Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 10, 2013 at 11:01 am (This post was last modified: October 10, 2013 at 11:37 am by Mister Agenda.)
(October 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)Lion IRC Wrote:
(October 10, 2013 at 6:30 am)Esquilax Wrote: So you're just gonna skip over your drastic, crippling misunderstanding of science and the scientific process?
Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.
Pointing out that your opponent can't explain something doesn't make your own hypothesis a whit more credible. Don't any of you guys balk at making arguments from ignorance?
(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.
The group that says we don't know is much more likely to find out what actually happened...because we don't think the question is already sufficiently answered by the guesses of the other groups.
(October 10, 2013 at 7:20 am)What_the?! Wrote: Hi Lion
1) A singularity isn't 'something out of nothing'. Get a textbook.
2) The whole purpose of having a null hypothesis is so that candidate explanations can be properly tested against a defined standard. It's serves to make the whole process robust. Again - kindly go and learn about proper scientific methods if you can't see how that's preferable to just saying "I know how it all came about Goddiddit phew now I feel better". Stop being silly.
I mean, by all means propose the god idea as a H1 hypothesis, and provide evidence to support it. Why are the theists in this thread so reluctant to do that? Surely, if it's true beyond doubt as you seem to think it is, then you'll have no difficulty providing evidence that a daft atheist on the internet such as me will be unable to evade?
Or is the problem that you have no evidence?
What gets me, is if they didn't try to make it out to be more than belief and faith, they could stop there and not have to prove anything. We could just say 'you're entitled to your opinion' and move on. They act like we're forcing them to shoulder the burden of proof while ducking it ourselves when it is only their pretensions to certainty that place them in that position.
(October 10, 2013 at 9:09 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
(October 10, 2013 at 9:07 am)Rationalman Wrote: Its not a 'nothing post' just because you don't understand the science
I understand it better than you to know that that is not abiogenesis.
He did not say it was abiogenesis. He said it was proof of abiogenesis. Which may be optimistic, but the finding is still highly significant. I'm not a biochemist, but it looks to me like it's at least proof of concept: we've identified natural environments in which pyramidines and purines can form naturally. That knocks off about half the steps from merely organic to living matter, of which you claimed each one was so unlikely that it may as well be impossible, and definitely impossible in combination. I think the odds that you're just as wrong about the steps between these organic molecules and living cells are pretty high.
(October 10, 2013 at 9:18 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
(October 10, 2013 at 9:16 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Simple knowledge for simpletons.
Go to New York City, walk around, tell everyone you can that it is all from random chance and no intelligence.
Collect a record of comments and report back.
Can you make ONE argument that doesn't rely on a fallacy? What is true is determined by evidence, not popularity. The list of things that most people used to believe that they don't any more because it turned out they were wrong is very, very long.
In addition, you're putting up a straw man. Natural selection is the concept that makes biological evoluton work, and it's the opposite of random chance. It's what fits organisms to their environments. Even you guys have had to acknowledge 'microevolution'. And all 'macroevolution' is, is microevolution over a longer period of time. If there's a mechanism that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution, there's a Nobel Prize for the person who discovers it.
Evolution would be SO easy to disprove, if it weren't true. At every turn when we've discovered something new and impactful in biology, there was a chance it would disprove evolution. When DNA was figured out, it could have been incompatible with evolution. We could have discovered rabbits where dinosaurs are supposed to be in the fossil record. We could have discovered that species diversity on islands that were once connected has nothing to do with how far apart they are or how long they've been separated. We could have a dog giving birth to a cat.
But none of the stuff that could have proven evolution false has, instead, every time, new discoveries have dovetailed right into the prediction of biological evolution. And all evolution deniers are left with are fallacies.
(October 10, 2013 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
(October 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.
Pointing out that your opponent can't explain something doesn't make your own hypothesis a whit more credible. Don't any of you guys balk at making arguments from ignorance?
(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.
The group that says we don't know is much more likely to find out what actually happened...because we don't think the question is already sufficiently answered by the guesses of the other groups.
(October 10, 2013 at 7:20 am)What_the?! Wrote: Hi Lion
1) A singularity isn't 'something out of nothing'. Get a textbook.
2) The whole purpose of having a null hypothesis is so that candidate explanations can be properly tested against a defined standard. It's serves to make the whole process robust. Again - kindly go and learn about proper scientific methods if you can't see how that's preferable to just saying "I know how it all came about Goddiddit phew now I feel better". Stop being silly.
I mean, by all means propose the god idea as a H1 hypothesis, and provide evidence to support it. Why are the theists in this thread so reluctant to do that? Surely, if it's true beyond doubt as you seem to think it is, then you'll have no difficulty providing evidence that a daft atheist on the internet such as me will be unable to evade?
Or is the problem that you have no evidence?
What gets me, is if they didn't try to make it out to be more than belief and faith, they could stop there and not have to prove anything. We could just say 'you're entitled to your opinion' and move on. They act like we're forcing them to shoulder the burden of proof while ducking it ourselves when it is only their pretensions to certainty that place them in that position.
(October 10, 2013 at 9:09 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I understand it better than you to know that that is not abiogenesis.
He did not say it was abiogenesis. He said it was proof of abiogenesis. Which may be optimistic, but the finding is still highly significant. I'm not a biochemist, but it looks to me like it's at least proof of concept: we've identified natural environments in which pyramidines and purines can form naturally. That knocks off about half the steps from merely organic to living matter, of which you claimed each one was so unlikely that it may as well be impossible, and definitely impossible in combination. I think the odds that you're just as wrong about the steps between these organic molecules and living cells are pretty high.
(October 10, 2013 at 9:18 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Go to New York City, walk around, tell everyone you can that it is all from random chance and no intelligence.
Collect a record of comments and report back.
Can you make ONE argument that doesn't rely on a fallacy? What is true is determined by evidence, not popularity. The list of things that most people used to believe that they don't any more because it turned out they were wrong is very, very long.
In addition, you're putting up a straw man. Natural selection is the concept that makes biological evoluton work, and it's the opposite of random chance. It's what fits organisms to their environments. Even you guys have had to acknowledge 'microevolution'. And all 'macroevolution' is, is microevolution over a longer period of time. If there's a mechanism that stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution, there's a Nobel Prize for the person who discovers it.
Evolution would be SO easy to disprove, if it weren't true. At every turn when we've discovered something new and impactful in biology, there was a chance it would disprove evolution. When DNA was figured out, it could have been incompatible with evolution. We could have discovered rabbits where dinosaurs are supposed to be in the fossil record. We could have discovered that species diversity on islands that were once connected has nothing to do with how far apart they are or how long they've been separated. We could have a dog giving birth to a cat.
But none of the stuff that could have proven evolution false has, instead, every time, new discoveries have dovetailed right into the prediction of biological evolution. And all evolution deniers are left with are fallacies.
How did the first living thing come about and how did it "evolve" to the first living cell?
Just answer the simple questions I asked in another post.
(October 10, 2013 at 11:54 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How did the first living thing come about and how did it "evolve" to the first living cell?
Just answer the simple questions I asked in another post.
The question isn't simple, just simple-minded. Read a textbook or take a class on abiogenesis if you really want to know what explanations have been proposed for the path from organic molecules to living cells. The problem isn't that we don't have one, it's that we have several plausible ones and don't know which of them is correct or if it's some other path we haven't thought of yet. Every one of them shows how they beat the odds you imagine are against them.
first to all, the link in my posts is somehow wrong i dont know why ..
but this one above is the right one ...
to sword of jeebus:
u r just trolling ...
i answered all ur questions , the fact that u r not even understanding what im telling ......the discovery of how the ATP molecule adenine formed in pre biotic earth ...
DEFUSES ALSO WHAT WAS ALSO 1 OF THE BIGGEST CRERATIONIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST ABIOGENESIS becouse oxygen metabolism wasnt possible without it ......
NOT THAT IT EVER MATTERED, becouse XNA metabolism just works in a different way and lives evolves and prospers and responds to natural selection..
and i can imagine that panic is now taing hold of u and u r frantically scrolling all creationist sites for an answer...but u cant find one.........
thats becouse they dont want u to know they ve lost and abiogenesis is explained .
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
the path isnt something new, it was confirmed in tests however couldnt be scientifically proven on paper becouse of the ``in between `` unstable compounds formed during theforming of the end product purine, that themselves had way to short lifetimes to take samples to prove them because of beeing unstable.
now by computational Chemistry its proven and presto...the last piece of the puzzle has been put in place.
first to all, the link in my posts is somehow wrong i dont know why ..
but this one above is the right one ...
to sword of jeebus:
u r just trolling ...
i answered all ur questions , the fact that u r not even understanding what im telling ......the discovery of how the ATP molecule adenine formed in pre biotic earth ...
DEFUSES ALSO WHAT WAS ALSO 1 OF THE BIGGEST CRERATIONIST ARGUMENTS AGAINST ABIOGENESIS becouse oxygen metabolism wasnt possible without it ......
NOT THAT IT EVER MATTERED, becouse XNA metabolism just works in a different way and lives evolves and prospers and responds to natural selection..
and i can imagine that panic is now taing hold of u and u r frantically scrolling all creationist sites for an answer...but u cant find one.........
thats becouse they dont want u to know they ve lost and abiogenesis is explained .
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
the path isnt something new, it was confirmed in tests however couldnt be scientifically proven on paper becouse of the ``in between `` unstable compounds formed during theforming of the end product purine, that themselves had way to short lifetimes to take samples to prove them because of beeing unstable.
now by computational Chemistry its proven and presto...the last piece of the puzzle has been put in place.
You have proven nothing and you have not answered the simple questions.
(October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: SBG, you don't make yourself right by continuing to repeat the same mantra "You have proved nothing and haven't answered questions."
So when will you ever prove your claims and start answering questions?
(October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: SBG, you don't make yourself right by continuing to repeat the same mantra "You have proved nothing and haven't answered questions."
So when will you ever prove your claims and start answering questions?
(October 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:
(October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: SBG, you don't make yourself right by continuing to repeat the same mantra "You have proved nothing and haven't answered questions."
So when will you ever prove your claims and start answering questions?
I did with the topic's post
Part of the process includes actually answering (and not dismissing) reasonable criticism of your hypothesis.
