(August 15, 2017 at 9:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Those ID websites aren't worth the data-plan you waste looking at them. It's a thoroughly discredited model.

"ID" and "Creationism" are a "model"  like driving off a cliff constitutes GPS.

(August 15, 2017 at 9:23 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 9:21 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Those ID websites aren't worth the data-plan you waste looking at them. It's a thoroughly discredited model.

"ID" and "Creationism" are a "model"  like driving off a cliff constitutes GPS.

No, ID is a model in the formal sense of the word. An incorrect model, but a model nevertheless.

And -- I didn't mention Creationism at all.

Cue the frothing mouth in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

(Don't forget to press caps-lock!)

(August 15, 2017 at 9:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 9:23 am)Brian37 Wrote: "ID" and "Creationism" are a "model"  like driving off a cliff constitutes GPS.

No, ID is a model in the formal sense of the word. An incorrect model, but a model nevertheless.

And -- I didn't mention Creationism at all.

Cue the frothing mouth in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

(Don't forget to press caps-lock!)

"ID" is nothing but a rehashed version of Crapenism. Neither work, and are nothing more than Christians freaking out because time and knowledge are running away from their old mythology.

You can drive off a cliff to teach driving so sure, that can be a "model". But if you agree that ID is discredited why even coddle them at all by letting them bastardize the use of the word "model" and pretend it is even close to a neutral scientific process?

AND YES, DAMN IT, EVERYONE WILL BOW TO ABBA!  Froth froth foam foam, ect ect ect.......... 

Gurrr gurrr gurrr, rant rant rant, the preceding post was brought to you by " Brian37's Smoked BBQ Kitten" where our motto is, "If it isn't clawing your face off when you put it on the BBQ, you bought the wrong kittens."

Point being, I cannot take anything R puts in this thread seriously. It does not mean I want him dead, but he is full of crap. I only hope for his sake he wakes up out of his fantasy.

Now let me go play with my shiny objects and ball of twine.

(August 15, 2017 at 8:55 am)rjh4 is back Wrote: Ok. You have made a good point. So I guess I don't have an objection. Thanks for walking me through your thinking! (It actually saves me time with the probability thing. I don't think I would have been able to do it cogently anyway. One can certainly calculate an amount of possible reactions based on time and numbers of atoms, etc. and one can calculate the probability of say a genome of a replicating organism. The type of calculations one would get from a ID website. I couldn't figure how to incorporate the fact that even within an organism there are variations that still work (certainly a valid criticism of the ID website calculations), i.e., I personally have no idea how to do that or what numbers would be reasonable to assign.)

It would be pointless, since RNA is pointed to rather than DNA and RNA -has- been created in a lab by combining chemicals thought to be present in the environment at the dawn of life.  The probability of that having occurred is unity, 1/1.  As in, we know that it can, does and did happen.   Anywhere that the conditions present in the lab experiment existed would have produced the same reaction.  Similarly, life converts rna nucleotides into dna nucleotides with regularity - so the probability of that occurring is, again, unity.  1/1.  It can, does and did happen.  

What I've been driving at with this, by playing whack a mole with these objections, is not attempting to establish that you -have- no objection, but trying to quickly cut through the morass of all the things that cover whatever that objection actually is.  It's nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is, it's nothing to do with the necessity of a supernatural mechanism, it's nothing to do with requiring a specific agent, and it's not based in any actual math that you've either done or that would be informative.....but some objection does exist; underneath all of that.  There's a reason for each piece of flak offered and it has nothing to do with the particulars of any of them - as expressed by your ability to drop them so quickly while simultaneously moving on to some -other- objection.  

What is it about abiogenesis that makes you object, even if/when whatever rationalization you offer doesn't pan out?  It's fair to assume that you haven't suddenly come to the opinion that life arose spontaneously in the primordial ooze just because your previous objections have been mooted, right?

(August 15, 2017 at 10:05 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 8:55 am)rjh4 is back Wrote: Ok. You have made a good point. So I guess I don't have an objection. Thanks for walking me through your thinking! (It actually saves me time with the probability thing. I don't think I would have been able to do it cogently anyway. One can certainly calculate an amount of possible reactions based on time and numbers of atoms, etc. and one can calculate the probability of say a genome of a replicating organism. The type of calculations one would get from a ID website. I couldn't figure how to incorporate the fact that even within an organism there are variations that still work (certainly a valid criticism of the ID website calculations), i.e., I personally have no idea how to do that or what numbers would be reasonable to assign.)

It would be pointless, since RNA is pointed to rather than DNA and RNA -has- been created in a lab by combining chemicals thought to be present in the environment at the dawn of life.  The probability of that having occurred is unity, 1/1.  As in, we know that it can, does and did happen.   Anywhere that the conditions present in the lab experiment existed would have produced the same reaction.  Similarly, life converts rna nucleotides into dna nucleotides with regularity - so the probability of that occurring is, again, unity.  1/1.  It can, does and did happen.  

What I've been driving at with this, by playing whack a mole with these objections, is not attempting to establish that you -have- no objection, but trying to quickly cut through the morass of all the things that cover whatever that objection actually is.  It's nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is, it's nothing to do with the necessity of a supernatural mechanism, it's nothing to do with requiring a specific agent, and it's not based in any actual math that you've either done or that would be informative.....but some objection does exist; underneath all of that.  There's a reason for each piece of flak offered and it has nothing to do with the particulars of any of them - as expressed by your ability to drop them so quickly while simultaneously moving on to some -other- objection.  

What is it about abiogenesis that makes you object, even if/when whatever rationalization you offer doesn't pan out?  It's fair to assume that you haven't suddenly come to the opinion that life arose spontaneously in the primordial ooze just because your previous objections have been mooted, right?

Not to mention even if we did create life in a lab creationists would just argue it was by intelligence and thus does not count .

That would be an unfortunate way to argue, since it's another variant of Sally's Peculiar Reactions. Nevertheless, suppose they did - it would get shot down. At some point, one assumes that we will arrive at the actual objection. The thing that makes them, personally, field all the others. That's what I would find interesting in any given believer - not a laundry list of Cretinist bullshit.

I've heard all of that trash before. I'm looking for the human impulse at play. Fishing for a self aware objector. The drones can't answer my question - I doubt that they know why they do or say what they do. For them it's just repetition.

(August 15, 2017 at 10:05 am)Khemikal Wrote: What is it about abiogenesis that makes you object, even if/when whatever rationalization you offer doesn't pan out?  It's fair to assume that you haven't suddenly come to the opinion that life arose spontaneously in the primordial ooze just because your previous objections have been mooted, right?

Answer to question 2): Yes

Answer to question 1): Thinking about it...and I am seriously trying to answer your question...I guess I would have to conclude simply that my real objection is that it is not consistent with my presuppositions (hence the yes answer above and the reason why I think TAG is a more consistent position to take than an evidentiary argument for God as I said somewhere else in this thread). And based on this conversation, I certainly understand better how your position regarding abiogenesis would be consistent with your presuppositions and how my objections because of my presuppositions don't really affect your position on the matter.

(August 15, 2017 at 11:30 am)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 10:05 am)Khemikal Wrote: What is it about abiogenesis that makes you object, even if/when whatever rationalization you offer doesn't pan out?  It's fair to assume that you haven't suddenly come to the opinion that life arose spontaneously in the primordial ooze just because your previous objections have been mooted, right?

Answer to question 2): Yes

Answer to question 1): Thinking about it...and I am seriously trying to answer your question...I guess I would have to conclude simply that my real objection is that it is not consistent with my presuppositions (hence the yes answer above and the reason why I think TAG is a more consistent position to take than an evidentiary argument for God as I said somewhere else in this thread). And based on this conversation, I certainly understand better your position regarding abiogenesis would be consistent with your presuppositions and how my objections because of my presuppositions don't really affect your position on the matter.

Nonsense. TAG is simply your own mental desire, a reflection of your wishes. Just like the Ancient Egyptians really really really truly believed in their gods. A gap answer is a gap answer. A bad guess is a bad guess. That was then, this is now. It was understandable back then when humans didn't know any better and did not have our modern scientific knowledge. Trying to retrofit modern science to prop up an old book of mythology does not work.

(August 15, 2017 at 11:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: TAG is simply your own mental desire, a reflection of your wishes.

I could say the same to you regarding your atheism. Both are meaningless as you are not in my mind nor am I in yours.

(August 15, 2017 at 11:45 am)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 15, 2017 at 11:36 am)Brian37 Wrote: TAG is simply your own mental desire, a reflection of your wishes.

I could say the same to you regarding your atheism. Both are meaningless as you are not in my mind nor am I in yours.

No see I grew up. If you want to believe in Santa for adults you can. I won't murder you or pass laws to have you arrested for making such claims and defending the mythology of antiquity. But you are the one that buys that stuff, not me.