RE: Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks
May 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2011 at 1:08 pm by orogenicman.)
(May 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is just the pretended neutrality fallacy. You are criticizing the opposing side for not being neutral on a matter (the inerrancy of scripture) when you and secular scientists are not neutral on the matter either. There is no neutrality when it comes to the inerrancy of scripture, you either presuppose it is inerrant or you presuppose it is errant. So again, creation scientists are just as scientific as anybody, they just hold to different presuppositions. At least they are intellectually honest about the presuppositions they hold unlike many in the secular community.
But then, I never made any presumption of neutrality on either side, did I? If you believe I did, please point out where. I criticise those who take the bible literally because in the face of all the inconsistencies and wrong information, it is simply stupid to do so. And so there is nothing scientific about taking the bible literally when there is no scientific foundation for doing so.
Statler Wrote:Why does it matter when he died? I cited the 1961 English translation of “Relativity: The special and general Theory” so I see no issues here.
You cited a date and a page number without giving any explanation as to what your citation actually meant. I pointed out that Einstein died in 1955 because I was left wqith the impression that you were telling us that your citation was from something he published in 1961.
Quote:I thought he made it pretty clear that according to his theory the one way speed of light being constant was by no means a requirement of nature, but rather a convention held by man. The round trip speed of light being a constant is a requirement of nature and is a constant in ESC and ASC, so there is no problem there.
How cowboys and Indians are relevant to this discussion eludes me, I will be honest. Assuming that just because Object A was formed by Method A on one planet somehow proves that object B on Planet B was also formed by Method A is completely illogical. It’s kind of irrelevant though, to think we’d ever actually observe abiogenesis on another planet is absurd.[/quote]
And I thought I made it pretty clear that you are wrong. Why? Here is what it says:
Einstein reconciled Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. Established the speed of light as being independent of the frame of reference (which means that it travels at the same velocity in all directions regardless of the reference point) and an "upper limit" on velocity and information transmission in non-esoteric situations, discredited the concept of an "luminiferous ether", and the significance of frames of reference in physics.
[hide]Quote: If I was suggesting that rocks can spontaneously form pyramids, you might have a point. But amino acids do spontaneously form peptides.
Statler Wrote:I am still baffled as to why you guys all seem to think that an experiment laced with unjustified intelligent interference(?) somehow proves these things occur naturally.
WTF?
[quote=Statler]I believe my initial assertion still stands, amino acids do not naturally arrange themselves. Fox’s experiments fail for numerous reasons, a few of which are…
I take this to mean that regardless any valid experimental evidence to the contrary, it is your contention that amino acids only arrange themselves by the axiom "God did it". That's just sad, and unsuppportable.
Statler Wrote:1. He used large amounts of heat to drive off the H20 and its destructive effects on amino acid chains. However this heat destroyed many amino acids that are crucial for the formation of life.
Even if that were true, that actually poses a larger problem for you, since the amino acids that were left (which are also crucial for life) still managed to form peptides.
Statler Wrote:2. He used tri-functional amino acids in order to better his results; however these are very rare in nature and lead to branching that is not found in biological amino acid chains.
This is incorrect, since several tri-functional amino acids (such as histadine) are essential amino acids in mammals, including humans.
Statler Wrote:3. The heat used in the experiment also led to extremely random polymers.
You realize of course that whether or not "extremely random" (whatever that means) polymers form is irrelevant. Right? You also realize that the temperature of his experiment was lower that has been found in environments where certain extremophiles have been found to live. RIGHT?
Statler Wrote:4. All the chiral amino acids that resulted were racemized, which is not what we find in biological chains.
You realize, of course, that his goal was not to form amino acids, since amino acids is what he started out with. He was looking for products of the reaction, in this case, peptides.
Statler Wrote:5. The temperature conditions found in the lab have never been observed naturally occurring on Earth.
Oh really?
Statler Wrote:6. The amino acids were purified and concentrated. Assuming we’d ever find this in nature is also a bit of a pipe dream.
If he had used unpurified and unconcentrated amino acids, you'd complain that his experiment was contaminated. Its a red herring, dude.
Statler Wrote:How would they show it is a valid theory?
Do you understand how the scientific method works? Do you need a lesson?
Statler Wrote:Nowhere in Einstein’s writings does he say he is invoking Occam's razor, this is most likely the case because he realized that this principle is not used in the scientific method.
Einstein's only issue with Occam's razor was that it shouldn't be wielded blindly, meaning that not every situation calls for the simplest explanation because the world is often more complex than we expect.
Statler Wrote:I presuppose the Bible is inerrant. So I am as confident in its truthfulness just as much as I am confident that my senses and memory are reliable, and that the laws of logic exist. Do you presuppose the universe is that old?
WasSt. Paul right with his pro-slavery stance?
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
![[Image: A+black+smoker.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4vn24YA-Rc4%2FSR18Ctg32DI%2FAAAAAAAAAV4%2FSyK9OBjMLqI%2Fs400%2FA%2Bblack%2Bsmoker.jpg)
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
