogenesis, abiogenesis is still completely and utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is important to them because, as biologists, they are justifiably interested in the origins of life.

Perhaps I should repeat that just to help you remember, and this time with some extra bolding that might help you understand:

....For only those evolution scientists who are convinced that life formed on this planet via abiogenesis, abiogenesis is still completely and utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is important to them because, as biologists, they are justifiably interested in the origins of life.

Abiogenesis is important to the scientists, but it is not important to the theory of evolution. What part of that distinction is so difficult for you to grasp?

The sad thing about it is that if you ask any scientist worth his salt he would admit that an abiogenesis claim logically links it to evolution based on its temporal priority and the removal of the first would logically require the nonexistence of the latter. Saying otherwise is like saying that the process of star formation could have happened without the Big Bang while claiming that the Big Bang as the starter of the universe.

What is truly sad is your attempt at logic, but congratulations on your use of some big words. I can remember back when I was in high school, trying to impress my writing instructor by using important sounding phrases like "temporal priority" when just saying "one thing happened before another" would suffice.

He pointed out that if I really wanted to sound like a genius to anyone who's not paying attention, I could also say "Methodological observation of premature isolates indicates a causal relationship between downward tropism and lachrymatory behavior patterns" instead of the slightly less smart sounding equivalent, "Children cry when they fall down," but why bother?

In any case, "temporal priority" might sound good, but it's also a pretty lame attempt to hide the fact that you are committing the Post Hoc fallacy, known in critical thinking circles as a "rookie mistake". Sorry, but just because one thing happens after another, there is absolutely no implication of a connection. Your argument simply falls flat on its face.

So in reality what we have here is essentially gobbledygook trying to be passed off as science and fallacious reasoning trying to be passed off as cogent reasoning. It wouldn't be so sad if it weren't so easy to detect.

(Note to fishbob: In Greek tragedy, tragic irony is used to cause catharsis or emotional breakdown in the audience)

So what? Suppose you know a guy who keeps insisting that: 1) The sun will rise tomorrow; and 2) The moon is made of green cheese. Suppose you disabuse him of belief number 2 by, say, handing him a moon rock. Would you really want to say that, because he was wrong about belief number 2, that therefore he must also be wrong about belief number 1? This is an exact analogy for what you seem to be trying to do by bringing abiogenesis into the argument.

That is a false analogy since there is absolutely no causal relation between sun rising and moon being made of green cheese in this hypothesis. Now, if the guy tells me that the existence of one is dependent on the other due to temporal priority, then one would expect the one which came after, the moon, to not be able to exist unless the sun did first. Which is exactly what abiogenesis evolutionists are saying when they accept or postulate abiogenesis as the starting point for life.

No, it's not a false analogy, because there is absolutely no causal relationship between how
life got started, and what happened to it after it did. If someone tells you that the existence of one is depends on the other because of "temporal priority" then that someone is committing a logical fallacy.

As several people have pointed out already, nobody "postulates" abiogenesis, however if by "accept" you mean, "logically infer based on a preponderance of evidence" then, yes, we do that.

*****
I'm going to pretend we've never exchanged pleasantries regarding English comprehension, as your ability really does speak for itself, and I'd really rather keep this discussion civil and on-topic.

****

Finally, by what sort of arcane linguistic contortion are you able to take this:

Inductive reasoning is a necessary but insufficient first step in the scientific method. In other words, yes, you have to have it, but if that's all you've got then you don't have science.

and change it into this:

As for your dismissal of inductive reasoning as irrelevant to conclusions leading to premises, leading to scientific conclusions--that's absurd.

???

You then add:

Science cannot operate without inductive reasoning to generate premises...

Which is exactly what I said in the first place (perhaps the additional bolding will help):

Inductive reasoning is a necessary but insufficient first step in the scientific method. In other words, yes, you have to have it, but if that's all you've got then you don't have science.

Given the number of times you've accused others here of committing the strawman fallacy, I should think you'd be able to avoid doing so yourself.

Now, I don't know what your educational level is apart from what you claim it to be, but if I were to judge by that statement, I would have to place you somewhere in the grammar school level of thought.

If I'd actually made the statement that you attributed to me, then I'd agree with you, as it would take grammar school level thought to come up with such a ridiculous statement.

(note to fishbob: ;) )

fishbob

27th December 2007, 11:04 PM

(Note to fishbob: In Greek tragedy, tragic irony is used to cause catharsis or emotional breakdown in the audience)

I don't think that will happen with this audience.

I was optimistic before, maybe it is just plain old denial at work here.

Dancing David

28th December 2007, 04:36 AM

Scientist look for water because we live on this watery planet and life is present on this watery planet and evolution theory claims we all originated in the primeval seas after abiogenesis took place and the evolution process then had a chance to begin. It's all tied together very neatly. But that neatness in itself means nothing.

This sums it all up rather neatly.

Don Quixote tiling at straw windmills because he thinks they are giants.

Abiogenesis also might work if the water is there. I have never read a theory that it happened before the water here on earth. It doesn't matter anyhoo. I prefer a water based start but the archae bacteria might not care.

Say Radrook: why would ID make for the greatest diversity in bacteria?

I don't like it , not one bit. Dang commies and thier science.

wollery

28th December 2007, 05:44 AM

1. There is no logical basis to assume that life has always been around simply because we observe it's reproduction today.Your assertion was that life does not arise from non-life, from which it follows that since there is life today there must have always been life, in one form or another. Whether life on Earth arose from ID by aliens or by God, it must have been a lifeform of some sort.

2. I never said that because something has never been observed it is automatically untrue or that believe in it is wrong. And yet you dismiss abiogenesis precisely because it has never been observed.

3. Inductive reasoning makes direct observation unnecessary.Wait, you mean we can throw out all that expensive equipment that we use to make observations? :eek:

Clearly this is where I've been going wrong all these years. I've been painstakingly making observations, checking the data, calculating errors, when all I had to do was some inductive reasoning!

All observations are in favor of life coming only from prior life. All observations are that complex machinery is the product of mind. Abiogenesis and godless evolution deny these observations. So I consider such conclusions illogical.Which is why inductive reasoning is such a blunt tool when it comes to science. It can only get you so far. To go further requires imagination, the ability to ask, "What if?" and to explore the possibilities of those scenarios.

Radrook

28th December 2007, 06:53 AM

First, while I realize that others in this thread have accused you of holding a religious motive, I have not. In the paragraph of mine that you quoted above, I pointed out that one of your arguments could possibly be useful in a religious discussion. This commentary does not speak to your motives in any way; it is strictly a criticism of the utility of that argument as regards the subject of evolution.

Not at all! That's tantamount um to saying that all conclusions reached via inductive reasoning should be circumscribed [umm limited] to religion. Something that you as a self-proclaimed educator and vaunted graduate from the Liberal Arts is expected to automatically know is untrue. Curiously, scientists don't take umbrage with induction unless it's method is applied to ID. Then they tend to go off the deep end and attack the very method they employ to reach their own conclusions in support of their pet idea.

Second, I have not accused you or anyone else believing in ID of being irrational. As I've pointed out several times, I was once a sort of ID'er myself, in that I once believed that God created the universe and that He designed physical laws such that evolution would take place. At the same time, I was certain that abiogenesis had not taken place. I do not believe that I was irrational when I held these beliefs, as they were based on the same sort of inductive reasoning that you are using, but I now believe that I was wrong.

Will self contradictions never cease? You believe it is wrong now because it contradicts what you now consider rational thought. So again we have one of your characteristic patented a self-contradiction of statements

I never said that abiogenesis is "completely irrelevant to scientists..." In fact I took great pains to point out that the question of how life originated is of vital interest to any biologist. Here is where you display a serious lack of comprehension skills, since you quote my words, and then scarcely ten sentences later you've apparently either completely forgotten them, or else you just don't understand them. I said:

Again!

No, you just said that abiogenesis isn't necessary in order for a person to the belief in evolution scarcely five sentences after I explain that isn't my position.

Then there is the patently false conclusion you attempt to derive from your analogy of a moon made of cheese and the sun. Which doesn't make one iota of sense qualifies as a false analogy based on of the serious discrepancy between the original situation and your means of comparison.

Let me spell it out for you step by step:

In order for an analogy to avoid being false, it cannot be out of kilter with the thing you are comparing it to. Now, let's see how it was that you violated that principle. Here are the terms you used: Sun and a Moon made of cheese. Now, obviously, or at least it should be obvious or is expected to be obvious to anyone claiming familiarity with cogent reasoning that a moon made of cheese and a sun are in no way comparable to abiogenbesis and evolution and that because of this the analogy immediately falls flat on its face in the most basic of ways.

In order to make an analogy between abiogenesis and evolution and two other things, as you attempted to do, you must make sure that the relationship between your hypothetical situation is similar in the crucial features. Now, a very crucial feature or the main issue is whether abiogenesis is necessary in order for us to believe in evolution. I have never said it is. I only said that if you take the position that it is, then that's your position and you will be expected to stick by it.

But let's assume that I said what you accuse me of saying, let;s say that I say that you cant believe in evolution unless you believe in abiogenesis. Let's say that in response to this you provide the cheese moon and sun analogy. Automatically what jumps out is the lack of necessary causality between one and the other. In short, a cheesed moon isn't expected to be caused by a sun. While abiogenesis is touted to have created the material with which evolution takes place. If indeed the sun were touted as necessary for the formation of a cheesed moon, then your analogy would fit. But since a sun isn't touted as causal to a cheesed moon, then your analogy is inapplicable.

Perhaps I should repeat that just to help you remember, and this time with some extra bolding that might help you understand: Abiogenesis is important to the scientists, but it is not important to the theory of evolution. What part of that distinction is so difficult for you to grasp?

Bolding isn't necessary if you would only remain logical which you do not.
What is difficult to grasp is how you claim that I said that temporal priority automatically proves causation since I never made that idiotic statement nor is their absolutely any justification for you to base that accusation on except perhaps a feverish imagination fueled by your need to defend evolution.

What is truly sad is your attempt at logic, but congratulations on your use of some big words. I can remember back when I was in high school, trying to impress my writing instructor by using important sounding phrases like "temporal priority" when just saying "one thing happened before another" would suffice.

He pointed out that if I really wanted to sound like a genius to anyone who's not paying attention, I could also say "Methodological observation of premature isolates indicates a causal relationship between downward tropism and lachrymatory behavior patterns" instead of the slightly less smart sounding equivalent, "Children cry when they fall down," but why bother?

My vocabulary sounds that complicated to you? Sorry. No attempt to impress was intended. That's simply the way I always think and write. But if it's causing difficulty I'll try to simplify in order to improve your comprehension.

BTW
The use of one word instead of three or four is considered economy of expression.

In any case, "temporal priority" might sound good, but it's also a pretty lame attempt to hide the fact that you are committing the Post Hoc fallacy, known in critical thinking circles as a "rookie mistake". Sorry, but just because one thing happens after another, there is absolutely no implication of a connection. Your argument simply falls flat on its face. No, it's not a false analogy, because there is absolutely no causal relationship between how life got started, and what happened to it after it did. If someone tells you that the existence of one is depends on the other because of "temporal priority" then that someone is committing a logical fallacy.

As several people have pointed out already, nobody "postulates" abiogenesis, however if by "accept" you mean, "logically infer based on a preponderance of evidence" then, yes, we do that.
(Note to fishbob: In Greek tragedy, tragic irony is used to cause catharsis or emotional breakdown in the audience)

Another example of reading incomprehension since I never said temporal priority justifies belief in causation. Also, the several people who keep pointing out have repeatedly been responded to in the same way I respond to this fella. Unfortunately, just like this fella the pointers seem to be impervious to reason. As for your denials about what most scientists believe-I guess each person creates his own reality. Whether that subjective reality is delusional or not can be considered irrelevant since as long as it conserves your pet idea and prevents the unpleasant and unnecessary vertigo which might ensue or is it [might inZioux]?

BTW
Impress me with proper logic instead of trying to impress me with messages which are efforts to flaunt your great-learning via messages to Fishbob.

Snip Snip Snip

The rest was the same drivel with erudition flaunting messages to Fishbob in an effort to impress me with his supposedly superior education which I fail to perceive in view of his inability to handle simple concepts expressed in a simple English which he perceives as extravagant and which I am beginning to fear will cause him a terminal nosebleed. So before I am accused of involuntary manslaughter via extravagance of words....

My advice is this-if we really do not understand simple English or if we aren't really familiar with basic cogent reasoning, especially on the inductive level, then please refrain from joining the discussion since true communication will be impossible.

Thank you!

BTW

The ones implying causation via necessity are the evolutionists who believe in abiogenesis as producing life-not me. If you claim believe in abiogenesis, then in that scheme of things you cannot have evolution unlless abiogenesis precedes it because then you will lack the material necessary for evolution to commence. So simple and yet so vehemently denied!

Strange!

The next response will be that abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution to take place. Which will lead to the response that English comprehenson classes are in order.

Foster Zygote

28th December 2007, 07:48 AM

The stupidity, it burns!

joobz

28th December 2007, 08:15 AM

Even I know that "organic chemistry" simply refers to chemistry based on the carbon atom. Given that life is carbon based it seems extremely likely that abiogenesis would involve carbon atoms, although inorganic chemistry may have been involved at some point as a sort of "scaffolding".

One more thing that Radrook will likely never learn.
That is exactly my point. The distinction in chemistries is purely convienience. Inorganic chemistry would play a role in serving as catalytic centers. Most likely surface immobilized on clays. Since we are discussing chemstry that can synthesize RNA/DNA and proteins prior to true biochemical processes (enzymatically), the chemistry being used is loosely known as prebiotic.

This just underlines the fact taht Radrook speaks on things he has ABSOLUTELY no clue about. His argument is a juvinile as his writing. Increduility isn't a very effective argument against evidence based logic.

joobz

28th December 2007, 08:25 AM

I find it amusing that Radrook has failed to deviate from this formula
1.) Claim science based reason to doubt evolution.
2.) Give random evidence of evolution being suspect
random evidence pool= hoaxes, lists of scientists, etc.
3.) Upon being corrected on how those points do not disprove evolution, respond with a claim that random evidence wasn't provided to disprove evolution go back to step 1.
4.) Upon being asked for evidence, respond with abiogenesis is illogical
5.) Upon being told Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis, respond with atheism evolution.
6.) Upon being told evolution isn't about god/atheism, respond with this isn't a religion discussion go back to step 1.
7.) Upon being told how evolutionary processes can be ID or naturalistic based, respond with a claim to understand that atheistic evolution is unscientific. Go back to step 1 or step 6

It's especially funny since he isn't aware that this formula, which almost perfectly captures his simple intellect, even exists. If he did, he might not be so quick to continue to use it.

wollery

28th December 2007, 08:37 AM

The ones implying causation via necessity are the evolutionists who believe in abiogenesis as producing life-not me. If you claim believe in abiogenesis, then in that scheme of things you cannot have evolution unlless abiogenesis precedes it because then you will lack the material necessary for evolution to commence. So simple and yet so vehemently denied!

Strange!

The next response will be that abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution to take place. Which will lead to the response that English comprehenson classes are in order.You just have to marvel at the level of cognitive dissonance required to place those two paragraphs one after the other. :rolleyes:

Put me on ignore if you want Radrook, but it's quite clear to me, and probably just about anybody else reading the last few pages that although you may have taken classes in logic and inductive reasoning you certainly didn't learn much.

It's also clear that you are utterly unwilling to listen to anything that anyone says to you, unless it agrees with your own preconceptions.

You aren't worth talking to.

skeptical

28th December 2007, 09:04 AM

Nice post by Joobz. I think at this point it would be useful to summarize the Radrook shuffle.

After 18 pages, Radrook's arguments essentially come down to this:

1) If someone who accepts evolution also accepts abiogenesis, that is somehow a problem for evolutionary theory. When the fallacy of this is pointed out, he will claim that is not what he said, complain of being misunderstood, put the responder on ignore and then repeat the same statement a few posts later.

2) Keep repeating that abiogenesis requires Atheism. When this is pointed out as a fallacy because a creator could have simply created the process that led to abiogenesis, he will then claim that people are trying to "bring religion into the discussion", somehow assuming a definition of Atheism that does NOT involve religion. Oh, and again complain about being misunderstood and put responders on ignore.

3) Keep repeating that belief in abiogenesis is "irrational" because it has never been directly observed. This is more than a little ironic considering that a Deity tinkering with chemicals to make the first life has also never been observed. When it is pointed out how many of the basic building blocks of life have been observed forming spontaneously, he will ignore such posts and just keep repeating it is irrational or something about "inductive methods".

4) When in doubt, throw the kitchen sink of creationists posts, then deny that they are relevant, then post YEC claims after denying he is a YEC, then complain about being misunderstood and about other people bringing religion into it.

5) If all else fails, make extravagant claims about reading comprehension

In the end, nothing of substance, and much nonsense.

Nogbad

28th December 2007, 09:59 AM

So I guess Linnaeus denies human evolution because we're still apes?

Not Duane Gish!

:D That thought crossed my mind too.

Prometheus

28th December 2007, 10:57 AM

Not at all! That's tantamount um to saying that all conclusions reached via inductive reasoning should be circumscribed [umm limited] to religion.

No, it isn't. As I've stated several times, now, inductive reasoning is a necessary but insufficient first step in the scientific method. It can't be dismissed, and I have not attempted to dismiss it. However, by itself, inductive reasoning is insufficient. Without following up the inductive argument with the rest of the scientific method (You know, the evidence part that you keep dodging), you just don't have anything but an unsupported guess.

Curiously, scientists don't take umbrage with induction unless it's method is applied to ID. Then they tend to go off the deep end and attack the very method they employ to reach their own conclusions in support of their pet idea.

Scientists don't take umbrage with induction when it's followed up by the rest of the scientific method, or when it's used outside of science. But ID'ers often attempt to use induction alone
as a basis for scientific conclusion. That's not allowed.

Will self contradictions never cease? You believe it is wrong now because it contradicts what you now consider rational thought.

No, I believe it's wrong now because I've since been shown actual evidence that supports such an inference. However, it's not been proven, it's just most likely. If abiogenesis had been proven (as evolution due to natural selection has been), and I still believed otherwise, then that would be irrational.

So again we have one of your characteristic patented a self-contradiction of statements

Would you like to go back through all of each or our posts and count up the number of times each of us has contradicted himself?

Again!

No, you just said that abiogenesis isn't necessary in order for a person to the belief in evolution scarcely five sentences after I explain that isn't my position.

And I'll keep saying it because, A) It's true, and B) You still don't get it. In fact, that's really the whole point of Darwin's theory in the first place: that evolution due to natural selection will take place regardless of how the life it operates on got there in the first place.

In order to make an analogy between abiogenesis and evolution and two other things, as you attempted to do, you must make sure that the relationship between your hypothetical situation is similar in the crucial features. Now, a very crucial feature or the main issue is whether abiogenesis is necessary in order for us to believe in evolution. I have never said it is. I only said that if you take the position that it is, then that's your position and you will be expected to stick by it.

Okay, fair enough. If that's not your position then there's no reason to discuss it further. But it isn't anyone else's position either so when you said, "if you take the position that it is, then that's your position and you will be expected to stick by it," that's a straw man. There simply isn't anyone who understands the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is necessary in order to believe in evolution.

But let's assume that I said what you accuse me of saying, let;s say that I say that you cant believe in evolution unless you believe in abiogenesis. Let's say that in response to this you provide the cheese moon and sun analogy. Automatically what jumps out is the lack of necessary causality between one and the other. In short, a cheesed moon isn't expected to be caused by a sun. While abiogenesis is touted to have created the material with which evolution takes place. If indeed the sun were touted as necessary for the formation of a cheesed moon, then your analogy would fit. But since a sun isn't touted as causal to a cheesed moon, then your analogy is inapplicable.

If you like, I'll admit that my analogy was inappropriate, since you seem not to be able to understand it's purpose. Instead, let's use a much better one from another poster, who you might have on ignore:

Let's say that I assume the lumber used to build my house came from Home Depot. At some point, you come along and point out that my house was built in 1990, but there was no Home Depot in my town until 1997. You may have convinced me that the lumber used to build my house didn't come from Home Depot, but the "temporal priority" doesn't mean that my house couldn't have been built. I may have to find some other explanation for where the lumber came from, but that doesn't invalidate the evidence that my house was, in fact, built.

Bolding isn't necessary if you would only remain logical which you do not.
What is difficult to grasp is how you claim that I said that temporal priority automatically proves causation since I never made that idiotic statement nor is their absolutely any justification for you to base that accusation on except perhaps a feverish imagination fueled by your need to defend evolution.

No you did not say that "temporal priority automatically proves causation," nor did I claim that you did. You said:

...an abiogenesis claim logically links it to evolution based on its temporal priority and the removal of the first would logically require the nonexistence of the latter. Saying otherwise is like saying that the process of star formation could have happened without the Big Bang while claiming that the Big Bang as the starter of the universe.[QUOTE]

To which I replied:

[QUOTE]...just because one thing happens after another, there is absolutely no implication of a connection.

No mention of "automatically" or "causation", and my criticism still stands.

My vocabulary sounds that complicated to you? Sorry. No attempt to impress was intended. That's simply the way I always think and write. But if it's causing difficulty I'll try to simplify in order to improve your comprehension.

Not "complicated", but "stilted". And no, it doesn't cause me any difficulty, it just sounds bad.

The use of one word instead of three or four is considered economy of expression.

Yes, it is. But economy of expression is not necessarily a good thing. For instance, if I were to summarize an entire paragraph in someone else's post by saying, "That's bollocks!" instead of pointing out the logical inconsistencies and factual errors, that would certainly be economy of expression, but it would also be rude and unhelpful.

Impress me with proper logic instead of trying to impress me with messages which are efforts to flaunt your great-learning via messages to Fishbob.

My asides to fishbob were not an attempt to impress you; they were an attempt to communicate with fishbob. Next time I'll use a separate post to avoid the confusion.

Radrook

28th December 2007, 08:17 PM

Your assertion was that life does not arise from nonlife, from which it follows that since there is life today there must have always been life, in one form or another. Whether life on Earth arose from ID by aliens or by God, it must have been a life-form of some sort.

Now this is the kind of response that I am looking for. One that directly addresses what I say and not what I didn't say. Of course you are right if we take it into the religious realm where God is eternal. But if we simply describe it as simply ID, then that conclusion does not necessarily follow. Yes, both ID and God are life-forms. But I am not putting forth ID as the first cause of all life as I would if I were restricting my idea to God.

And yet you dismiss abiogenesis precisely because it has never been observed.

Please note that what I said was that there is far more inductive evidence in favor of ID then there is for the abiogenesis idea. The part about never observed and therefore it cannot be is yours. However, not being observed leaves the abiogenesis idea without an inductive conclusion basis which the ID idea has galore. So I opt for the ID idea. That is what I am saying.

Wait, you mean we can throw out all that expensive equipment that we use to make observations? :Clearly this is where I've been going wrong all these years. I've been painstakingly making observations, checking the data, calculating errors, when all I had to do was some inductive reasoning!

Which is why inductive reasoning is such a blunt tool when it comes to science. It can only get you so far. To go further requires imagination, the ability to ask, "What if?" and to explore the possibilities of those scenarios.

eek:[/quote]

Of course not. I would have to be a moron to believe something like that. Ideas that can be tested must be tested. However, the idea needs a firm foundation in reality. In short, if an idea goes contrary to observed reality. wjich in this case is that life proceeds only from life, and that complex machines are evidence of a guiding mind, then that idea is lacking a true OBSERVABLE premise and is contrary to logic. In short, the premise can be considered suspect.

In contrast, inductive reasoning [the reaching of conclusions via the observation of patterns] does provide us with the justificaion to formulate the ID concept. Actually, unlike abiogenesis, the that only life begets life concept needs no testability since we see it happening all around. Life begetting life. The world itself provides us with the evidence needed. In short, abiogenesis goes contrary to observable fact while ID doesn't.

Radrook

28th December 2007, 08:20 PM

You just have to marvel at the level of cognitive dissonance required to place those two paragraphs one after the other. :rolleyes:

Put me on ignore if you want Radrook, but it's quite clear to me, and probably just about anybody else reading the last few pages that although you may have taken classes in logic and inductive reasoning you certainly didn't learn much.

It's also clear that you are utterly unwilling to listen to anything that anyone says to you, unless it agrees with your own preconceptions.

You aren't worth talking to.

Sorry you feel that way.

Foster Zygote

28th December 2007, 08:30 PM

Yes, both ID and God are life-forms. But I am not putting forth ID as the first cause of all life as I would if I were restricting my idea to God.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Achán hiNidráne

28th December 2007, 08:37 PM

Does this make sense to anyone?

No, and this is from a guy who claims to have a "doctoral level" of reading comprehension.

Foster Zygote

28th December 2007, 08:56 PM

No, and this is from a guy who claims to have a "doctoral level" of reading comprehension.

Given his demonstrated tendency to lie and the vague nature of the claim, I would be most surprised if he could back that statement up with evidence.

bokonon

28th December 2007, 09:09 PM

Yes, both ID and God are life-forms. But I am not putting forth ID as the first cause of all life as I would if I were restricting my idea to God.
Does this make sense to anyone?
I think he's saying that both his hypothetical non-God "Intelligent Designer" and his hypothetical non-ID "God" are hypothetically life forms. IF he was arguing that his hypothetical "Intelligent Designer" and his hypothetical "God" were the same (WHICH HE IS CAREFUL NOT TO DO, SO DON'T THRUST THOSE WORDS INTO HIS GAPING MOUTH), the hypothetically logical conclusion would be that the hypothetical "Intelligent Designer" was the first cause of all life. But since the hypothetical "Intelligent Designer" and the hypothetical "God" need not be the same hypothetical life form, it's possible that the hypothetical "Intelligent Designer" only created some, not all, life. Like uroboros and straw men, hypothetically...

wollery

29th December 2007, 12:02 AM

Now this is the kind of response that I am looking for. One that directly addresses what I say and not what I didn't say. Of course you are right if we take it into the religious realm where God is eternal. But if we simply describe it as simply ID, then that conclusion does not necessarily follow. Yes, both ID and God are life-forms. But I am not putting forth ID as the first cause of all life as I would if I were restricting my idea to God.So what is the first cause?

Since, by your argument, life cannot arise from non-life, where does it arise from?

Prometheus

29th December 2007, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Your assertion was that life does not arise from nonlife, from which it follows that since there is life today there must have always been life, in one form or another. Whether life on Earth arose from ID by aliens or by God, it must have been a life-form of some sort.

Now this is the kind of response that I am looking for. One that directly addresses what I say and not what I didn't say. Of course you are right if we take it into the religious realm where God is eternal. But if we simply describe it as simply ID, then that conclusion does not necessarily follow. Yes, both ID and God are life-forms. But I am not putting forth ID as the first cause of all life as I would if I were restricting my idea to God.

Okay, so then would you be willing to accept as plausible (though not proven) some version of the exogenesis or panspermia hypotheses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Please note that what I said was that there is far more inductive evidence in favor of ID then there is for the abiogenesis idea. The part about never observed and therefore it cannot be is yours. However, not being observed leaves the abiogenesis idea without an inductive conclusion basis which the ID idea has galore. So I opt for the ID idea. That is what I am saying.

In the interest of moving this discussion along, I'm willing to stipulate that abiogenesis is, as far as we know from observation, impossible, and that it therefore has not taken place on Earth. Now then, what does this tell us about Evolution?

Ideas that can be tested must be tested. However, the idea needs a firm foundation in reality. In short, if an idea goes contrary to observed reality. wjich in this case is that life proceeds only from life, and that complex machines are evidence of a guiding mind, then that idea is lacking a true OBSERVABLE premise and is contrary to logic. In short, the premise can be considered suspect.

If what you're saying here is that we should be suspect of the existence of any phenomena that we have never observed, then I agree with you 100%.

In contrast, inductive reasoning [the reaching of conclusions via the observation of patterns] does provide us with the justificaion to formulate the ID concept. Actually, unlike abiogenesis, the that only life begets life concept needs no testability since we see it happening all around. Life begetting life. The world itself provides us with the evidence needed. In short, abiogenesis goes contrary to observable fact while ID doesn't.

Here's an interesting essay on inductive reasoning, which says some things that seem similar to you, Radrook. If you have the time, would you mind reading and giving me your opinion on it?

http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic18.htm

Radrook

29th December 2007, 03:23 PM

The following isn't directed at anyone in specific but is simply info which I prepared to post before I logged in. Actually, the above poster is the first rational response that I have encountered since this thread began. So it definitely isn't directed at him. : )

Below are the inferences propagated today as being firmly based on science. Yet the conclusions have no basis in observed reality. In short, the inferences are supposed to be accepted on mere faith.

Universal inference
[abiohenesis has been always observed to create life] [Life always results from abiogenesis]=

unjustified inference/ untrue premise

Predictive inference
[This life was caused by abiogenesis] [next form of life encountered will have been caused by abiogenesis]

unjustified inference/ untrue premise

Direct inference
[abiogenesis caused life to
this particular representative life sample] [abiogenesis is the cause of life] =

unjustified inference/ untrue premise

Now, if instead of abiogenesis we substitute life, then the inferences will become far more reasonable:

Predictive inference
[This life was caused by life] [next form of life encountered will have been caused by life]

justifiable inference/ true premise

Universal inference
[Life has been always observed to create life] [Life always results from life]

justifiable inference/ true premise

Direct inference
[Life caused life to emerge this particular representative life sample] [Life is cause of life] =

justifiable inference/ true premise

Strictly from a non-religious viewpoint

Approached from a purely non-religious angle, the abiogenesis claims remain equally illogical and the biogenesis clams still remain far more believable. Please keep in mind that Scientists are well-aware that what we are observing here is a microscopic section of the universe and that our senses and experiences are limited. So the most they should attempt to say is probably. However, probably isn't part of their vocabulary when it comes to abiogenesis, it's either abiogenesis or nothing based on the observation of nothing to base it on. In contrast,
from a purely non-religious view the ID or only life-produces-life stand remains the far more reasonable. The only difference actually is that those holding the abiogenesis view are constantly accusing those holding the ID or life produces life position of being guided by faith while they portray themselves as bastions of logical thought and scientific integrity. Judging by their irrational refusal to reason in the presence of overwhelming evidence, nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW

Expected irrelevant replies:

1. Belief in evolution is possible without belief in abiogenesis = never said it wasn't

2. Not ever never observed doesn't mean something is impossible. = Never said it.

3. Hens lay eggs. = Yikes!

4. Scientists aren't saying that the life they find on other planets will be assumed to have been caused by abiogenesis.= Untrue

5. Rudolph Carpo was divorced fifteen times and owns a pit bull. = Irrelevant : )

==============================================

Inductive Classifications cited
Rudolph Carnap
Carnap, Rudolf. 1952. The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
–––. 1962. Logical Foundations of Probability. second ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carnap, Rudolf, and Jeffrey, Richard, eds. 1971 (1980). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2 volumes.
================================================== ===============

Application to present subject is mine.

Radrook

29th December 2007, 03:30 PM

Correction: There is a grammatical flaw here:

In short, if an idea goes contrary to observed reality. wjich in this case is that life proceeds only from life, and that complex machines are evidence of a guiding mind, then that idea is lacking a true OBSERVABLE premise and is contrary to logic. In short, the premise can be considered suspect.

THis is what I meant to say:

In short, if an idea goes contrary to observed reality. which in this case is that life proceeds from abiogenesis, and that complex machines are not a consequence of a guiding mind, then that idea is lacking a true OBSERVABLE premise and is contrary to logic. In short, the premise can be considered suspect

JJM

29th December 2007, 03:30 PM

Radrrok, I am at your feet. Too bad you cannot see this ...

Radrook

29th December 2007, 03:43 PM

So what is the first cause?

Since, by your argument, life cannot arise from nonlife, where does it arise from?

Well, that definitely is pertinent question in view of the conclusion reached based on inductive evidence. From a purely non-religious angle, I would have to say that the source is an intelligent living being. I would also have to claim ignorance of its nature, location, whether that would be extra-dimensional, or other universal, or spiritual. From that approach, which is the approach we are using here because otherwise we must go to the religion forum, I would have to say the above.

Please remember that what I am essentially saying is that the inductive evidence indicates overwhelmingly that life comes only from life. The inductive process gives us high probabilities. So on the probability scale, only life produces life ranks very high. While abiogenesis, based on the inductive probability scale doesn't even qualify to be on the scale since it has no inductive evidence to support it.

Therefore, who in fact is basing belief on mere faith, those who belief in ID and that life produces life or those who pick the abiogenesis idea out of thin air and demand that it be believed as a certainty simply because they say so. If indeed I am a respecterof the scientific method and of logical thought then I am obligated to side with the life-produces-life probability.

BTW

Sorry I'm a bit slow in getting back to you but my computer was refusing to turn on and I had to fiddle with the surge protector and back switch. Finally it came on and I was able to get back to the subject.

Hokulele

29th December 2007, 03:45 PM

If only life produces life, it implies either life has existed from the start of the universe, in which case evidence of such should be available, or it implies an infinite universe which leads the way to whole new host of inductive reasoning problems.

joobz

29th December 2007, 03:50 PM

Foster Zygote

29th December 2007, 03:54 PM

From a purely non-religious angle, I would have to say that the source is an intelligent living being.
Please remember that what I am essentially saying is that the inductive evidence indicates overwhelmingly that life comes only from life.
So all life must come from other life unless Radrook says that it does not.:rolleyes:

Sorry I'm a bit slow...
Just thought I'd try quoting in the fashion so popular with many of the sources Radrook cites.

bokonon

29th December 2007, 04:07 PM

Well, that definitely is pertinent question in view of the conclusion reached based on inductive evidence. From a purely non-religious angle, I would have to say that the source is an intelligent living being.
But intelligent living beings have never been observed to create single-celled organisms. Only single-celled organisms have ever been observed to create single-celled organisms. Therefore, strict application of the inductive principle requires me to conclude that the life from which all life on earth arose is not, in fact, an intelligent designer, but a single-celled organism which was able to reproduce and pass its characteristics on to its reproductions.

I would also have to claim ignorance of its nature, location, whether that would be extra-dimensional, or other universal, or spiritual. From that approach, which is the approach we are using here because otherwise we must go to the religion forum, I would have to say the above.
I, too, will claim ignorance of the nature of the single-celled organism which inductive reasoning leads me to conclude is the origin of all life on earth. Maybe it's extra-dimensional, maybe it's extraterrestrial, maybe it's an abiogenetic freak of nature, maybe it's willed into existence by the mind of God.

Please remember that what I am essentially saying is that the inductive evidence indicates overwhelmingly that life comes only from life. The inductive process gives us high probabilities. So on the probability scale, only life produces life ranks very high. While abiogenesis, based on the inductive probability scale doesn't even qualify to be on the scale since it has no inductive evidence to support it.
Intelligent extra-dimensional designers don't have any inductive evidence either.

Therefore, who in fact is basing belief on mere faith, those who belief in ID and that life produces life or those who pick the abiogenesis idea out of thin air and demand that it be believed as a certainty simply because they say so.
I believe that would be you and your straw man, since I don't think you'll be able to name a single scientist who demands that abiogenesis be believed as a certainty simply because he says so.

If indeed I am a respecterof the scientific method and of logical thought then I am obligated to side with the life-produces-life probability.
So we can either start with a single cell, or a fully-evolved "intelligent designer."

I'll take "Single Cell" for $2000, Alex.

wollery

29th December 2007, 08:19 PM

Well, that definitely is pertinent question in view of the conclusion reached based on inductive evidence. From a purely non-religious angle, I would have to say that the source is an intelligent living being. I would also have to claim ignorance of its nature, location, whether that would be extra-dimensional, or other universal, or spiritual.So are you saying that it originates from a place external to the physical Universe?

If so, how does that fit with the inductive process that you claim to use? How many things have been observed to come from outside the Universe? What inductive evidence and reasoning do you have that anything exists external to the Universe?

Hokulele

29th December 2007, 08:21 PM

So are you saying that it originates from a place external to the physical Universe?

If so, how does that fit with the inductive process that you claim to use? How many things have been observed to come from outside the Universe? What inductive evidence and reasoning do you have that anything exists external to the Universe?

I was planning to ask how a spiritual being could affect a physical process, but yours work too.

kjkent1

30th December 2007, 11:46 AM

Approached from a purely non-religious angle, the abiogenesis claims remain equally illogical and the biogenesis clams still remain far more believable. In your opinion.

Ultimately, biogenesis requires a precedent: abiogenesis or a designer who always existed. And the evidence for abiogenesis is better than the evidence for a designer -- because despite its incredible improbability, abiogenesis is at least possible within the confines of physical reality. Whereas, the designer has no supporting evidence whatsoever within that same realm.

And, as we are here, therefore abiogenesis must have occurred.

Game over.

edge

30th December 2007, 11:52 AM

Deer like Mammal Was Whale Ancestor?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/index.html

Smells like a rat, looks like a rat, must be a rat.
Talk about faith?
So was it a deer, or a rat, maybe a whale of a tail?

Oh and a raccoon.

But the crucial piece of evidence that would link the animal to whales is the ear bone covering the animal's middle ear, said Philip D. Gingerich, a University of Michigan paleontologist. Full analysis of the ear is missing in the new paper, he said.

Gingerich thinks that more convincing information is needed than what is provided in the study.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/photo2.html

Plant eater,
The skull structure and the ear show that Indohyus was closely related to whales, the study team concludes.

Ya sure....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/photo3.html

Otter should be added to the list.

Foster Zygote

30th December 2007, 12:15 PM

Deer like Mammal Was Whale Ancestor?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/index.html

Smells like a rat, looks like a rat, must be a rat.
Talk about faith?
So was it a deer, or a rat, maybe a whale of a tail?

Oh and a raccoon.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/photo2.html

Plant eater,

Ya sure....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/photo3.html

Otter should be added to the list.

Anything to offer beside an argument from personal incredulity? Anything about why Dennis Swift misrepresents his credentials, or why Don Patton claims that he was able to use radiocarbon dating to date inorganic materials?

Foster Zygote

30th December 2007, 12:17 PM

Ya sure....

BTW, Your objections read remarkably similar to those of people who scoffed at the idea that rocks could fall from the heavens.

Radrook

30th December 2007, 12:55 PM

In your opinion.

Ultimately, biogenesis requires a precedent: abiogenesis or a designer who always existed. And the evidence for abiogenesis is better than the evidence for a designer -- because despite its incredible improbability, abiogenesis is at least possible within the confines of physical reality. Whereas, the designer has no supporting evidence whatsoever within that same realm.

And, as we are here, therefore abiogenesis must have occurred.

Game over.

Not quite my friend. : )

Nevertheless, very pertinent reply and counter argument which is apreciated!

Yes, of course, all things being equal I would be definitely bound to that inductive inference. However, and this is a very significant "however" the inductive inference is in relation to the observed and the observed doesn't go beyond the material universe we are able to perceive and have perceived via what appears to be our senses.

In short, extension of the inference or application of it to other as-yet not-directly-perceived or perhaps not humanly perceivable hypothetical dimensions or universes or a being would by default result in use of an unjustified inference by postulation of false analogy. Let me break it down for those who might not be following me.

1. We observe a pattern that material life is generated by material life.

2. We are justified in concluding that material life comes from material life whenever material life is found.

3. We are not justified by that observation to conclude that about nonmaterial life since our observations and therefore our conclusions must be restricted to this universe and its physical laws and not to other universes or dimensions or a spiritual realm where such laws have not as yet been observed.

Now, based on what we SO Far have observed, we would be justified in inferring that life begetting life is the way life arises in reference to other hypothetical material universes similar to ours. But an inference such as that reached in relation to realms as yet detected would have absolutely no inductive foundation just as abiogenesis has none.

BTW

The paradoxical infinite regression you seem to suggest seems more of an impossibility to me than the uncaused cause though both are a bit beyond total comprehension from a human-mind standpoint. But now we are skirting the border of the metaphysical which might throw the thread competely off course if not careful.

bokonon

30th December 2007, 02:12 PM

And yet, it's still a simpler assumption that a single-celled organism arose in this hypothetical "other realm" and (making its way into our material universe by unknown means) gave rise to life on earth, rather than requiring a complex intelligent organism to arise there, capable of creating "designed life" in our universe. Just saying.

Hokulele

30th December 2007, 02:56 PM

Not quite my friend. : )

Nevertheless, very pertinent reply and counter argument which is apreciated!

Yes, of course, all things being equal I would be definitely bound to that inductive inference. However, and this is a very significant "however" the inductive inference is in relation to the observed and the observed doesn't go beyond the material universe we are able to perceive and have perceived via what appears to be our senses.

In short, extension of the inference or application of it to other as-yet not-directly-perceived or perhaps not humanly perceivable hypothetical dimensions or universes or a being would by default result in use of an unjustified inference by postulation of false analogy. Let me break it down for those who might not be following me.

1. We observe a pattern that material life is generated by material life.

2. We are justified in concluding that material life comes from material life whenever material life is found.

3. We are not justified by that observation to conclude that about nonmaterial life since our observations and therefore our conclusions must be restricted to this universe and its physical laws and not to other universes or dimensions or a spiritual realm where such laws have not as yet been observed.

Now, based on what we SO Far have observed, we would be justified in inferring that life begetting life is the way life arises in reference to other hypothetical material universes similar to ours. But an inference such as that reached in relation to realms as yet detected would have absolutely no inductive foundation just as abiogenesis has none.

BTW

The paradoxical infinite regression you seem to suggest seems more of an impossibility to me than the uncaused cause though both are a bit beyond total comprehension from a human-mind standpoint. But now we are skirting the border of the metaphysical which might throw the thread competely off course if not careful.

How would life have been established in that other dimension or universe? You are simply pushing the problem further away without eliminating it.

joobz

30th December 2007, 03:07 PM

How would life have been established in that other dimension or universe? You are simply pushing the problem further away without eliminating it.
Yes, but he did it using lots of smart sounding words. That must make it a good argument. :rolleyes:

Radrook

30th December 2007, 05:59 PM

bokonon

30th December 2007, 07:01 PM

And yet, you continue to misrepresent it as "rational."

joobz

30th December 2007, 07:05 PM

In any case, I think my point was stated clearly enough and any expressed misunderstanding or further misrepresentation of it isn't warranted.
Yes, your point is quite clear. Unfortunately, it's a stupid point.

kjkent1

30th December 2007, 09:25 PM

Sorry I had to post twice to reply but I missed a very important concept. The concept that abiogenesis must be the precedent for biogenesis. Such a concept, as you already know but choose to ignore, has no inductive evidence to support it and therefore must remain a simple baseless opinion. A very irrational one at that since you choose to totally reject a concept-supported by evidence in favor of one that has none. It's tantamount to saying that 100 a home runs were hit by player (X) who isn't even in the game due to disqualification while denying what your very eyes are telling you, that player (Y) who was in those games was the one who hit the home runs. Once that frame of mind is assumed then you are probably right, the game is over as far as rational discussion is concerned.

In any case, I think my point was stated clearly enough and any expressed misunderstanding or further misrepresentation of it isn't warranted.You appear to be making the same argument as me, but in reverse.

I challenge you to produce evidence that directly supports the existence of a designer. I propose that none exists. I concede that such evidence MAY exist -- but as of yet, none has been produced.

Whereas there IS direct evidence of abiogenesis in this universe. That evidence is the incredibly small, but finite, probability that a self-replicating molecule could appear by absolutely random chance.

As long as that incredibly small probability exists, when combined with the fact that we are here, demonstrates that in the absence of direct proof of a designer, that abiogenesis did in fact occur.

Otherwise, we would not be here to discuss it.

I await your direct proof in support of your design theory.

Prometheus

31st December 2007, 12:13 AM

How would life have been established in that other dimension or universe? You are simply pushing the problem further away without eliminating it.

"People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on seeing the whole thing. Take South America for example. Every year in South America thousands of people turn up missing. Nobody knows where they go. They just disappear. But if you think for a minute, realize something: there had to be a time when there was no people right? Well, where did all these people come from? I'll tell you where: the future. Where did all these people disappear to: the past. How did they get there? Flying saucers, which are really, yeah, you got it: time machines." -- Miller from the movie Repo Man.

:alien011:

ArmillarySphere

31st December 2007, 03:00 AM

Actually, I question that biogenesis has been demonstrated either. Sperms and ova are alive before they combine, after all, and even amoeba undergoing mitosis are alive both before and after the process. So it's fair to say that living beings propagate themselves but not that they generate new life. When it comes to organisms like fungi, the distinction of what constitutes an individual is more than slightly arbitrary, after all.

The whole argument of complexity requiring a designer is flawed from the start. The geological record shows that evolution has happened, so the "first life" must therefore have been a very simple one, without all the complexities that supposedly imply a designer. Evolution is demonstrably able to proceed from there, however that life form got there.

To my mind, panspermia doesn't resolve the issue either - all you've done is move the location of the first life to some other place, where the exact same problems remain. And "biogenesis", as mentioned, just moves the question to how that life form originated.

You have basically three options:
1) Abiogenesis, through some natural chemical process. Research is in progress on that.
2) Life has *always* existed. Meaning, it was already present during the Big Bang. Not sure how you'd go about detecting that.
3) Magic. G-d, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu... something of that sort. Good luck finding objective evidence for that either.

bokonon

31st December 2007, 07:58 AM

The important thing is that tossing around terms like "temporal priority" and "inductive reasoning" allows Radrook to assume the mantle of philosopher/scientist among his bible college buddies. And, since he doesn't seem to be blessed with critical thinking abilities, I have no doubt that he also manages to convince himself that he's seeing "the truth" to which all of those he's mercifully ignoring are blind, because of their prejudice for an evolutionary framework.

What he doesn't see is that the evolutionary framework isn't excluding any evidence, and truly doesn't have a conclusion-driven methodology. It's obvious from his failure to address any of the evidence offered in this thread supporting evolution (and his lame excuses for ignoring those who present it) that he's excluding evidence. His continued insistence that there is inductive evidence "for ID" shows that he's putting the cart before the horse, and then overlooking the fact that there is no horse. His line of reasoning goes nowhere, it's just a conclusion trying to use handwaving and earplugging in place of evidence.

Shalamar

31st December 2007, 08:00 AM

I think that if Radook wants to really talk about abiogenesis, we create a new thread, where he can place even more people on Ignore.

joobz

31st December 2007, 08:00 AM

bokonon

31st December 2007, 09:29 AM

I think that if Radook wants to really talk about abiogenesis, we create a new thread, where he can place even more people on Ignore.
It is strangely liberating to be able to get up in a guy's face and talk about him behind his back. Not that I'm trying to imply anything about his face.

Radrook

31st December 2007, 07:07 PM

You appear to be making the same argument as me, but in reverse.

I challenge you to produce evidence that directly supports the existence of a designer. I propose that none exists. I concede that such evidence MAY exist -- but as of yet, none has been produced.

Translation: I will ignore any inductive evidence and call it irrelervant and indirect as long as that evidence is in support of ID.

Whereas there IS direct evidence of abiogenesis in this universe. That evidence is the incredibly small, but finite, probability that a self-replicating molecule could appear by absolutely random chance.

Translation: I will claim direct evidence of abiogenesis though I cannot provide an example. I will tag interpretative assumptions as direct evidence.

As long as that incredibly small probability exists, when combined with the fact that we are here, demonstrates that in the absence of direct proof of a designer, that abiogenesis did in fact occur.

Translation: I prefer to believe in the highly-unlikely a long as that highly-unlikely doesn't include the ID concept. Anything and everything else is irrelevant.

Snip

I await your direct proof in support of your design theory.

Translation: Inductive inference is no longer permitted because if it is then I don't have a leg to stand on so it must needs be rejected.

Addendum:

This my friend, is called invincible ignorance and anyone trying to change invincible ignorance is a fool. Since I am not a fool I won't try. I was truly hoping for a logical reply but I guess if this is all you have then that's all you have. In any case, thanks for some of the previous replies which seemed to be leading to a logical discussion of the issue. However, from this point on there is really nothing more to be expected but the rejection of universally acceptable cogent reasoning in preference for irrationality based on a pathological aversion to ID.

BTW

I do not enjoy being asked questions, answering those questions, only to be told that my answers are illogical when they are not. I also do not apreciate having patently fallacious arguments with absolutely no support handed me in response since that obviously indicates that you were not willing to reason or accept logic from the outset.

In short, that you were merely biding time. That is time-wasting and frustrating. Better to simply and briefly say that you don't agree and leave it at that. That's one of the reasons why I avoid persons who do that. It smacks of heckling and jeckling and mindless droning for which I have a very low tolerance level.