Science vs. Religion Debate

[Kimpatsu]

Greetings, all. I have been arguing with a credophile on another noticeboard, and he challenged me to state how life began. I told him "With the evolution of the first self-replicating molecule", to which he replied as follows:
Mr. Kimpatsu, I have a little knowledge in Biology, and although I am not an evolutionist, because it requires faith, I am not going to preach to you about its ridiculousness. What I will discuss with you is how abiogenesis, or the belief that nonliving matter suddenly became living matter, and became the first common ancestor to all life on earth. This my friend is an impossible situation. And let me tell you why.
Lets begin with the currently smallest living bacterium with the smallest number of base pairs in its genome; most likely a gram-negative bacterium with about 160,000 base pairs in its circular DNA or about 1600 centimorgans. Lets say that our first cell, although the current one is incredibly simple and would arguably be the bare bones for calling it life, had a genome one thousand times smaller; 160 base pairs. First off all DNA is comprised of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine; simple nucleic acids which I am sure you are aware of and their binding by hydrogen bonds between AT and GC. (Only A binds to T and only G binds to C.) Nucleic acids are unique structures and have what are called optical isomers also known as chiral. Optical isomers are like our hands; our left land is remarkably similar to our right hand, but it is impossible to lay our right hand on top of or inside of our left hand to make them the same. They are non-superimposable, mirror images if you will. Well life only uses and makes “left-handed” molecules and nucleic acids, meaning all right-handed molecules are ignored. So our original cell would have to have had 320 nucleic acids (2 per base pair) line up in perfect order, which would have an astronomical large number of possibilities, and assemble by hydrogen bonding. But we reach another serious problem. Nucleic acids do not appear spontaneously through non-living matter like rocks, soil, seawater, lightning, etc. They require proteins to make them. Which leads us to another serious problem, proteins are made of amino acids, and proteins need other proteins to make them! So if proteins cannot be made without amino acids, and nucleic acids cannot be made or assembled without proteins, someone had to have assembled and or created the first living organism at the very least.
You may be aware of the 1952 Stanley Miller experiment where Dr. Miller created some left-handed and right-handed amino acids (no proteins) by sending an electrical discharge (lightning) through a “primordial soup” of water, methane gas, and ammonia gas. Methane and ammonia are both highly reactive molecules. However, since 1952, there is significant scientific data that shows early earth atmospheric components to be: water, nitrogen gas, and oxygen; the same major components that are here today. And I do not care how long or with how much current you shock water, nitrogen, and oxygen, you’re not going to get amino acids and certainly not proteins because they are not very reactive molecules. Dr. Miller has since denounced the results of his own 1952 experiment as being inconsequential.
Mr. Kimpatsu, I hope I did not offend you in belittling your knowledge by explaining these things in very simple terms, but I hope I did encourage you to seek some faith in a Creator. There are very complicated things that humans build: skyscrapers, airplanes, supercomputers, yet the most elementary example of life is incomparably more complicated than any of these things, yet some people attribute their design and creation to random chance and completely against the second law of thermodynamics. Denial and ignorance are the only excuses for not believing in the intelligent design of life.

Sincerely,
Steve Bonebrake


Can anyone help me formulate a response, please?
TIA,

[geni]

Have you looked here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)

[apoger]

I honestly don't think you wil get far with this person, however...

>someone had to have assembled and or created the first living organism at the very least.


This is where his logic goes out the window. It's the old argument from complexity. He is making the unfounded assumption that since life is complicated that "someone" was responsible. Everything he had said before this point does not in any way justify the conculsion.

What evidence do we have that "someone" made life? His assertion that he can't see it happening any other way! That's the foolish argument from personal incredulity.

Why would it need be "someone"? Why not "something"? Perhaps "something" along the lines of a natural process?

However this man has made it clear that he is working from a foundation of "faith". It's difficult to make a dent with logic or evidence, as neither is effective versus faith.

I'd offer him a link to www.talkorigins.org and let him educate himself, if he is so inclined.

[pgwenthold]

At one point in history, humans saw the lightening and thunder. Some curious person asked, "Why?" Of course, knowing nothing about electrical charge, static charge buildup, or dialectric breakdowns, they had no scientific explanation for it. "A-ha!" it was said, "Lightening bolts are just fire thrown at us by Thor." And so it was believed.

The person you are conversing with has nothing but a "God of the Gaps" argument, which is just a consequence of an arguement from ignorance. Throughout history, people have wanted to throw up their hands and decree, "God did it!." However, it is because scientists are not willing to give up on such problems that we can solve them. If we had stopped with, "No one understands it, it could only be God" then we would not have an explanation for thunder, lightening, or rainbows.

It is amazing that this person accuses scientists of "denial and ignorance" leading them to abandon the "god of the gaps" argument, when the bigger problem is the arrogance of someone who proclaims that, just because something is not known, that it cannot be known. In fact, I wear the "denial and ignorance" badge with honor. As a scientist, I admit that there is plenty that I do not know. What I know is nothing compared to everything that is out there. What we collectively know as humankind is nothing compared to everything that is out there. We are mostly ignorant about our world and universe. And yes, I am in denial of claims that it is unknowable. In fact, my life is spent trying to know things that no one knows right now.

To deny my ignorance and accept that there is no potential solution is completely contrary to the entire concept of scientific research. Science is all about searching for answers to things we do not know. To give that up would be to stop all progress. Yes, certain people would love to stop the advancement of knowledge, because every time someone learns something new about how the universe works, their God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller. But scientific progress will not stop just because a few godlings gain an omnipotence complex and proclaim a problem (one they know very little about, even) to be unsolvable.

Today we laugh at the idea that the sun was carried across the sky by the chariots of the Gods. But I'm sure 4000 years ago, before we understood anything about astronomy and planetary orbits, there were those who said that to not accept God's role in it were just in denial or ignorant. Count me among them.

In the end, I feel for those who hinge their hopes on a God of the Gaps. As I said, with every day, their God shrinks, as we learn more about how the universe works. And yes, among those things we are learning include potential mechanisms of abiogenesis. Our understanding is only beginning. Whether it is the issue of the self-catalyzed formation of RNA, or the formation of cells by the oxidation of petroleum aerosols, there are discoveries being reported all the time. Where will we stand in 1000 years? Very different from today, that is for sure. But we aren't going to get there by saying "Goddidit."

[Fishboot]

Do Google searches until you find the text that this guy has cut and pasted from, then search until you find a quality rebuttal. Voila. Also, feel the velvety texture of pointless repetition.

[epepke]

Originally posted by apoger
I honestly don't think you wil get far with this person, however...

I agree.

But to the original poster, nobody in the field of biology thinks that the first self-replicating organism, the first thing that could reasonably called the first instance of life, was anywhere near as complex as even the simplest extant form of life (which, incidentally, is still nowhere near as complex as the simplest extant bacterium).

Even apart from the mind-bogglingly gross illiteracy required for someone to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, anyone who tries to use this kind of argument against evolution either

1) Is grossly, willfully, and triumphantly stupid, or
2) Thinks you are grossly, willfully, and triumphantly stupid.

[pupdog]

However, since 1952, there is significant scientific data that shows early earth atmospheric components to be: water, nitrogen gas, and oxygen; the same major components that are here today. This is in error (see, for example, Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet " and many of the references therein). Geochemical evidence indicates a major change in atmospheric composition a couple billion years after the earth was formed (and some life was already around)--as the atmosphere became more oxygenated, and this affected the path of evolution.

Other workers have explored how various substrates (such as clay minerals) could have affected the assembly of atoms and molecules that became the building blocks of life. I think someone, somewhere, made the comment that it's no longer a question of how such components could have come together, but which of the proposed mechanisms is the the one that led to life.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The person you are conversing with has nothing but a "God of the Gaps" argument, which is just a consequence of an arguement from ignorance.

...

But we aren't going to get there by saying "Goddidit."
Nah, since scientism is positive 'god' does not exist, he/she/it can't be invoked by name, so your terminology is "emergent property". Which is no different than "goddidit", but only a dualist or im-matterialist can invoke that.

On the dna discussion, I have no comment. I suspect the man is already a participant in Internet Infidels board, and I'll be interested to see if someone here addresses his points.

But the best rebuttal Darwinians etal have is that abiogensis is not discussed in the Theory, it is a pre-supposition.

[Quasi]

There are many problems with ID. First, we are talking about billions of years, and given probability, even poor or unlikely chemical reactions can take place, second, the building blocks of life are found all over the universe. Third, a bacterium is in no way the simplest form of self-replicating organic matter- prions are. Prions are a coil of amino acids which react with other proteins to form more prions. And I am not even mentioning primitive bacteria that have no DNA at all, just RNA. So the guy is totally wrong on the biochemistry, not even close. From these examples, it is easy to see how some hydrophobic hydrocarbons trapped these materials and formed very primitive cells. This is tied into what we now call liposomes, synthetic cells that mimic ancient life.
Even if you do not buy this argument, when taken from the philosophical point that evolution and creationism are just theories because we cannot travel back in time to whitness such an event, then the ID argument is also totally fatally flawed because there is no evidence for it in that context either, therefore both should be abandoned until a concept that can be proven comes along. But alas, evolution is a proven fact, supported by thousands of well controlled, documented experiments. ID is supported by the word of a few crooks, and a fictional book called the Bible. It is sad to see how the President is pushing the country away from science. Remember- "You cannot have democracy without science." (Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.)

[MLynn]

My very humble, inadequate thought upon reading this thread is that everything on our planet is re-arranged dirt. How we came to be here will be argued and debated into perpetuity.

[Cecil]

Lets begin with the currently smallest living bacterium with the smallest number of base pairs in its genome; most likely a gram-negative bacterium with about 160,000 base pairs in its circular DNA or about 1600 centimorgans. Lets say that our first cell, although the current one is incredibly simple and would arguably be the bare bones for calling it life, had a genome one thousand times smaller; 160 base pairs. This is covered quite well in the TalkOrigins Abiogenesis FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) Well life only uses and makes “left-handed” molecules and nucleic acids, meaning all right-handed molecules are ignored. But there's no rule that says that's the way it has to be. This is evidence that the first replicating molecule just happened to be left-handed.However, since 1952, there is significant scientific data that shows early earth atmospheric components to be: water, nitrogen gas, and oxygen; the same major components that are here today. As pupdog pointed out, O2 was not very prevalent in the early earth. It came about 2.5-3 billion years ago after single-celled life evolved photosynthesis. They started converting the ambient CO2 into O2 to make energy. This would have resulted in a runaway trend, but other single-cells developed respiration, the technique of using O2 to help get energy from food. This is the origin of modern-day plants and animals.
Dr. Miller has since denounced the results of his own 1952 experiment as being inconsequential.This is a lie. Here (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html)'s an interview with him in 1996 that makes some very good points. Especially: There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.
<snip>
The surprise of the experiment was the very large yield of amino acids. We would have been happy if we got traces of amino acids, but we got around 4 percent. Incidentally, this is probably the biggest yield of any similar prebiotic experiment conducted since then. The reason for that has to do with the fact that amino acids are made from even simpler organic compounds such as hydrogen cyanide and aldehydes.
<snip>
Fortunately, Urey was so adamant at the time about methane that I didn't explore alternate gas mixtures. Now we know that any old reducing gases will do. CO2/hydrogen and nitrogen will do the trick, although not as well.
<snip>
Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids. If you count asparagine and glutamine you get thirteen basic amino acids. We don't know how many amino acids there were to start with. Asparagine and glutamine, for example, do not look prebiotic because they hydrolyze. The purines and pyrimidines can alos be made, as can all of the sugars, although they are unstable.
A quick google search will turn up even more recent interviews, speeches, etc where there is no indication whatsoever that he has renounced.

completely against the second law of thermodynamics. 2LoT applies only to closed systems, Earth is not a closed system, blah blah blah. This is a very tired argument.


Hope this helps with your response.

[CurtC]

As to the OP, I would question why he's using a bacterium, and not just starting with the fact that a fully-formed human being would be really, really, really unlikely to just spring into form from a pool of methane. What was the point of showing this fact with a bacterium?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Nah, since scientism is positive 'god' does not exist,

Baloney! "Scientism" is a straw man intended to tar science.
Science says that it does not read on the existance of a god, period.
The evidence at hand shows no NEED for the existance of any typically-defined god, however, that's a different issue.

he/she/it can't be invoked by name, so your terminology is "emergent property". Which is no different than "goddidit", but only a dualist or im-matterialist can invoke that.

I guess you thought those of us who'd already refuted your crock of manure weren't watching?

Given the number of molecues in our water ocean, it would be highly improbable for some kind of life not to happen, by sheerly random accident. What's the problem.

We've all seen that nonsensical flack about "the chance of a molecule ...", and having examined it, realize that those incredibly low probabilties per molecule, per year, actually work out, given the size of the ocean and the age of the planet, to something as near certainty as Interesting Ian's '5'. Note: NEAR certainty, there is no "certainty", except that we're here, and the most parsimonious assumption is that we're here because of that random chance having happened.

Whoopeee. Big news, that.

On the dna discussion, I have no comment. I suspect the man is already a participant in Internet Infidels board, and I'll be interested to see if someone here addresses his points.

And the fact the person particpates at II means what, Hammegk? I haven't read the DNA stuff under present discussion, there's so much horse manure involved in the original post that it's not worth wading through. My garden is already quite fertile enough.

But the best rebuttal Darwinians etal have is that abiogensis is not discussed in the Theory, it is a pre-supposition.
That's a fact, but it's not a rebuttal, since supporters of crypto-religious nonsense like ID insist on confuting the two.

[hammegk]

Recently, in a different thread, BillHoyt has actually attempted to add value to a discussion.

Do you think you ever will?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MLynn
My very humble, inadequate thought upon reading this thread is that everything on our planet is re-arranged dirt. How we came to be here will be argued and debated into perpetuity.

As good a way as any to express it, imhsho. ;)

[apoger]

Originally posted by hammegk
Recently, in a different thread, BillHoyt has actually attempted to add value to a discussion.

Do you think you ever will?


Translation:

I'll drop by this thread and deposit a pile o' poo.
When jj points out that my contribution is nonsense, instead of replying with a defense of my claims, I'll simply bait him with an ad hominem.

Look Ma! I'm a TROLL!

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
Recently, in a different thread, BillHoyt has actually attempted to add value to a discussion.

Do you think you ever will?

It is typical of you to respond to criticisms that create hopeless difficulties for your arguments by making ad-hominem attacks.

I take your ad-hominem accusation as evidence that you have absolutely no way to repond to the obviously factual nature of my reply.

[hammegk]

I'm a little curious. Do you actually think I haven't examined the Theory of Evolution in as much detail and with as much scientific understanding as you bring to the table?



Sniff, sniff? Do I smell n00by staining this thread? Dear apoger, pull your head out & join reality, or STFU.

[apoger]

Originally posted by hammegk

Sniff, sniff? Do I smell n00by staining this thread? Dear apoger, pull your head out & join reality, or STFU.


Translation:

It seems they are fully aware that I have no coherent response and am only trolling. What should I do? How about more baiting and ad homs? Yes, that will do nicely. Nobody will notice that I have nothing to say and am only spewing bile.

Tee hee hee, I'm such a clever troll.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'm a little curious. Do you actually think I haven't examined the Theory of Evolution in as much detail and with as much scientific understanding as you bring to the table?


Since you never take a positive position, or actually make your own position clear, neither I nor anyone else has a clue what you may or may not have studied.

You, none the less, routinely resort to ad-hominem attacks when people ask you telling questions. You have, at least two or three times, launched attacks on evolution that are belief-based, and that do not match the evidence in human hands.

That's about all I can say, since you won't actually own up to a position of your own, only attack others' positions. You know that, by the way, since I've pointed it out before and you've simply failed to offer anything more than occasional token substance, and that inconclusive.

I dare say I suspect you take that tactic because you know your actual position wouldn't last past the time you hit the "submit" button. I only 'suspect', however, because you repeatedly fail to take any position.

I remember back to your convoluted attempt to convert your own solipcistic approach into an espousal of solipcism on my part. Even that went nowhere, when challenged, you exploded into ad-hominems, something I've come to expect from you.

Sniff, sniff? Do I smell n00by staining this thread? Dear apoger, pull your head out & join reality, or STFU.

I'll stick to "Moose Drool". You appear to be working from the other end.

[pupdog]

Another short article in Science (Pizzarello & Weber, 20 Feb 2004, p. 1151) reports on experiments on abiotic production of biologically-important molecules. In this case, the workers synthesized sugars using chiral catalysts ("left-handed" and "right-handed" structural variants); the handedness of the catalysts affected the proportion of left- or right-handed sugars. The catalysts used are known components of certain meteorites. The reactants could have been produced on an early Earth. The results demonstrate a plausable mechanism for the syntheses of certain sugars having a handedness bias (homochirality). Furthermore, such sugars may have led to molecules having RNA-like functions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


I'll stick to "Moose Drool". You appear to be working from the other end.

You are so far out-to-lunch I won't try again to express it.

.... PlonK ....

Back to three again.

[Phaycops]

A couple things....

First:
I nominate this post by pgwenthold for the language award. This is an eloquent and understandable attack on the god of the gaps. Thanks for it. I'll be saving it for future reference :)

Originally posted by pgwenthold
At one point in history, humans saw the lightening and thunder. Some curious person asked, "Why?" Of course, knowing nothing about electrical charge, static charge buildup, or dialectric breakdowns, they had no scientific explanation for it. "A-ha!" it was said, "Lightening bolts are just fire thrown at us by Thor." And so it was believed.
---snip---


Secondly,

originally posted by hammegk
Sniff, sniff? Do I smell n00by staining this thread? Dear apoger, pull your head out & join reality, or STFU.

Ummm...I assume you're talking about Apoger; if this is the case, it is easily surmised that he's been a member longer than you, hammegk, so maybe you should STFU before you flame people.

Thirdly,
I totally agree with the other posters who say that this guy is probably not worth arguing with. The most that you can hope to do is instill some doubts. You know, start some cracks in his foundation, as they say. Maybe point out to him, politely, and with real curiosity and interest, that these are arguments that have already been refuted, over and over again. Ask him, sincerely, why creationists bother to trot out these old, worn down arguments. If what they say is true, shouldn't they be finding new evidence to corroborate their theory every day? If what they say is true, shouldn't every single experiment and development in biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry and genetics support creationism? If what they say is true, shouldn't there be more than enough evidence to convert even the most "evolutionist" scientist?

[RichardR]

It's just one big argument from ignorance – "I don't see how it could have happened without divine intervention, so it didn't".

Just because you can't explain for him how it happened, this doesn't mean it must have been God. This guy needs to explain exactly how the creator produced the first life, and he needs to show evidence for his explanation.

And when he has done that, he then only needs to explain how God was created, and then he has the answer to how life started.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Phaycops
I nominate this post by pgwenthold for the language award. This is an eloquent and understandable attack on the god of the gaps. Thanks for it. I'll be saving it for future reference :) Agreed wholeheartedly. He said what I was trying to say, above, only much more eloquently.

Originally posted by Phaycops
I totally agree with the other posters who say that this guy is probably not worth arguing with.True. However, I think the reason he should be debated is that there will be other people lurking and reading the threads. The flawed arguments needs exposing, and other people will learn from the debate.

[RichardR]

Recently, jj actually attempted to add value to a discussion.

Do you think you ever will?



Oh well. Time to send you back to my ignore list where you belong.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


You are so far out-to-lunch I won't try again to express it.

.... PlonK ....

Back to three again.

Once again, you fail to in any fashion deal with the refutation you've been handed.

You are herebly noted as a poseur.

[Yahweh]

I'll respond accordingly...

Mr. Kimpatsu, I have a little knowledge in Biology, and although I am not an evolutionist, because it requires faith, I am not going to preach to you about its ridiculousness.
Delicious irony, this person is not an evolutionist because he believes it requires faith, yet his own beliefs are derived from the same faith which he uses to discout evolution.

My typical response can be cut and pasted from This thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34662):

There are 2 types of faith:

1. Blind Faith
2. And Evidenced Faith

The only thing Blind Faith requires is blind belief. Blind Faith can never be used to assert positive belief or disbelief, it is perfectly justifyable for "personal belief". It doesnt mean anything in terms of determining what is "true" or "untrue".

<blockquote>Deism is a fine example.

Dualism is another example. However asserting Dualism is more likely than Materialism is where that belief suddenly morphs into Evidenced Faith, and that is where the trouble starts.

Most metaphysical Philosophies fit nicely into the real of "Blind Faith" (only as long as they remain blind faith, and nothing more than that).

I dont have a problem when people say "I believe in the Christian God", however I will likely take issue when someone says "I have proof of the existence of the Christian God". I would equally have a problem when someone would deny some aspect of science *coughEVILUTIONcough* because they want to preserve their religious convictions.</blockquote>

Evidenced Faith requires evidence. When you say "I am going to throw this ball, and it will travel a parabolic path through the air", then you need evidence to back that claim up. You can cite the Laws of Physics as your evidence, or you could perform an experiment, or you could cite examples where this observation in similar conditions has always been correct.

However, when you assert a positive claim that requires evidence, but the Evidenced Faith is contradicted by currently existing evidence, you must reject the faith. Refusing to do so, and that Evidenced Faith becomes labeled with a term called "Willful Ignorance".

I often find using the "Blind Faith vs. Evidenced Faith" analogy is good for defeating arguments that sound like "Evolution requires just as much faith as Creationism". And that is absolutely correct, however readers of those kinds of arguments implicitly assume the faith being referred to is blind faith, but that is not the case. Evolution requires Evidenced Faith (or science), and I would hold Creationism to the same standards of Evidenced Faith. No evidence for Creationism, then Creationism must be abandoned. (Creationists hate that logic... heeheehee...)


What I will discuss with you is how abiogenesis, or the belief that nonliving matter suddenly became living matter, and became the first common ancestor to all life on earth.
A quick description of the origins of life:


Living things as we know them are made of organic materials. In many instances, the organic materials are organized as chains of amino acids to form proteins. Proteins are "the building blocks of life," and amino acids are "the building blocks of proteins."

In a series of famous experiments by Miller and Urey (and others), organic materials (water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane) were put into a container and were subjected to electrical arcs (to simulate lightning). In a very short time (less than a week), amino acids and other organic compounds appeared in the container. There was no human creator, no designer... these things just formed under ordinary conditions.

If the same forces are at work for billions of years, the formation of life becomes probable. Not just possible, but highly probable.

- "Brown"


The correct term to use is not abiogenesis, it is the term "chemogenesis".

This my friend is an impossible situation.
Yes, maggots spontaneously generating from rotting meat is impossible, as is man being made in the image of God from the lifeless dust of the ground.

And let me tell you why.
Lets begin with the currently smallest living bacterium with the smallest number of base pairs in its genome; most likely a gram-negative bacterium with about 160,000 base pairs in its circular DNA or about 1600 centimorgans. Lets say that our first cell, although the current one is incredibly simple and would arguably be the bare bones for calling it life, had a genome one thousand times smaller; 160 base pairs. First off all DNA is comprised of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine; simple nucleic acids which I am sure you are aware of and their binding by hydrogen bonds between AT and GC. (Only A binds to T and only G binds to C.) Nucleic acids are unique structures and have what are called optical isomers also known as chiral. Optical isomers are like our hands; our left land is remarkably similar to our right hand, but it is impossible to lay our right hand on top of or inside of our left hand to make them the same. They are non-superimposable, mirror images if you will. Well life only uses and makes “left-handed” molecules and nucleic acids, meaning all right-handed molecules are ignored. So our original cell would have to have had 320 nucleic acids (2 per base pair) line up in perfect order, which would have an astronomical large number of possibilities, and assemble by hydrogen bonding. But we reach another serious problem. Nucleic acids do not appear spontaneously through non-living matter like rocks, soil, seawater, lightning, etc.
A good lot of breath is wasted (I'm sorry to just dismiss all this wonderful information, but I'm forced to do so). This guy thinks abiogenesis means "*poof* a cell" and "*poof* DNA!".

Even an 18-year-old knows more about Chemogenesis than this nut (http://jacobandrews.com/tomshort.htm):
http://jacobandrews.com/tomshort_files/image001.gif
Give the article a read, its well worth it.

The author might have a point only if he wasnt misrepresenting the evolutionist's position.

They require proteins to make them. Which leads us to another serious problem, proteins are made of amino acids, and proteins need other proteins to make them!
He states by saying proteins are made of amino acids, then he says proteins require proteins to be made (what use are the amino acids then?). A bit of inconsistency in the same sentence.

So if proteins cannot be made without amino acids, and nucleic acids cannot be made or assembled without proteins, someone had to have assembled and or created the first living organism at the very least.
Being confounded by a failure to do outside reading = beliefs resting on shaky shaky ground.

Straight from TalkOrigins - DNA or Protein, which came first? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html):
Claim:

DNA needs certain proteins in order to replicate. Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.


Response:

1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al. 1998; Pool et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids .

A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes [Levy and Ellington 2003].


[b]References:

1. Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel, 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
2. Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny, 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
3. Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin, 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently. Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
4. Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington, 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
5. Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny, 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

You may be aware of the 1952 Stanley Miller experiment where Dr. Miller created some left-handed and right-handed amino acids (no proteins) by sending an electrical discharge (lightning) through a “primordial soup” of water, methane gas, and ammonia gas. Methane and ammonia are both highly reactive molecules. However, since 1952, there is significant scientific data that shows early earth atmospheric components to be: water, nitrogen gas, and oxygen; the same major components that are here today. And I do not care how long or with how much current you shock water, nitrogen, and oxygen, you’re not going to get amino acids and certainly not proteins because they are not very reactive molecules.
This has already been well expounded upon by Cecil and Pupdog.

Dr. Miller has since denounced the results of his own 1952 experiment as being inconsequential.
Bwahahahaaaa (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html) :D

Good sense of humor.

Mr. Kimpatsu, I hope I did not offend you in belittling your knowledge by explaining these things in very simple terms, but I hope I did encourage you to seek some faith in a Creator. There are very complicated things that humans build: skyscrapers, airplanes, supercomputers, yet the most elementary example of life is incomparably more complicated than any of these things, yet some people attribute their design and creation to random chance and completely against the second law of thermodynamics.
Life is an open system, no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics occurs.

Denial and ignorance are the only excuses for not believing in the intelligent design of life.

Sincerely,
Steve Bonebrake
Mr. Bonebrake, I hope have not offended you by belittling your lack of knowledge behind the mechanics of biology. Fortunately, you've prepared yourself for the possibility of a huge upset with your immediate opening statement "I have a little knowledge in Biology". You are forgiven, please learn about the subject which you criticize, until then salvage your humility and dont write such tripe.

[jj]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'll respond accordingly...
...


You have far too much time on your hands, and that was at least mostly a most excellent reply.

I say "mostly" because I didn't give it the full technical editorial treatment, not because I noticed any problem.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Phaycops


Ummm...I assume you're talking about Apoger; if this is the case, it is easily surmised that he's been a member longer than you, hammegk, so maybe you should STFU before you flame people.
Have our panties in a wad do we? I stand corrected that apoger is a long-time member - perhaps his ability to read coupled with his unwillingness to regularly post gives apie every right to sling 'poo. Have I ceded the ability to throw some back? No. I haven't.

Do you want to play, too?


Thirdly,
I totally agree with the other posters who say that this guy is probably not worth arguing with. The most that you can hope to do is instill some doubts. You know, start some cracks in his foundation, as they say. Maybe point out to him, politely, and with real curiosity and interest, that these are arguments that have already been refuted, over and over again. Ask him, sincerely, why creationists bother to trot out these old, worn down arguments. If what they say is true, shouldn't they be finding new evidence to corroborate their theory every day? If what they say is true, shouldn't every single experiment and development in biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry and genetics support creationism? If what they say is true, shouldn't there be more than enough evidence to convert even the most "evolutionist" scientist?
The problem with the materialists' position is that either "life per se does not exist", or, it's just an "emergent property" of specific combinations of matter. The other choice -- due in large to strictures of language, makes one logically an im-materialist, or suggests (illogical) dualism. Evolutionists arguments that only matter exists are circular reasoning.

Originally posted by RichardR

Recently, jj actually attempted to add value to a discussion.

Do you think you ever will?
Yeah, truth & beauty are in the eye of the beholder. IMO, my discussion is at a more subtle level than the attacking comments jj continues to hurl.

I continue to hope someone might contribute something new in defense of Theory of Evolution. When have you seen jj come anywhere close to a "thought" rather than regurgitation of basic rote learning?

Oh well. Time to send you back to my ignore list where you belong.
Go join Hal's Pals.


Yahweh: Neither do my comments have any basis in monotheistic religious godma. (I like that better than dogma ;) )

[apoger]

>I stand corrected that apoger is a long-time member - perhaps his ability to read coupled with his unwillingness to regularly post gives apie every right to sling 'poo.


I post with some regularity, I just don't spam mental diarrhea into the forums like some posters.


>The problem with the materialists' position is that either "life per se does not exist", or, it's just an "emergent property" of specific combinations of matter. The other choice -- due in large to strictures of language, makes one logically an im-materialist, or suggests (illogical) dualism. Evolutionists arguments that only matter exists are circular reasoning.


Lacking any reasonable arguments versus the theory of evolution, you instead attempt to invalidate all science using philosophy. Rather than offering evidence, you gibber endlessly about the twisting and turning of meanings.

Semantics and philosophy are great and wonderous. However at some point we need to get practical in the real world and actually get things done. That's what science is about, discovering and influencing reality.

The evidence for evolution is strong and abundant. This is why we accept it (for now). You may play semantic games with definitions and you may conjecture about the nature of reality all you want, but this in no way invalidates the evidence.

I'm certain that you will dismiss me as a "materialist", and if that gives you comfort that's well and good. In the end though, I think the only person you are fooling is yourself.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger

I post with some regularity, I just don't spam mental diarrhea into the forums like some posters.
I hope you 'take care of the poo business' with more regularity than your 0.21 posts/day average. Or perhaps you lost a few thousand posts in the trash that was recently pruned?


Lacking any reasonable arguments versus the theory of evolution, you instead attempt to invalidate all science using philosophy. Rather than offering evidence, you gibber endlessly about the twisting and turning of meanings.

And I congratulate you on your ability to comment on subjects you obviously don't comprehend. Science works as well for me as an objective idealist as it does for any materialist/atheist. What idealism does not do is claim at 100% certainty "god does NOT exist" and then use the circular rationalizations needed by atheists to "prove" the world of non-living material they envision is also 100% correct.


Semantics and philosophy are great and wonderous. However at some point we need to get practical in the real world and actually get things done. That's what science is about, discovering and influencing reality.
Well, I'm glad we agree on that. I admit my concern is actually the nature of reality; science works with (human) perceptions of that reality,similar perceptions shared -- in part at least -- by all events or objects perceivable.


The evidence for evolution is strong and abundant. This is why we accept it (for now). You may play semantic games with definitions and you may conjecture about the nature of reality all you want, but this in no way invalidates the evidence.
Nor do I try. Are you beginning to understand my stance?


I'm certain that you will dismiss me as a "materialist", and if that gives you comfort that's well and good. In the end though, I think the only person you are fooling is yourself.
Why would I dismiss you as a materialist? Your POV is yours, and if you are happy with it, so what? We can agree to disagree. If what you really want is a p*ssing match, we can continue as you wish.

[apoger]

>I hope you 'take care of the poo business' with more regularity than your 0.21 posts/day average.

It's about quality rather than quantity. I suspect you wouldn't understand.

However if you must keep insisting that sheer number of postings is important, I will happily concede that your "virtual penis" is bigger than mine.



>And I congratulate you on your ability to comment on subjects you obviously don't comprehend.

My comments in this thread relate to evolutionary theory and helping someone deal with a credulous person. I believe I have a firm grasp of these issues. If there is something I don't comprehend in respect to this, then by all means please point it out.

I have also commented on your evasive manner and trollish behavior. I'm fairly sure I've hit the nail on the head on this topic as well. However I will leave it to those reading this exchange to judge for themselves. :)


>What idealism does not do is claim at 100% certainty "god does NOT exist" and then use the circular rationalizations needed by atheists to "prove" the world of non-living material they envision is also 100% correct.

Neither science nor atheism claims that with 100% certainty that god does not exist.

In your own words: "I congratulate you on your ability to comment on subjects you obviously don't comprehend"


>I admit my concern is actually the nature of reality

That is my concern as well. However I concern myself with what we have evidence for. You seem lost is a world of conjecture about the nature of reality.


>Nor do I try. Are you beginning to understand my stance?

Certainly do! It's your trollish tactic of saying something and then when pressed, dodging and weaving by claiming that you haven't really said anything.

Let's call it the "hammegk maneuver". ;)


>Why would I dismiss you as a materialist? Your POV is yours, and if you are happy with it, so what? We can agree to disagree.

Ladies and gentlemen, the "hammegk maneuver" in it's natural habitat!

Check it out:

- Ad hominem attack (apoger doesn't post enough, apoger doesn't comprehend)
- Erroneous claim made (100% certainty god does not exist)
- Dodge & Weave - "Nor do I try" "Your POV is yours, and if you are happy with it, so what" "We can agree to disagree"



>If what you really want is a p*ssing match, we can continue as you wish.

Look out folks, he has his hackles up! He may start throwing insults at any time!

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by hammegk

Have our panties in a wad do we? I stand corrected that apoger is a long-time member - perhaps his ability to read coupled with his unwillingness to regularly post gives apie every right to sling 'poo. Have I ceded the ability to throw some back? No. I haven't.

Do you want to play, too?


No panties in a wad, just pointing out that you were wrong. Aparently this agitates you in some way. I apologize if I've upset the fragile balance of your mind. In other news, the number of posts a person has is completely irrelevant the the intellectual content of said posts. As we can see amply in reading your drivel, hammegk. I have no desire to "play" whatever games you're imagining. I prefer, instead, to engage in intellectual discussions. Ever heard of them?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Phaycops


... intellectual discussions. Ever heard of them?
Why yes, I have. I don't recall seeing you engaged in one. Which thread best demonstrates your abilities?

Originally posted by apoger

It's about quality rather than quantity. I suspect you wouldn't understand.
Yeah, I looked at some of your previous contributions. Wow! Which one are you proudest of?


However if you must keep insisting that sheer number of postings is important, I will happily concede that your "virtual penis" is bigger than mine.
Nice of you, assh*le. As I said the post count & joindate were my error.


My comments in this thread relate to evolutionary theory and helping someone deal with a credulous person. I believe I have a firm grasp of these issues. If there is something I don't comprehend in respect to this, then by all means please point it out.
You believe I am credulous? Are you one of those f*cking retards Brights go on about? Or are you just libeling the person whose words were posted here, most likely without his knowledge?

On pointing out your obvious lack of comprehension, your opening post-a-fart into this thread is a place to start. Otherwise, your learning difficulties are your own.


I have also commented on your evasive manner and trollish behavior. I'm fairly sure I've hit the nail on the head on this topic as well. However I will leave it to those reading this exchange to judge for themselves.
Fair enough. Quite the sport of you. Er, what was the other option you think you have???


Neither science nor atheism claims that with 100% certainty that god does not exist.
Do you favor idealism or dualism?


In your own words: "I congratulate you on your ability to comment on subjects you obviously don't comprehend"
Sounds like a pesky fly. Buzzing around apoger poo maybe?


You seem lost is a world of conjecture about the nature of reality.
You seem more and more clueless. Drivel on. Maybe you and jj should pm one another and exchange ideas.


Certainly do! It's your trollish tactic of saying something and then when pressed, dodging and weaving by claiming that you haven't really said anything.

Let's call it the "hammegk maneuver".
Care for some cheese with your whine?


Ladies and gentlemen, the "hammegk maneuver" in it's natural habitat!

Check it out:

- Ad hominem attack (apoger doesn't post enough, apoger doesn't comprehend)
- Erroneous claim made (100% certainty god does not exist)
- Dodge & Weave - "Nor do I try" "Your POV is yours, and if you are happy with it, so what" "We can agree to disagree"
What did you expect, leaping into the onging jj/hammegk exchange? Feel free to demonstrate your comprehension.

I've already addressed the 100% problem. Having courage to back up one's convictions is a different matter.

Dodge & weave? LOL; apoger, does god exist?


Look out folks, he has his hackles up! He may start throwing insults at any time!
My hackles are usually up in this den of -- Ed only knows what to name them -- posters. :D ;)

As to continuing our childish game, not much more at the moment anyway. Got anything of substance you'd like to table?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

...

Nice of you, assh*le. As I said the post count & joindate were my error.

...

You believe I am credulous? Are you one of those f*cking retards Brights go on about? Or are you just libeling the person whose words were posted here, most likely without his knowledge?

...

You seem more and more clueless. Drivel on. Maybe you and jj should pm one another and exchange ideas.

...

As to continuing our childish game, not much more at the moment anyway. Got anything of substance you'd like to table?

And once again, Hammegk shows his astonishing grasp of intellectual debate.

:bricks:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


And once again, Hammegk shows his astonishing grasp of intellectual debate.



jj, its like picking at a scab, I keep reading (you're off ignore again too).

As I've mentioned elsewhere, scientific intellectualism imo draws an artificial line between "reality" and our humanness -- ego, emotion, relgiosity, ethics, morals, etcetc.

Also my apologies to apoger & Phaycops. I will attempt to tone it down and play nice (er, maybe nicer) based on their comments.

Finally, imhsho this thread's topic is not Science; it's philosophy. I would like to hear apoger's position on dualism or idealism.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
As I've mentioned elsewhere, scientific intellectualism imo draws an artificial line between "reality" and our humanness -- ego, emotion, relgiosity, ethics, morals, etcetc. Nonsense. Those phenomena are acknowledged aspects of human psychology, which is well within the bounds of scientific inquiry.

What science does not do is pretend that those phenomena are the basic building blocks of reality. Like it or not, we are not the center of the universe. An inability to recognize this point is a diagnostic sign of philosophical incompetence.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Nonsense. Those phenomena are acknowledged aspects of human psychology, which is well within the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Inquiry, sure. When will you have the math to back you up? You predict: sometime, I predict: never.


What science does not do is pretend that those phenomena are the basic building blocks of reality. Like it or not, we are not the center of the universe. An inability to recognize this point is a diagnostic sign of philosophical incompetence.
I'm not sure why you would think I disagree with that. ???

[Quasi]

Originally posted by hammegk

As I've mentioned elsewhere, scientific intellectualism imo draws an artificial line between "reality" and our humanness -- ego, emotion, relgiosity, ethics, morals, etcetc.


Hello Hamm,

I have also heard this complaint from new agers, however science does take emotions etc. seriously. The research being done here is virtually all on emotions, etc. : http://www.beckinstitute.org/
Not a lot of people are aware of Cognitive Therapy, but there you are. I read the guys book, it was quite good.

[apoger]

>Also my apologies to apoger & Phaycops.

I accept, and thank you.



>Finally, imhsho this thread's topic is not Science; it's philosophy.

Heh, attempting to shift things away from science and into philosophy. Classic, but I'll bite this time since your acting a shard more civilized.


>I would like to hear apoger's position on dualism or idealism.

Last time I read up on these topics they were complicated, with many subtleties and flavors. Furthmore I am familiar with your penchant for obfuscation. In order to have a coherent converstation about these topics I will first need clear definitions of what these things mean for you. Once I understand the positions you are presenting, I will attempt to clarify my stance in relation.

(However, having seen you in action before, I must assume that this is a set-up where you will inevitably declare that my personal philosophy is invalid and then use that as a reason to disregard science as a whole)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Quasi


Hello Hamm,

I have also heard this complaint from new agers, however science does take emotions etc. seriously. The research being done here is virtually all on emotions, etc. : http://www.beckinstitute.org/
Not a lot of people are aware of Cognitive Therapy, but there you are. I read the guys book, it was quite good.

Hi Q.

Of course science has within it's purview the ability to research these as phenomena, as it does to reseach the phenomena of life.

The line as I see it divides the mathematically reducible and analyzable in some predictive sense -- chaos fits on that side of the line-- vs life in particular which does not, and as I've contended before never will in that the final god of the gaps problem will be "we built it, and made life" or "life chose to animate the structure we provided".


Originally posted by apoger

I accept, and thank you.

:)


Heh, attempting to shift things away from science and into philosophy. Classic, but I'll bite this time since your acting a shard more civilized.
Thank you. I'll try harder to keep discourse civil.


....In order to have a coherent conversation about these topics I will first need clear definitions of what these things mean for you. Once I understand the positions you are presenting, I will attempt to clarify my stance in relation.
Hmmmm: where to start?

Philosophy has been examining "body" and "spirit" as possibly separate properties. This view is dualism, and thanks to Stimpy's "If it effects of affects the physical it is physical (by definition)". Therefore any interactive dualism becomes illogical, so a binary choice remains: "body" = materialism, or "spirit" = im-materialism. Body at 100% probability implies at least to me hard atheism. Spirit is at least agnostic on that question.

Does this seem correct to you?


(However, having seen you in action before, I must assume that this is a set-up where you will inevitably declare that my personal philosophy is invalid and then use that as a reason to disregard science as a whole)
Yet I don't disregard any of science, and continue to stress that only personal, logical, analysis can possibly aid in one's selection. Pick one, and examine the world as best you understand it; do the same with the other; choose one.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Delicious irony, this person is not an evolutionist because he believes it requires faith, yet his own beliefs are derived from the same faith which he uses to discout evolution.


You beat me to it.:)

[hammegk]

OK, in my new spirit of engagement, I'll give this a whirl.

Originally posted by jj


Baloney! "Scientism" is a straw man intended to tar science.
Science says that it does not read on the existance of a god, period.
The evidence at hand shows no NEED for the existance of any typically-defined god, however, that's a different issue.
I agree that science is able to rationalize what is currently observed without recourse to anything but "matter", once it has selected matter as it's monism of choice.


I guess you thought those of us who'd already refuted your crock of manure weren't watching?
I admit to denseness, and also admit I have no idea when or where this refutation, by anyone except perhaps in their own mind, could be demonstrated.


Given the number of molecues in our water ocean, it would be highly improbable for some kind of life not to happen, by sheerly random accident. What's the problem.

We've all seen that nonsensical flack about "the chance of a molecule ...", and having examined it, realize that those incredibly low probabilties per molecule, per year, actually work out, given the size of the ocean and the age of the planet, to something as near certainty as Interesting Ian's '5'. Note: NEAR certainty, there is no "certainty", except that we're here, and the most parsimonious assumption is that we're here because of that random chance having happened.
Not my argument.


And the fact the person particpates at II means what, Hammegk? I haven't read the DNA stuff under present discussion, there's so much horse manure involved in the original post that it's not worth wading through. My garden is already quite fertile enough.
Your ability to separate fact from fertilizer without examining either sounds like you might be psychic.


That's a fact, but it's not a rebuttal, since supporters of crypto-religious nonsense like ID insist on confuting the two.
Confuting?

What scientific discipline do you consider most responsible for examining the question of abiogenesis? Biology or microbiology I'd suspect, a discipline now at the forefront of the ongoing contention that evolution is The answer. I do agree the Theory of Evolution has an easier time defending itself when abiogenesis is carefully excluded from the Theory, and a bit of life has become available to mutate.

[apoger]

>Philosophy has been examining "body" and "spirit" as possibly separate properties

Possibly? Sure, anything is possible. I assume you aren't talking about spirit as a synonym for enthusiasm and/or determination. I also concede that spirit exists as a concept. Am I right in assuming that you mean "spirit" as in part of an individual yet not something associated with the physical body? If that is the case, what evidence is there of such a thing? I have yet to see any that would convince me.


>This view is dualism, and thanks to Stimpy's "If it effects of affects the physical it is physical (by definition)".

I would agree with this.


>Therefore any interactive dualism becomes illogical, so a binary choice remains: "body" = materialism, or "spirit" = im-materialism.

I am not 100% sure on this as I am not positive I understand what you mean by spirit. In fact I am unsure exactly what you mean by "body".

I see that you are defining body = materialism and spirit = immaterialism but I don't see how you came to those definitions, nor what use those definitions are.Why not just say materialism and immaterialism?


>Body at 100% probability implies at least to me hard atheism.

I do not understand how "body at 100%" implies a belief in the non-existence of god.


>Spirit is at least agnostic on that question.

This also makes no sense to me.


>Does this seem correct to you?

I am really unsure how you are defining body and spirit, and as such can't really say.


>Yet I don't disregard any of science, and continue to stress that only personal, logical, analysis can possibly aid in one's selection. Pick one, and examine the world as best you understand it; do the same with the other; choose one.

One what?



Since we haven't gotten far in questioning my personal philosophy, I will reply to some of your other posts in the hope of generating some insight or tangible debate:


>Nah, since scientism is positive 'god' does not exist, he/she/it can't be invoked by name, so your terminology is "emergent property".

Science most certainly makes no claim that it is positive that god does not exist. This is the comment that set off jj and he was most certainly correct in taking you to task for it. Science is not "positive" about anything. Furthermore science is not in the business of declaring that things do not exist, but rather in examining evidence of things existence.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "he/she/it can't be invoked by name". What does this have to do with anything? And how in the heck would would any of this be an emergent property?


>But the best rebuttal Darwinians etal have is that abiogensis is not discussed in the Theory, it is a pre-supposition.

Then the best rebuttal is garbage. Abiogenesis is not a presupposition for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory works just as well if preceded by biblical genesis. Evolution is not concerned by what came before it. While abiogenesis and evolution may work well together, they are not contingent upon each other.


>What scientific discipline do you consider most responsible for examining the question of abiogenesis? Biology or microbiology I'd suspect, a discipline now at the forefront of the ongoing contention that evolution is The answer.

Biology includes microbiology, so yes I'd say that's the discipline at the forefront involving both abiogenesis and biological evolution. However what is the "ongoing contention that evolution is The answer"? What contention? And "The" answer to what?


> I do agree the Theory of Evolution has an easier time defending itself when abiogenesis is carefully excluded from the Theory, and a bit of life has become available to mutate.

It does not need careful exclusion, as they aren't the same thing.

Frankly you seem to be a person that is quite cabable of differentiating the subtleties between two concepts as you have done often in regards to philosopy. It seems a bit disingenuous that you seem unable to offer similar consideration to seperate sciences, particularly when this a topic you have some experience with.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk
What scientific discipline do you consider most responsible for examining the question of abiogenesis? Biology or microbiology I'd suspect, a discipline now at the forefront of the ongoing contention that evolution is

I'd start with biochemistry, with small self-replicating molecules, like the lipid-lumps that somebody managed to make out of their take of "primordial soup".

You've got to start with chemistry, I'd say, because until it passes the threshold of life (now, don't ask me when that is, the easiest way to cope is to set a definition, and see when things slide on over...), and then it's chemistry in the service of (at first) microbiology.

We know in a small flask or two in a few months we see most of the precursors, and that people have also synthesized lipid globules (water inside and out) from similar mixes, even without things like rock and clay matrix to move things along. That's in a small flask, in a few months.

The whole ocean for a billion years is a rather, um, big flask, and with the potential for a great deal of random 'experiment'. All it takes is ONE success that self-replicates, and off we go. DNA at the beginning? No. Just self-replicating molecules, first with simple energy mechanisms, and then as time goes on, with more complex ones.

Basically, once we have one that can self-replicate, in a soup with lots of fuel and no competition, we're going to have a spread of whateveritis in nothing flat (geologically speaking). When competition starts, the more efficient and slightly different (which there will have to be, unless somebody's refuted thermodynamics) will start to increase in population. There we go, (very) primitive evolution, pre-DNA.

The answer. I do agree the Theory of Evolution has an easier time defending itself when abiogenesis is carefully excluded from the Theory, and a bit of life has become available to mutate.
Well, we've seen evolution in the lab, and in the wild, so it's a tad hard to refute the idea that things can evolve. Given what happens with fruitflies regarding homeobox genes, etc, developmental changes aren't very surprising, either. Yes, 99.9995% (made up number close to 1) will fall flat on their face, and die before they can be said to start to even exist, that I also agree about. But it only takes one.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
I agree that science is able to rationalize what is currently observed without recourse to anything but "matter", once it has selected matter as it's monism of choice.
This is a total distortion of what science does, hammy. It does not align itself with any such philosophical preconceptions.
What scientific discipline do you consider most responsible for examining the question of abiogenesis? Biology or microbiology I'd suspect, a discipline now at the forefront of the ongoing contention that evolution is The answer. I do agree the Theory of Evolution has an easier time defending itself when abiogenesis is carefully excluded from the Theory, and a bit of life has become available to mutate.
Abiogenesis is not "carefully excluded from the theory," hammy. The principles by which evolution operates do not fully emerge until the baseline systems are in place. The mathematics of evoultionary theory require genes. Questions from genes on are evolutionary questions. Questions before genes are under the rubric, abiogenesis.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This is a total distortion of what science does, hammy. It does not align itself with any such philosophical preconceptions.
I accept the correction. Only humans, who are Scientists and Materialists, choose to make that preconception.


Abiogenesis is not "carefully excluded from the theory," hammy. The principles by which evolution operates do not fully emerge until the baseline systems are in place. The mathematics of evoultionary theory require genes. Questions from genes on are evolutionary questions. Questions before genes are under the rubric, abiogenesis.
So you assert. Carefully or not the exclusion is a fact, and were the exclusion not formally in place the Theory would lose any rationale for something "available" that could mutate.

[apoger]

>So you assert. Carefully or not the exclusion is a fact, and were the exclusion not formally in place the Theory would lose any rationale for something "available" that could mutate.

Perhaps an analogy would help clarity:

Pretend the theory of evolution is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You have evidence of the existence of the sandwich as you are holding it in your hand.

Now someone asks "but where did the sandwich come from"?

Person A responds: "I went to the store and picked up it's components. Then when I got home I made the sandwich for you".

Person B responds: "God declared the sandwich must exist, and BEHOLD, it appeared instantly from nowhere".

Now persons A&B argue until they are blue in the face and can come to no agreement.

The question is, does the outcome of their argument have any bearing on your evidence that the sandwich exists?

No it does not. You have the evidence in you hand. Argument as to the origin of the sandwich has no bearing on the evidence of it's existence. The origin is a seperate issue entirely.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger

Perhaps an analogy would help clarity:

Pretend the theory of evolution is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You have evidence of the existence of the sandwich as you are holding it in your hand.

Now someone asks "but where did the sandwich come from"?

Person A responds: "I went to the store and picked up it's components. Then when I got home I made the sandwich for you".

Person B responds: "God declared the sandwich must exist, and BEHOLD, it appeared instantly from nowhere".

Now persons A&B argue until they are blue in the face and can come to no agreement.
And if that was what A & B were free to do, I'd have no problem.

However, evolutionists then pretend they have "proved" that neither A nor B nor God exist, and that the sandwich appeared by random chance and environmental fluctuations (although they speculate it took a few billion years to do so).

The question is, does the outcome of their argument have any bearing on your evidence that the sandwich exists?

No it does not. You have the evidence in you hand. Argument as to the origin of the sandwich has no bearing on the evidence of it's existence. The origin is a seperate issue entirely.
Agreed.

Back to your other questions, although this doesn't look like it will meet what you expect ...



Possibly? Sure, anything is possible. I assume you aren't talking about spirit as a synonym for enthusiasm and/or determination. I also concede that spirit exists as a concept. Am I right in assuming that you mean "spirit" as in part of an individual yet not something associated with the physical body? If that is the case, what evidence is there of such a thing? I have yet to see any that would convince me.
Under, say, Cartesian dualism that would be the case. It is not. The question I ask assumes monism as more logical, per your agreement on Stimpy's thoughts on if it effects physical it is physical. The converse is if it affects/effects the (perceived you, me and universe) and is im-material, so is the world of perception im-material. Or in common parlance, body or "spirit"; do you prefer non-living and intent-free vs living and having intent?


I see that you are defining body = materialism and spirit = immaterialism but I don't see how you came to those definitions, nor what use those definitions are.Why not just say materialism and immaterialism?
OK with me, as long as you accept the baggage that follows either of those words.


I do not understand how "body at 100%" implies a belief in the non-existence of god.
OK, a non-living "God" may exist"? That seems meaningless to me.


This also makes no sense to me.
"It is unknown if god (can we say intent?) exists" must be absolutely 100% correct.


One what?
The choice of material vs im-material.


Science most certainly makes no claim that it is positive that god does not exist. This is the comment that set off jj and he was most certainly correct in taking you to task for it. Science is not "positive" about anything. Furthermore science is not in the business of declaring that things do not exist, but rather in examining evidence of things existence.
I don't believe that accurately expresses the philosophy of self-described "Brights"; humans, not science are indeed the agents who make any actual claims.

'We see no need for god to explain what we have perceived so far' is a much different statement than 'there is no god'.


I haven't a clue what you mean by "he/she/it can't be invoked by name". What does this have to do with anything? And how in the heck would would any of this be an emergent property?
This returns to the thinking rock; either life under an existent (matter) that is by definition non-living emerges at some point, or it's either all non-living or it's all living.


Abiogenesis is not a presupposition for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory works just as well if preceded by biblical genesis. Evolution is not concerned by what came before it. While abiogenesis and evolution may work well together, they are not contingent upon each other.
We agree.


Biology includes microbiology, so yes I'd say that's the discipline at the forefront involving both abiogenesis and biological evolution. However what is the "ongoing contention that evolution is The answer"? What contention? And "The" answer to what?
Although most strongly directed at 100% denial of Judeo-Xianity, at the most basic intent, god does not exist.


Frankly you seem to be a person that is quite cabable of differentiating the subtleties between two concepts as you have done often in regards to philosopy.
I like to think so too, and also like to think I can follow the meaning of statements to their logical, though often unstated, conclusions.

[apoger]

>And if that was what A & B were free to do, I'd have no problem.

What would prevent it?
Who/What is preventing discussion/argument on the topic of the origin of life?


>However, evolutionists then pretend they have "proved" that neither A nor B nor God exist, and that the sandwich appeared by random chance and environmental fluctuations (although they speculate it took a few billion years to do so).

"Evolutionist"? As in a person that accepts evolutionary theory as the current best explanation for how populations change over time?

Such people do not pretend to have proved anything about abiogenisis, as the definition of "evolutionist" tells us nothing about their stance on such matters.

Such people do not pretend to have proved the nonexistenece of god, as the definition of "evolutionist" tells us nothing about their stance on such matters.

You have now shifted your erroneous claims from science/scientism and now applied it to "evolutionists". It's every bit as wrong in this context.

If you want to say that many people that accept evolutionary theory are also advocates of abiogenisis, that would be correct. However the claim that scientists/evolutionists MUST accept both abiogenisis and the non-existence of god is without foundation.

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand this. Yet I find myself responding to these claims again...




> No it does not. You have the evidence in you hand. Argument as to the origin of the sandwich has no bearing on the evidence of it's existence. The origin is a seperate issue entirely.

>>Agreed.


And here you are IN AGREEMENT that origin and evidence of existence are seperate issues. So you do understand it, even though you keep making the same claims.

I say they are different issues and you agree. Yet you have offered that scientists and evolutionists are making the mistake of insisting on abiogenisis and the non-existence of god. So we argree, but it's those dang scientists/evolutionists that are making mistakes.

You are insisting that scientists and evolutionists MUST have attributes that they simple don't require in order to fit their definition. This is a stawman argument.

You claim to be a devotee of logic. I'm sorry, but I see little evidence of that here.



>Am I right in assuming that you mean "spirit" as in part of an individual yet not something associated with the physical body? If that is the case, what evidence is there of such a thing?

>>Under, say, Cartesian dualism that would be the case. It is not.

It is not WHAT? What you believe in?
Then what do you belive in? I asked a straightforward question, asking for a definition of spirit. I'm still waiting! You don't think it has to do with "cartesian dualism". That's nice. What does it have to do with? And what evidence do you have to support that finding?



>>The question I ask assumes monism as more logical, per your agreement on Stimpy's thoughts on if it effects physical it is physical.

The question you ask? What question? How about a simple and direct answer to my query for definitions? Then I can figure out what you question is.



>>The converse is if it affects/effects the (perceived you, me and universe) and is im-material, so is the world of perception im-material.

No the converse would be if it affects the immaterial it is immaterial. This says absolutely nothing about perception. How did perception get slipped in there? What does it have to do with the definition of body or spirit.

Perceptions are part of the material as per Stimpy's definition.


>>Or in common parlance, body or "spirit"; do you prefer non-living and intent-free vs living and having intent?

When last we wrote, Body = materialism, now let me get this straight, Body = living and having intent. Does that mean that Spirit = non-living and intent-free?

I ask you:
Where are you going with this?
And can you provide more coherent definitions?




>I see that you are defining body = materialism and spirit = immaterialism but I don't see how you came to those definitions, nor what use those definitions are.Why not just say materialism and immaterialism?

>>OK with me, as long as you accept the baggage that follows either of those words.

And again you "agree" rather than offer clarity to a question asked.

I asked you how you came to those definitions. A response of agreeing with the definitions does not address the question asked.

Can I expect a coherent response from you anytime soon?



>I do not understand how "body at 100%" implies a belief in the non-existence of god.

>>OK, a non-living "God" may exist"? That seems meaningless to me.


As meaningless as your response?

Does this address the definition of body, NO.
Does this aid my understanding of "body at 100%", NO.
Does this explain how "body at 100%" implies a non-belief in god, No.

<sigh>




>This also makes no sense to me.

>>"It is unknown if god (can we say intent?) exists" must be absolutely 100% correct.

Can we say intent? I don't know. Are we now defining god as "intent".

This STILL makes no sense to me.




>One what?

>>The choice of material vs im-material.

You are asking for me to choose between material and immaterial? Why the heck didn't you just say so?

I choose to operate as if the material world and it's objective reality exists. I do so because of personal observation and testing that brings in continuous evidence that this is the only practical manner in which to operate. It's possible that all the universe is a figment of my imagination, or that I am a figment of someone else's imagination, but until I have evidence of such, I must continue to accept the limited perceptions of my senses and the evidence they provide. To do otherwise would be to accept a descent into madness.



>Science most certainly makes no claim that it is positive that god does not exist. This is the comment that set off jj and he was most certainly correct in taking you to task for it. Science is not "positive" about anything. Furthermore science is not in the business of declaring that things do not exist, but rather in examining evidence of things existence.

>>I don't believe that accurately expresses the philosophy of self-described "Brights";

I believe it does. However there is a difference between those that accept science, and those that declare themselves Brights, although there may be much overlap. Again you have attempted a dodge by tossing out a new frame of refference. Don't want to discuss science, just attack Brights. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.


>humans, not science are indeed the agents who make any actual claims.

Correct.

I would note however that this entire exchange started with your statement "since scientism is positive 'god' does not exist". If you are going to demand semantic precision it's a good idea to adhere to your own standards.



>'We see no need for god to explain what we have perceived so far' is a much different statement than 'there is no god'.

Who would say that there is no need to explain? Let me know so I can then figure out which strawman you are knocking down.



>I haven't a clue what you mean by "he/she/it can't be invoked by name". What does this have to do with anything? And how in the heck would would any of this be an emergent property?

>>This returns to the thinking rock; either life under an existent (matter) that is by definition non-living emerges at some point, or it's either all non-living or it's all living.

If you are trying to beat me down with incoherent babble... it's working. This last reply fails to address that question asked, and gives me a headache.



>Abiogenesis is not a presupposition for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory works just as well if preceded by biblical genesis. Evolution is not concerned by what came before it. While abiogenesis and evolution may work well together, they are not contingent upon each other.

>>We agree.

And yet at the top of this post you open with a strawman claim versus evolutionsts making this very mistake.



>Biology includes microbiology, so yes I'd say that's the discipline at the forefront involving both abiogenesis and biological evolution. However what is the "ongoing contention that evolution is The answer"? What contention? And "The" answer to what?

>>Although most strongly directed at 100% denial of Judeo-Xianity, at the most basic intent, god does not exist.

So you are now claiming that the field of biology is strongly directed at denial of "Judeo-Xianity" and the claim that god does not exist?

So, once again, not answering the question (coherently) and then setting up a strawman argument for our friend Biology.


PS - "humans, not science are indeed the agents who make any actual claims."



>and also like to think I can follow the meaning of statements to their logical, though often unstated, conclusions.

Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger

What would prevent it?
Who/What is preventing discussion/argument on the topic of the origin of life?

"Evolutionist"? As in a person that accepts evolutionary theory as the current best explanation for how populations change over time?

Such people do not pretend to have proved anything about abiogenisis, as the definition of "evolutionist" tells us nothing about their stance on such matters.

Such people do not pretend to have proved the nonexistenece of god, as the definition of "evolutionist" tells us nothing about their stance on such matters.

You have now shifted your erroneous claims from science/scientism and now applied it to "evolutionists". It's every bit as wrong in this context.

If you want to say that many people that accept evolutionary theory are also advocates of abiogenisis, that would be correct. However the claim that scientists/evolutionists MUST accept both abiogenisis and the non-existence of god is without foundation.

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand this. Yet I find myself responding to these claims again...


And here you are IN AGREEMENT that origin and evidence of existence are seperate issues. So you do understand it, even though you keep making the same claims.

I say they are different issues and you agree. Yet you have offered that scientists and evolutionists are making the mistake of insisting on abiogenisis and the non-existence of god. So we argree, but it's those dang scientists/evolutionists that are making mistakes.

You are insisting that scientists and evolutionists MUST have attributes that they simple don't require in order to fit their definition. This is a stawman argument.

You claim to be a devotee of logic. I'm sorry, but I see little evidence of that here.


It is not WHAT? What you believe in?
Then what do you belive in? I asked a straightforward question, asking for a definition of spirit. I'm still waiting! You don't think it has to do with "cartesian dualism". That's nice. What does it have to do with? And what evidence do you have to support that finding?

The question you ask? What question? How about a simple and direct answer to my query for definitions? Then I can figure out what you question is.



>>The converse is if it affects/effects the (perceived you, me and universe) and is im-material, so is the world of perception im-material.

No the converse would be if it affects the immaterial it is immaterial. This says absolutely nothing about perception. How did perception get slipped in there? What does it have to do with the definition of body or spirit.

Perceptions are part of the material as per Stimpy's definition.


>>Or in common parlance, body or "spirit"; do you prefer non-living and intent-free vs living and having intent?

When last we wrote, Body = materialism, now let me get this straight, Body = living and having intent. Does that mean that Spirit = non-living and intent-free?

I ask you:
Where are you going with this?
And can you provide more coherent definitions?


And again you "agree" rather than offer clarity to a question asked.

I asked you how you came to those definitions. A response of agreeing with the definitions does not address the question asked.

Can I expect a coherent response from you anytime soon?

As meaningless as your response?

Does this address the definition of body, NO.
Does this aid my understanding of "body at 100%", NO.
Does this explain how "body at 100%" implies a non-belief in god, No.






>This also makes no sense to me.

>>"It is unknown if god (can we say intent?) exists" must be absolutely 100% correct.

Can we say intent? I don't know. Are we now defining god as "intent".

This STILL makes no sense to me.




>One what?

>>The choice of material vs im-material.

You are asking for me to choose between material and immaterial? Why the heck didn't you just say so?

I choose to operate as if the material world and it's objective reality exists. I do so because of personal observation and testing that brings in continuous evidence that this is the only practical manner in which to operate. It's possible that all the universe is a figment of my imagination, or that I am a figment of someone else's imagination, but until I have evidence of such, I must continue to accept the limited perceptions of my senses and the evidence they provide. To do otherwise would be to accept a descent into madness.



>Science most certainly makes no claim that it is positive that god does not exist. This is the comment that set off jj and he was most certainly correct in taking you to task for it. Science is not "positive" about anything. Furthermore science is not in the business of declaring that things do not exist, but rather in examining evidence of things existence.

>>I don't believe that accurately expresses the philosophy of self-described "Brights";

I believe it does. However there is a difference between those that accept science, and those that declare themselves Brights, although there may be much overlap. Again you have attempted a dodge by tossing out a new frame of refference. Don't want to discuss science, just attack Brights. Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.


Correct.

I would note however that this entire exchange started with your statement "since scientism is positive 'god' does not exist". If you are going to demand semantic precision it's a good idea to adhere to your own standards.

Who would say that there is no need to explain? Let me know so I can then figure out which strawman you are knocking down.

If you are trying to beat me down with incoherent babble... it's working. This last reply fails to address that question asked, and gives me a headache.

>>We agree.

And yet at the top of this post you open with a strawman claim versus evolutionsts making this very mistake.



So you are now claiming that the field of biology is strongly directed at denial of "Judeo-Xianity" and the claim that god does not exist?

So, once again, not answering the question (coherently) and then setting up a strawman argument for our friend Biology.


PS - "humans, not science are indeed the agents who make any actual claims."


Sadly this does not seem to be the case.


If you ever decide to learn how to use the quote feature we can try again, iff you would care to engage in something meaningful.

Until that time, we have full agreement on your comment:
This STILL makes no sense to me.

And questions, questions, questions! I bet you drove (maybe drive?) mommy & daddy crazy.

Hint: If you stand up straight and hold both hands 'way up above your head and extend your fingers as straight as you can, you probably are pointing "up". ;)

Sorry. This doesn't look like it's going to work out for us. For a minute there I thought you were serious. :(

[apoger]

Translation:

Holy crap, this guy is actually going to question my insanity. I'm having my ass handed to me in public! I'll just toss out some lame complaints and then get out of dodge. Nobody will notice that I have nothing coherent to say, or any evidence to back up my views.

Heh heh heh, I'm the most cleverest of Trolls!

[Gestahl]

H,

I was like you and rejected materialism for the same reason you stated. However, the only way to surpass solipsism and have a useful theory is to assume the physical world exists. Now, take into account that no system can analyze itself perfectly (per Godel's Theorem) and you have the makings for idealism being a very poor. People are *very* bad about dissecting themselves and gaining anything useful.

Enter materialism: the observation of minds, emotions, and etc. by independent and multiple observers, rather than a limited view point on one's own self. I believe this holds a better chance of figuring things out.

Lastly, you have the problem of behaviorism, in which we only know of other's ideas, emotions, etc. through their effects, which requires a critical mind to think about and draw conclusions about. Sense any communicative attempt at describing an idea filters through not 1 but two people whose semantics, definitions, and connotations might differ, it is amazing to me we communicate at all.

It's like QM... we will never understand completely the Universe, ourselves, or anything else, because all is reality (matter), and we cannot use it to analyze itself and get complete results.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger
Translation:

Holy crap, this guy is actually going to question my insanity. I'm having my ass handed to me in public! I'll just toss out some lame complaints and then get out of dodge. Nobody will notice that I have nothing coherent to say, or any evidence to back up my views.

Still haven't figured out syntax? How quaint. Next time I decide to waste some time I might try to sort through that mess you posted & discuss a point or two. Or you might try a bit of thought on your own dime.


Heh heh heh, I'm the most cleverest of Trolls!
I'd agree that that's true.... ;)

And you're channeling WMT1.


Originally posted by Gestahl

I was like you and rejected materialism for the same reason you stated. However, the only way to surpass solipsism and have a useful theory is to assume the physical world exists.
I'd prefer some flavor of dualism, but have never seen a logical reason why it could possibly be anything other than non-interactive --- which again is worthless.

The only way either of us surpass solipsism is by gentlemens' agreement to assume the other also thinks, and what needs to be assumed is that an objective world exists -- materialists choose it to be physical.

[apoger]

> Next time I decide to waste some time I might try to sort through that mess you posted & discuss a point or two.

Yeah I know how backing up claims with logic or evidence can be such a "waste of time".

Anytime you are ready to poke your head out from under the bridge and demonstrate your inanity once again, I'll be happy show everyone what a clueless poseur you are.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger
> Next time I decide to waste some time I might try to sort through that mess you posted & discuss a point or two.

Yeah I know how backing up claims with logic or evidence can be such a "waste of time".

Anytime you are ready to poke your head out from under the bridge and demonstrate your inanity once again, I'll be happy show everyone what a clueless poseur you are.

Whatever. I did take a few minutes & looked over your pap again.
Hard to find a decent thought in there. "Oh, oh, you said everybody!" "Here's an example of that class that doesn't have that attribute!" "See, you are a dummy!" "Strawman! Strawman!" Walks away whistling, "boy did I show him".

Try for an actual thought, or failing that: kindy'garten is just over there.

[Riddick]

You should just give up and accept what Steve Bonebrake has to say as true.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Riddick
You should just give up and accept what Steve Bonebrake has to say as true.

Care to share who are you directing that remark to, and what does it mean?

Are you sure a sig with ni**er in it is ok here?

Signature courtesy of Riddick 8 march 2004 8:30 est
ni**er...fundie...fundy...same thing

[apoger]

"Oh, oh, you said everybody!" "Here's an example of that class that doesn't have that attribute!" "See, you are a dummy!" "Strawman! Strawman!" Walks away whistling, "boy did I show him".


This is in fact a strawman characterization of my arguments. When you are finished with your childish tirades (if ever), please feel fee to offer some evidence to back up your opinions.

In the meantime I eagerly await your next outburst.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger



This is in fact a strawman characterization of my arguments.
Oh, my, a claim! Please demonstrate, logically of course, why you characterize my characterization of your arguments as a "strawman".



When you are finished with your childish tirades (if ever), please feel fee to offer some evidence to back up your opinions.

In the meantime I eagerly await your next outburst.
This *is* fun. Your turn. (Feel fee??? ?spelng error?) :D

[apoger]

Oh, my, a claim! Please demonstrate, logically of course, why you characterize my characterization of your arguments as a "strawman".


Why should I offer evidence for claims to satisfy your trollish baiting, when you refuse to offer evidence for serious claims?

Indeed if I was following your playbook I'd simply respond by saying "I agree" and then follow up with some ad hominems, and possibly another erroneous claim.

When you are ready to back up your claims without obfuscation I will be happy to debate.

[Phaycops]

Apoger sez:
You claim to be a devotee of logic. I'm sorry, but I see little evidence of that here.
---snip---
It is not WHAT? What you believe in?
Then what do you belive in? I asked a straightforward question, asking for a definition of spirit. I'm still waiting! You don't think it has to do with "cartesian dualism". That's nice. What does it have to do with? And what evidence do you have to support that finding?
---snip---
The question you ask? What question? How about a simple and direct answer to my query for definitions? Then I can figure out what you question is.
---snip---
Can I expect a coherent response from you anytime soon?


Ah, apoger. I see you've never argued with a student of philosophy before. This whole exchange reminds me of why I have gotten rid of certain phone numbers. The problem seems to be that people who are, for lack of a better characterization, "philosphers," seem to be unable of creating an understandable argument. The only thing that really worries me is that other "philosophers" understand what they're saying!

PS--Actually, nothing much worries me right now, because my kitten is being too cute and laying on top of the monitor and trying to chase the mouse cursor around. Ha. Whatta cutie :)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I respectfully suggest that you are mistaken. Incompetent philosophers aren't any better at understanding each other than we are at understanding them. The difference is that they're not willing to admit the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The difference is that they're not willing to admit the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
You just described a standard materialist/atheist who has faith that Science rather than ego-driven human 'science' supports his views. And of course his views remain whatever they may be, since most are loath to share them; that would constitute a "claim".

Case in point:
apoger
Why should I offer evidence for claims to satisfy your trollish baiting, when you refuse to offer evidence for serious claims?
Insult and question when you have no actual actual contribution to offer, are unable to defend your premises, and have faith that logic addresses truth-value rather than logic itself.

[apoger]

Hammegk, just who do you think you are fooling? The entire conversation is right there in the thread.

Make a claim or ask a question that is not trollish baiting and I will be delighted to debate.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Nonsense. We all know apoger is just a sock puppet of yours, hammegk. That description fits both you and your attempted parody of logic perfectly.

You're the one who constantly insinuates positions and claims in his posts, then denies that he did anything of the sort. You're the one constantly putting positions in other people's mouths and then dismissing them.

You also seem to have this peculiar idea that the label 'material' involves an assertion of characteristics, as though calling something material is making a significant claim about its nature. Something is material if it interacts with the world, and if it interacts with the world, we call it material.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
We all know apoger is just a sock puppet of yours, hammegk.
LOFL. I bet you po'ed apoger bigtime.


You're the one who constantly insinuates positions and claims in his posts, then denies that he did anything of the sort. You're the one constantly putting positions in other people's mouths and then dismissing them.
It is difficult to make headway in conversation when all your debater's never offer anything other than crimson fish and obfuscation. If my statement of what I understand materialists actually believe is incorrect, how about correcting me. Shouting "You're Wrong, Illogical, & Your Mama wears combat boots" doesn't add much imo.


You also seem to have this peculiar idea that the label 'material' involves an assertion of characteristics, as though calling something material is making a significant claim about its nature. Something is material if it interacts with the world, and if it interacts with the world, we call it material.
I believe I've mentioned Wittgenstein. The word "material" is imbued with a multitude of baggage, and the word means non-living and inert. Your comment that "material" doesn't make a significant claim about its' nature is not true for the largest majority of those who use it to describe a thing. And I don't agree this idea is peculiar to me. Yet, "something" interacts with "something" is the basis for our discussion. Capische?

apoger: I have no need to "fool" any materialist/atheist; they have already fooled themselves by having faith the fact a logical rationalization of "what-is" can be constructed on a set of premises then can be used to "prove" the premises to be correct. Deluded is a better term.

Should you care to discuss some specific point you feel to be problematical, offer your alternative and we can examine both. Or do you have nothing more to offer than "Claim! Claim! PROVE IT!"? I've stated several times that my object is not to convince you of the validity of my assertions. I'm interested in convincing myself, and, "You're Wrong", while satisfying to you I suppose is valueless to me. Offer an alternative, a comment, anything.

[apoger]

We all know apoger is just a sock puppet of yours, hammegk.

I never have or will use a sock puppet. I consider them cowardly.

I assumed (and still suspect) that Wrath is a sock puppet. He sprung up out of nowhere less than a month ago and has been hammering the forum with an average of 23 posts per day. On day two he had the "Morbo" picture and quote ready the second he was eligible (at 50 posts). I feel it's very unlikely that this is the behavior of a new participant.



It is difficult to make headway in conversation when all your debater's never offer anything other than crimson fish and obfuscation.

Psychologists would call this "projection".



I believe I've mentioned Wittgenstein.

Not in this thread. If you want to have a coherent conversation you cannot assume that the other party has read everything (or anything) you have written elsewhere.

Arguments need a premise. In order to back up the premise you need to lay a foundation. You have a brutal habit of skipping the premise and foundation, and leaping directly to the middle of an argument. This is what makes you incoherent.




I have no need to "fool" any materialist/atheist; they have already fooled themselves by having faith the fact a logical rationalization of "what-is" can be constructed on a set of premises then can be used to "prove" the premises to be correct. Deluded is a better term.


As an atheist by virture of lacking theism, how can you describe me as having "faith". What bizarre definition of "faith" are you using?

As to materialism/delusion, I explained my view quite clearly. It is right at that point that you decided not to participate anymore. How convenient.



I've stated several times that my object is not to convince you of the validity of my assertions.

Have you? Not in this thread.
You have acted like you don't care, but this is the first time you have openly stated it.

Indeed this begs the question "Why should I care to engage you in converstation if you aren't interested in convincing anyone of the validity of you assertions"?

Effectively you have just confessed to being a troll.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
So you assert. Carefully or not the exclusion is a fact, and were the exclusion not formally in place the Theory would lose any rationale for something "available" that could mutate.
I'm afraid it is you who are asserting here. You are also insinuating there exists a flaw in evolutionary theory. This is patently false. Evlolutionary theory explains what happened and is happening following the onset of genes. The question of what went before is covered under the rubric "abiogenesis."

This division, hammy, is hardly new. In fact, it predates evolutionary theory by quite a bit. I think you need to bone up on basic science as well as the history of philosophy. "Recipes" for "creating" mice appeared back in 1620. This idea of life originating from non-life goes even further back, hammy. Check the Old Testament and Aristotle's works.

But working the question from the other direction, you clearly either don't know or choose to ignore the fact that "mutation," in a very different form, exists in cosmology, for cosmolgy attempts to explain the conditions that were necessary to create the profusion of elements from the known forces in the first few nanoseconds of the cosmos. It isn't called mutation, of course, because mutation is simply reserved for genetics.

You're tilting at windmills if you wish to suggest that the separation of the abiogenesis question from the evolution question is either new or points to a theoretical deficiency.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Indeed, the division exists primarily because the word 'evolution' usually refers to biological evolution, mostly because biological evolution has been so well demonstrated. The more general concept of evolution does indeed suggest how 'life' arose, but as there is much less conclusive evidence.

'Evolution' in the general sense explains why sand grains in older deserts, raindrops, and bubbles are roughly spherical. It explains why the planets move in certain orbits, and the behavior of computer programs, and why some ideas spread in particular ways... it touches just about everything.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

Indeed, the division exists primarily because the word 'evolution' usually refers to biological evolution, mostly because biological evolution has been so well demonstrated. The more general concept of evolution does indeed suggest how 'life' arose, but as there is much less conclusive evidence.

'Evolution' in the general sense explains why sand grains in older deserts, raindrops, and bubbles are roughly spherical. It explains why the planets move in certain orbits, and the behavior of computer programs, and why some ideas spread in particular ways... it touches just about everything.

What horse-pucky, and a usual materialist/atheist attempt to deflect. The word evolution as has been discussed above concerns the Darwinian etal Theory, not universal physics.


Originally posted by BillHoyt

You're tilting at windmills if you wish to suggest that the separation of the abiogenesis question from the evolution question is either new or points to a theoretical deficiency.
As I suggest we both know, that is bs. What I suggest is that anti-theists/materialists/atheists are the group who find the distinction of greatest benefit. I.E. For Ed's sake, we don't want that to get on the table.

Originally posted by apoger

Effectively you have just confessed to being a troll.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. If you find my participation valueless, try ignore. Or, add something to the discussion other than personal insults, or, go back to sleep.

I'd say you have things to say and experience and thought to share. Why not do so? Give it a try, you might have fun.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by apoger


Not in this thread. If you want to have a coherent conversation you cannot assume that the other party has read everything (or anything) you have written elsewhere.

Arguments need a premise. In order to back up the premise you need to lay a foundation. You have a brutal habit of skipping the premise and foundation, and leaping directly to the middle of an argument. This is what makes you incoherent.
How did you do on the introduction to physics question, Define the Universe and give three examples"?

Another great decoy from a Bright.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
As I suggest we both know, that is bs. What I suggest is that anti-