“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Mister Agenda]

You can verify by checking page 356, volume 2 of the famous textbook A Guided Tour of the Living Cell by Christian De Duve.
Whether you are ignorant or trying to mislead the world on purpose. Based on this fact I reckon any of your comments meaningless.

Thanks for the reference, I've ordered the set, I should have them in about a week. Certainly if I find that those words are De Duve's and not taken out of context, I will apologize.

[Mister Agenda]

You can verify by checking page 356, volume 2 of the famous textbook A Guided Tour of the Living Cell by Christian De Duve.
Whether you are ignorant or trying to mislead the world on purpose. Based on this fact I reckon any of your comments meaningless.

Thanks for the reference, I've ordered the set, I should have them in about a week. Certainly if I find that those words are De Duve's and not taken out of context, I will apologize.

Guess what arrived today! Here is the quote, in its entirety, and in context:

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than 1 billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet, to produce, as early as 3.3 billion years ago, the bacterium like organisms revealed by fossil traces."

De Duve does NOT equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms. Like most biologists, he thinks the most probable route to the first bacterium like organism was a series of simpler organisms starting with what was essentially self-replicating organic chemistry. Earlier on the same page, concerning the origin of life, he states:

"How this emergence took place is a matter of conjecture, but it most likely involved, on a simpler chemical level, the same cardinal rules of fidelity, variability, and selection that governed biological evolution. Primitive self-maintaining and self-correcting systems must have formed and evolved progressively into dynamic structures of increasing complexity and stability."

So it's a quote mine, a statement taken out of context to make someone appear to have a different position than the one they actually hold, one that supports the liar's (because it IS a form of lying) position in some way. De Duve thinks pretty much what everybody on this thread who isn't a creationist or IDer thinks about abiogenesis, and it's NOT that the odds against a bacterium popping full-fledged into existence floating around in dirty water is an argument against abiogenesis, which doesn't make such an outlandish claim, as much as you want it to be so.

The question now is if Harris was quote-mining deliberately or deceived by quote-miners before him. If the latter, were I Harris, I would be asking why the people on my side are lying. In that sense, I was Harris, once upon a time. Repeatedly finding that the creationist side engaged in wholesale deceit was a major catalyst in my decision to investigate what scientists were really saying about evolution, before having it filtered through sources quite happy to make it look like a reputable scientist's opinion was the opposite of what they actually thought.

No apology for you, Harris, but you owe US one.

[Jackalope]

Shocked, I am.

[Esquilax]

Oh wow, the guy who'll post the refuted-a-thousand-times eye quote mine from Darwin will also quote mine others! Who would have thought?

What's the bet he does the same thing Rev used to do, and just ignore his blatant dishonesty?

[Mister Agenda]

I estimate ten-to-one that he will ignore.

[Harris]

Why bother? As demonstrated by a part later on in this very post I'm quoting, whenever someone does show you science that you don't like, you just wave it away by asserting that it's "not science." This is the issue here: you're just dismissing whatever disagrees with what you want to believe, and emphasizing the small amount that agrees with you.

But this is the exact problem with you. You have BLIND FAITH in evolution. You believe evolution is science when it is not. All what you have in evolution are gossips, ifs, conjectures, postulates, etc. Everything in Evolution, from micro to macro, occur due to RANDOM CHANCE. In science Chance has no room and RANDOM CHANCE is nothing but absurd.

So, I spent all that time showing you real evidence, with sources that go back to actual scientific studies rooted all throughout them, and you've just dismissed them with an assertion. Given this, you haven't addressed my rebuttals at all, and I have rebutted every one of your arguments.

Its not an assertion. Evolution is only a Postulate, An Assumption that has nothing to do with conventional science. Did you ever ponder why it is a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC FACT in modern scientific world?

Who says they need to come from anywhere? Why can’t they just be features of the universe?

Features of which universe:
One that came into existence spontaneously out from nothingness or
One that always existed and slowly dying with its expansion?

Sorry, science has moved on since 1859; we've found many more fossils since then, some of which we were able to predict what they would be, and in which layer, based on evolutionary models, and all of them have fit into the theory perfectly fine. You don't get to bring up Darwin's intellectual honesty from over a century ago as if things haven't changed since, you quote mining prick.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

So what? Again, you're quoting from a paper written by people who accept evolution and actually feature it in their writing; if we were to accept, as you believe, that evolution isn't true, then what this means is that you've quoted from an incorrect paper as support for your position. If we accept your position as true, then this source cannot be used as evidence in support of that position because it's wrong. If we accept my position as true then the paper functions as intended. You just got logicked, son.

EVIDENCE! The fossils? Do you have a single exemplar out from fossil record that is taken as the real transitional animal by scientific community?

Lots of things wrong here! First of all, appealing to an "unanswered question" as support for your position is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Second, Lieberman studies evolution, he accepts that it happens, so the same paradox applies as above- if you're quoting him to prove that evolution is wrong then he's wrong too and thus not an accurate source on this issue- and he clearly doesn't agree with your quote mine of him, so that's dishonest of you. Thirdly, and this is strange, I can't find your quote anywhere but creationist sources; I can't even find the original source for it...

I quoted Lieberman because he also believe in Evolution. Because he is studying evolution and because he is puzzled by the fact of Cambrian Life Explosion, like almost all evolutionists do (including Dawkins), that does not mean he is going against his belief. This exhibits his amazement on the fact that numerous new species and kinds of living beings appear abruptly in Cambrian Explosion and this phenomenon is in clear contradiction to the theory of evolution.
Here is the source
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1f7yos...tary-hd_tv

And I rebutted every one, meaning this assertion you've made here is yet another "nuh uh!" If evidence doesn't continually confirm evolution perhaps you'd like to explain why the entirety of the mainstream scientific community, including the theists among them, continues to accept it and operate under the premise that it's true? To say nothing of modern medicine, and so on?

What Evidence have you got? You are always talking about evidence but WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE! Fossils? Random Mutation + Natural Selection? Or something else? Read my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html
I offer you to watch “EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED” in response to your inquiry “why the entirety of the mainstream scientific community, including the theists among them, continues to accept it and operate under the premise that it's true?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp

Probably "Things have moved on since then," coupled with "one source doesn't destroy the scientific consensus against that source." Cherry picking your data doesn't get you anywhere, but it does make you look desperate.

I want technical scientific fact against 30 years old argument. I am not looking for abstract ideas.

You do realize that you sound insane, right now, right? If the best you can do to explain away the massive consensus on this- and I'd remind you that christian scientists are also universally in on this, where they're actually real scientists- is to whine about everyone being against you, well... that's not actually an argument. That's toddler logic; everyone disagrees with you because they're against you! Give me a break.

Christian scientists who favour Neo-Darwinism! Are you sure, they are real Christians and trust their bible that teaches them creationism?

What's so hard about just summarizing the arguments presented, and making reference to the actual, peer reviewed science (not single quote mined paragraphs formulated to say the opposite of what the source actually says) involved?

They are too many of them. Here is the link
http://vimeo.com/71162398

Evolution is under constant criticism, both from within the scientific community and from religious sources too; if the evidence against it was as rock solid and obvious as you claim then it would be the work of but a moment for your side to present it using the multi-million dollar media powers the christian market possesses. The fact that you haven't is sort of a hint.

No one is allowed to criticize evolution especially in academic and political environments. Watch:
“EXPELLED - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp

Oh, and these mysterious "political reasons"? Come on, man. The majority of the US government is christian, are you kidding me?

LOL! Christians! Who are driving a Secular State and protecting secular legislation!

That means the scientific process has effectively been short-circuited. The normal corrective process in science where some scientists observed problems with the current theory, they analyse it and changes are made where appropriate. That process is not operating as far as theory of evolution is concerned. Therefore, for the most part Theory of evolution has survived without that type of critique. Many people assume that theory of evolution has a solid foundation simply because they are not hearing scientific critiques.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

Well, that is the truth you like it or not.

This first part is just factually wrong: mutations happen, every generation, without fail. You are not a perfect clone of your parents, because your genes mutated as they were replicating. That's mutation, and it happened to you. False starting premise, means the rest of the statement is non-functional. Done.

You are fast and furious. Evolution is about NEW AND BETTER ORGANS. TRANSFORMATION FROM ONE KIND INTO ANOTHER SAY APES INTO HUMANS. I am not talking about ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SAME SPECIES.

It is a demonstrable fact that mutations happen. The average human infant has at least sixty, sometimes upwards of two hundred, mutations at birth, and develops more over time. Done again.

You are fast and furious again. Evolution is about NEW AND BETTER ORGANS. TRANSFORMATION FROM ONE KIND INTO ANOTHER SAY APES INTO HUMANS. I am not talking about ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SAME SPECIES.

He kinda does, when you present a source that all the real scientists review as shoddy work, and the ideologically driven conmen rave about as brilliant.

I am not a fan of Ken Ham but I do appreciate some of his arguments on morals.

No, the lack of evidence for a god is the most important tool to support atheism. There are atheist groups that don't accept evolution, which blows your claim out of the water.

According to physicist Victor Stenger, “The legal staff from Freedom from religion foundation (a church state watchdog group) has had remarkable success in convincing many institutions that they are breaking constitutional law when they sponsor sectarian activities.” That include intelligent design. “When the authorities can’t be convinced, freedom from religion foundation sues, and it wins more often than not.”
I had not came across a single atheist who disregard evolution. I doubt there is any atheist who do not take evolution as science. For the sake of argument, even if I agree with your claim then I don’t think there are more than a handful of atheist who don’t believe that evolution is science.

That's an argument from ignorance too; if you could prove evolution false right now that wouldn't be evidence for a god existing. Can you go one sentence without a fallacy?

I think you are not reading with care. I wrote, “Sure! You can be atheist even if Theory of Evolution falls apart.”

Darwin observed the physical expression of those genetic changes.

My question was, “DID DARWIN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GENETICS?”

Considering that genetics are the dictator of physical traits in an organism, what else would you think was behind evolution? Do you know what population genetics is?

Genetics do not add new organ to the existing body plan.
Check out my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been presenting real, peer reviewed sources all along, and you're the one sitting here dismissing them all as "not science" without providing why! Could you be any more up your own ass on this?

“Without providing Why!”
Evolution is a mere postulate. Only this reason is sufficient to prove evolution is not a conventional scientific fact.

Given that we're talking in the abstract and not about a specific case, it'd be inappropriate to use another word. I can't talk about what did happen when we're talking in abstractions without a subject at hand.

In anyway, you can’t talk about what happened millions and billions of years back because no one was there at that time. Fossils are useless in relation to evolution.

Got any reputable sources instead? Ones that don't premise their objections on the faulty claim that this was all just random?

Evolution is all about RANDOM CHANCE. If you think it is not just random then what it is?

Is there any mechanism for “NATURALLY?” Even if everything is happening automatically then again through which mechanism? Perhaps, everything is happening out from nothing!

Argument from ignorance.

You have not answered that question.

Of course it's an incomplete list; aside from the fact that new discoveries will continue to happen, nobody is saying that we should expect a complete lineage in every case, that's absurd. But appealing to the incompleteness of the list in order to pretend that the evidence on it doesn't exist is, again, an argument from ignorance. Maybe you're just ignorant in general.

Do you know there are over 200,000,000-catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species? Yet that list is incomplete, you know why, because it lacks fossils of intermediate animals.

Do you understand how rare fossil formation is? That's why this is said, you blithering imbecile.

You are talking out from your desire. You don’t know anything about sedimentary rocks and fossil-bearing strata. There are billions if not trillions of fossils buried in fossil bearing strata. However, what is missing is the fossils of transitional animals in those fossil deposits. This is a bitter fact for any evolutionists.
For more details please read my new post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

First you quote a book from 1859, and then you quote a guy who's been dead for over fifteen years.

Does that change anything in the factual data that this argument has presented?

"Nuh uh!" still isn't an argument, especially since the trained scientists disagree with your uneducated ass.

All right! Then provide only a single fossil that is recognised unequivocally as transitional by conventional scientific community.

And now we're done, you dishonest fuck. This, you awful, ignorant conman, is one of the most well known quote mines of Darwin's entire work. Here's the full quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility"

And here's a source for that. You abhorrent fucking liar, Darwin is actually saying that this idea is counter-intuitive, but that so called "common sense" shouldn't blind one to the evidence that the eye has, in fact, evolved. What you did was stop the quote in the middle of the paragraph to make it say something different than what was actually said, and I demand that you retract this vile lie and apologize for this dishonesty before we continue further. Until then, I will have nothing further to say to you.

I suggest you should keep little bit of your excitement for the future. Don’t consume all in one instance.
Have you ever thought when I insert a quote why I always give you book name and page number? Do you think I am doing it, so you come back and hit that book on my head? If you have a trouble of Blind Faith in evolution in your head, then that is your pain not mine.

Now read with care what follows.

You wrote, “Darwin is actually saying that this idea is counter-intuitive, but that SO CALLED "common sense" shouldn't blind one to the EVIDENCE that the eye has, in fact, evolved.”

You are talking about “EVIDENCE”. Are you saying Darwin had the EVIDENCE that the eye in fact, evolved? If so, please quote that “EVIDENCE” from any of Darwin’s work. If you fail to find that EVIDENCE then let me know and I grant you a chance so you can arrange a TESTABLE EVIDENCE from the contemporary world of Conventional Science. I would be looking for methodical, coherent, and logical EVIDENCE not bits and pieces that prove evolution of eye.

Darwin knew that the eye was highly complex. He thought that evolution of the human eye was possible by viewing the steps of development in different creatures and to see the usefulness of the different changes in the eye structure that lead to the human eye. The most difficult part of this theory is that it is nearly impossible, even if he was correct, to find every step along the way showing direct change in an eye that are small enough to be considered natural selection. Natural selection of the human eye would require MUCH TIME and RANDOM CHANCE. I assure you evolution of eye cannot be proved on ground of MUCH TIME and RANDOM CHANCE.

When observing the anatomy of the human eye, the intricacy of vision, and all of the different aspects and connections, it does seem that the human eye is a miracle, no matter its origins. Even a simplification of the information shows the complexity and intensity of human sight and unmistakably miraculous.

There are many different types of eyes and assuming there is a common ancestor, creates the circular reasoning. Although genetic mutations may occur, there can be no INCREASE IN INFORMATION or GENETIC MATERIAL other than what is already in a system. This would mean that the youngest life form in the evolutionary chain contained the genetic disposition and information for the human eye, thus the genes for the human eye must have been in the genome of the first creature that would eventually evolve.

“Consider the eye ‘with all its inimitable contrivances,’ as Darwin called them, which can admit different amounts of light, focus at different distances, and correct spherical and chromatic aberration. Consider the retina, consisting of 150 million correctly made and positioned specialized cells. These are the rods [to view black and white] and the cones [to view color]. Consider the nature of light-sensitive retinal [a complex chemical]. Combined with a protein (opsin), retinal becomes a chemical switch. Triggered by light, this switch can generate a nerve impulse… Each switch-containing rod and cone is correctly wired to the brain so that the electrical storm (an estimated 1000 million impulses per second) is continuously monitored and translated, by a step which is a total mystery, into a mental picture.”
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 215.

Other profound aspect of eye is the Biological Purpose of Crying.

There are two processes of tear secretion in humans. The first is tearing, which is caused by irritants, and helps to lubricate and clean the eye.

The second process serves a completely different purpose. Tears cried out of emotion is a phenomenon only occurring in humans, making this trait uniquely distinct. If evolution follows, then where did emotional crying originate?

“Crying has no direct biological function in the protection of the eye and may serve no physiological purpose whatsoever”
Vingerhoets, & Cornelius, p. 28.

If emotional crying has no direct biological purpose, the question of why crying has embedded itself in the highest form of evolved creatures must be asked. Also the idea that humans are the only animal that weeps makes little sense in terms of evolutionary processes. If “all animal species can survive in their natural environment without the capacity of crying,” then what biological function would the act of weeping serve to humans?
Vingerhoets & Cornelius, p.28.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

---

And, with your very first sentence, you show just how deep your ignorance runs.
I told you to go learn about evolution.
You refuse to do so and, instead, provide us with your version of what "evolution" means. Thank you, but that's not what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states as "evolution".
Either you go learn about it, or remain in your own delusional world.... but don't mix them, as they're clearly not compatible.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

---

I am not a creationist;

No problem with that. You agree with the concept of God or not it’s your BELIEF.

I have not ever made that claim. You are making it for me,

Which claim you are talking about? Claim that you are creationist? I am not saying that! What I am saying is you are claiming that universe popped out from nothingness. Is not it true?

So you tell me on what basis you are making it.

Nature, does not exhibit spontaneous appearances of things. This is the base of my claim that universe did not pop out from nothingness.

You do not believe in God this is the base of my claim that you are claiming that universe popped out from nothingness.

Incidentally, I have visited every star and planet in the Universe. So there.

No doubt about that, I appreciate your honesty.

---

Genesis 1:3 "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

"Light," OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

Light out of nothingness is Wrong! God Himself is Light Who is not nothingness.

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 35-

Their intention is to extinguish Allah’s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
Ash-Shaff (61)
-Verse 8-

---

Well looks like Harris was exposed for another dishonest unoriginal hack. I love when they get that snobbish tone and then trip over their own arrogant misapprehension of the facts, trying to quote Darwin to refute Darwin and failing miserably as anyone with half a brain could have predicted they would.

Evolution is not Science it’s a Faith. Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Everything in Evolution, from micro to macro, occur due to RANDOM CHANCE. In science Chance has no room and RANDOM CHANCE is nothing but absurd.

I'm guessing that you didn't crib this info from anyone with even the most basic understanding of evolution. Who told you this?

Its not an assertion. Evolution is only a Postulate, An Assumption that has nothing to do with conventional science. Did you ever ponder why it is a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC FACT in modern scientific world?

Evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same things. In the same way that a bird is not the thought or name. Basic stuff. Evolution is an observation. Theory attempts to explain that observation. Evolution is, in fact, a fact. The theory is, and will likely remain, a theory - a working, falsifiable explanation for a set of facts. You take issue, and that's okay - it's even encouraged. Now get to falsifying. I'll lend you my shovel - because that's all you're going to require for a definitive rebuttal of the current model.

Clear that all up for you?

[Harris]

To be precise, the universe began to exist in this form. Prior to that …

To cut the story short, the purpose of your arguments is one; the existence of God can be disproved. You are trying to prove that universe does not have any cause and does not have any purpose. Similarly, human lives and human intelligence comes out from nowhere. In consideration of your views I have decided to submit following reasoning on why I think God exist. Let me have your opinion on that.

For the sake of argument, I say, “there is no God (The Grand Designer)”. This statement leads to the idea that everything in the universe, universe itself, and space are popped out from nowhere or came into existence without a cause, which is similar to saying; everything came out from “Nothingness.”

If everything came out from “Nothingness” and ends back into it that means “Nothingness” encapsulate every existing thing and thus it is “Something” rather than “Nothing.”

However, “Something” is a contradiction to the meaning of “Nothingness.” “Nothingness” means “Not Anything.” “Nothingness” cannot be a metaphor for something. “Nothingness” is that which neither is created nor creates. In other words, there is no world, there is no space, there is no time, and there is no being. Mind is even powerless to grasp such an idea of “Nothingness” since the world of beings can only function because it is not nothingness. No experiment could support the hypothesis “There is Nothingness” because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer. Science by no means explain “Nothingness” as it only deals with cause and effect. In the absence of cause and effect, science has no meaning.

The only alternate to “Nothingness” is God Who is an appropriate explanation for the existence of every being. He is the ultimate cause of every created being however, He is not a created being because if you ask what caused the cause that caused the universe, then let’s continue. What caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the universe? And that goes on and on and on backward to infinite regressions. So in essence, to ask who created God or what caused the cause of the universe is equivalent of saying that we do not have a universe. At one point, there should be an uncaused cause else there would be no explanation for all existing beings in today’s universe.

There is no “Nothingness” out there. There is God.


“Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 255-

---

Thanks for the reference, I've ordered the set, I should have them in about a week. Certainly if I find that those words are De Duve's and not taken out of context, I will apologize.

Guess what arrived today! Here is the quote, in its entirety, and in context:

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than 1 billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet, to produce, as early as 3.3 billion years ago, the bacterium like organisms revealed by fossil traces."

De Duve does NOT equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms. Like most biologists, he thinks the most probable route to the first bacterium like organism was a series of simpler organisms starting with what was essentially self-replicating organic chemistry. Earlier on the same page, concerning the origin of life, he states:

"How this emergence took place is a matter of conjecture, but it most likely involved, on a simpler chemical level, the same cardinal rules of fidelity, variability, and selection that governed biological evolution. Primitive self-maintaining and self-correcting systems must have formed and evolved progressively into dynamic structures of increasing complexity and stability."

So it's a quote mine, a statement taken out of context to make someone appear to have a different position than the one they actually hold, one that supports the liar's (because it IS a form of lying) position in some way. De Duve thinks pretty much what everybody on this thread who isn't a creationist or IDer thinks about abiogenesis, and it's NOT that the odds against a bacterium popping full-fledged into existence floating around in dirty water is an argument against abiogenesis, which doesn't make such an outlandish claim, as much as you want it to be so.

The question now is if Harris was quote-mining deliberately or deceived by quote-miners before him. If the latter, were I Harris, I would be asking why the people on my side are lying. In that sense, I was Harris, once upon a time. Repeatedly finding that the creationist side engaged in wholesale deceit was a major catalyst in my decision to investigate what scientists were really saying about evolution, before having it filtered through sources quite happy to make it look like a reputable scientist's opinion was the opposite of what they actually thought.

No apology for you, Harris, but you owe US one.

You have used quiet strong expressions out there. Perhaps in vain. I am very keen to see what you have to say on the following quotations;

We have seen this quote before

"IF YOU EQUATE THE PROBABILITY OF THE BIRTH OF A BACTERIA CELL TO CHANCE ASSEMBLY OF ITS ATOMS, ETERNITY WILL NOT SUFFICE TO PRODUCE ONE FOR YOU. SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL ACCEPT, AS DO MOST SCIENTISTS that the process was completed in no more than 1 billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet, to produce, as early as 3.3 billion years ago, THE BACTERIUM LIKE ORGANISMS REVEALED BY FOSSIL TRACES."

Now compare this with the following quote from the same old De Duve and tell me are these quotations out of context!

Quote
Look at the five “words” below, knowing that they were written with an alphabet of 20 letters:

ILDIGDASAQELAEILKNAKTILWNGP
GLDIGPDSVKTFNDALDTTQTIIWNGP
GLDVGPKTRELFAAPIARAKLIVWNGP
GLDCGTESSKKYAEAVARAKQIVWNGP
GLDCGPESSKKYAEAVTRAKQIVWNGP

If I were to tell you the words were typed separately by five different monkeys, would you believe me? Not if you have taken more than a passing glance at them. “All five words end with WNGP,” you would point out to me, “and for monkeys hitting keyboards independently, this cannot be.” Actually it can. But the probability of such a coincidence is one in 655 billion billions. You would need a pretty large number of monkeys for five of them to have a reasonable chance of coming up with the same word ending. Surely, a more likely possibility is that the monkeys cheated. They copied! … If you look more closely, you will see that four other letters, in addition to the terminal four, are the same in all five words (LD in position 2 and 3, G in position 5, and I in position 22). This lowers the odds of a fortuitous coincidence to one in 429,500 billion billion billion billions. Trillions of planets like ours could not possibly provide enough monkeys. And this is not all. Five other letters are the same in four out of the five words (G in position 1, S in position 8, A in position 13, and AK in positions 19–20). Even more striking, the two last words have 25 out of 27 letters in common; they differ only in positions 6 and 17. There can be no doubt. If monkeys there were, they most certainly did not hit their typewriters’ keys at random.

The words shown are not inventions. They represent real things, fragments of molecules called proteins, which are very long chains of up to several hundred units called amino acids, of which 20 different kinds are used in the assembly of the chains. Each word represents the sequence of a 27-amino acid piece (each letter standing for a given kind of amino acid) present somewhere in the heart of a large protein molecule containing more than 400 amino acids. This protein is an enzyme, or biological catalyst, known as phosphoglycerate kinase, PGK for short. PGK is a key participant in one of the most fundamental processes that take place in living organisms, the conversion of sugar to alcohol (or lactic acid), which occurs in virtually all forms of life, whether microbes of various sorts, plants, molds, or animals (including humans).

Now comes the central piece of information, which explains why the words serve as an introduction to this book. The five structures shown belong to the PGKs of five widely different organisms. The first one belongs to Escherichia coli, or colibacillus, a common microbe that we all harbor in our gut. The others are from the wheat, fruit-fly, horse, and human PGKs, respectively:

Colibacillus:------ILDIGDASAQELAEILKNAKTILWNGP
Wheat:-----------GLDIGPDSVKTFNDALDTTQTIIWNGP
Fruitfly:----------GLDVGPKTRELFAAPIARAKLIVWNGP
Horse:-----------GLDCGTESSKKYAEAVARAKQIVWNGP
Human:---------GLDCGPESSKKYAEAVTRAKQIVWNGP

What our monkey parable has brought to light is that the similarities among the PGKs of our sample organisms could not possibly be due to chance. A possibility could be—this, no doubt, would be the “creationist” view—that the similarities betray the intervention of a “hidden hand.”

End Quote

Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning
Pages 3-4
Christian de Duve

Please check out my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
http://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

---

I estimate ten-to-one that he will ignore.

Don’t get upset. I am not ignoring anything.

[downbeatplumb]

Harris.
You post is far too long and rambling for me to pick it all to pieces but I shall address a couple of your more obvious inaccuracies.

Evolution IS a scientific fact, that is what theory means in science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW1Lpa23mOw

Evolution is not random, it is a known and rather well understood process were pressures on an individual can impact on its ability to survive and/or reproduce which dictates what will and wont pass on its genes.

You really need to learn some more and not close your mind to facts, the truth is far more fascinating than the bronze age myths you believe.

[Mister Agenda]

To be precise, the universe began to exist in this form. Prior to that …

To cut the story short, the purpose of your arguments is one; the existence of God can be disproved.

I didn't even try to make an argument that the existence of God can be disproved in that post. I don't believe the existence of God can be disproved, especially since people who believe God is real are comfortable changing his attributes for the convenience of their arguments.

You are trying to prove that universe does not have any cause and does not have any purpose.

Nonsense. Why would I try to prove the unprovable? Unlike you, I know my limitations. At this point, whether the universe is caused or causeless is unprovable either way.

Similarly, human lives and human intelligence comes out from nowhere.

Characterizing billions of years of evolution and generations of our predecessors who lived and died before us as 'nowhere' is so wrong as to be dishonest.

In consideration of your views I have decided to submit following reasoning on why I think God exist. Let me have your opinion on that.

Sure, although your nearly complete misunderstanding of what I've had to say so far makes me think doing so may be entirely pointless.

For the sake of argument, I say, “there is no God (The Grand Designer)”. This statement leads to the idea that everything in the universe, universe itself, and space are popped out from nowhere or came into existence without a cause, which is similar to saying; everything came out from “Nothingness.”

If that were your position, it could as easily simply mean the cause of the universe was not a conscious being. 'Not designed' is not a synonym for 'causeless' or 'nothingness'. Current physics suggests that a state of 'Nothingness' may not be possible, if true, there 'never was nothing'. Since you went off the rails in your first paragraph, everything that follows below...doesn't actually follow.

If everything came out from “Nothingness” and ends back into it that means “Nothingness” encapsulate every existing thing and thus it is “Something” rather than “Nothing.”

According to the most current physics, the most probable fate to the universe is not 'nothing' but an ever-expanding, excruciatingly thin cloud of photons. I don't know of any scenario in which the future of the universe is actually bounded by 'nothing'.

However, “Something” is a contradiction to the meaning of “Nothingness.” “Nothingness” means “Not Anything.” “Nothingness” cannot be a metaphor for something. “Nothingness” is that which neither is created nor creates. In other words, there is no world, there is no space, there is no time, and there is no being. Mind is even powerless to grasp such an idea of “Nothingness” since the world of beings can only function because it is not nothingness.

So, who do you think among the atheists believes that the sort of philosophical nothingness you describe ever actually existed? Even saying it 'existed' seems to involve a contradiction, if only a semantic one. The 'nothing' a physicist like Krauss refers to in 'A Universe from Nothing' is not philosophical, it is the hardest vacuum possible, which is not 'philosophical nothingness' at all. Quantum foam may possess the characteristic of existing necessarily.

No experiment could support the hypothesis “There is Nothingness” because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer. Science by no means explain “Nothingness” as it only deals with cause and effect. In the absence of cause and effect, science has no meaning.

Good thing that science doesn't have to take your imaginary hypotheses seriously, then. Your type never seems to ask what we think about something before telling us what we must think about it.

The only alternate to “Nothingness” is God Who is an appropriate explanation for the existence of every being.

The only alternative to 'capital N Nothingness' is something. That something having to be God is what you need to support, just saying it doesn't make it so.

He is the ultimate cause of every created being however, He is not a created being because if you ask what caused the cause that caused the universe, then let’s continue. What caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the universe? And that goes on and on and on backward to infinite regressions.

That we don't like infinite regression is not proof against it. No one has been able to prove that infinite regression is not possible, so as far as anyone knows, it could be the case.

So in essence, to ask who created God or what caused the cause of the universe is equivalent of saying that we do not have a universe.

It's the equivalent of pointing out that you have not justified either the rule that everything must have a cause, or that God is the lone exception to that rule. If God can exist without a cause, why can't the universe? Not to mention that we observe causeless events at the quantum level, if everything in the universe has to have a cause, it does not follow that the universe itself must have a cause, that would be a fallacy of composition.

At one point, there should be an uncaused cause else there would be no explanation for all existing beings in today’s universe.

A quantum fluctuation is an uncaused cause. Physics indicates that a quantum fluctuation is a possible cause of our universe.

There is no “Nothingness” out there. There is God.

I agree with the first sentence. The second seems to be unsupported by any substantial argument or evidence.

Thanks for the reference, I've ordered the set, I should have them in about a week. Certainly if I find that those words are De Duve's and not taken out of context, I will apologize.

Guess what arrived today! Here is the quote, in its entirety, and in context:

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than 1 billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet, to produce, as early as 3.3 billion years ago, the bacterium like organisms revealed by fossil traces."

De Duve does NOT equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms. Like most biologists, he thinks the most probable route to the first bacterium like organism was a series of simpler organisms starting with what was essentially self-replicating organic chemistry. Earlier on the same page, concerning the origin of life, he states:

"How this emergence took place is a matter of conjecture, but it most likely involved, on a simpler chemical level, the same cardinal rules of fidelity, variability, and selection that governed biological evolution. Primitive self-maintaining and self-correcting systems must have formed and evolved progressively into dynamic structures of increasing complexity and stability."

So it's a quote mine, a statement taken out of context to make someone appear to have a different position than the one they actually hold, one that supports the liar's (because it IS a form of lying) position in some way. De Duve thinks pretty much what everybody on this thread who isn't a creationist or IDer thinks about abiogenesis, and it's NOT that the odds against a bacterium popping full-fledged into existence floating around in dirty water is an argument against abiogenesis, which doesn't make such an outlandish claim, as much as you want it to be so.

The question now is if Harris was quote-mining deliberately or deceived by quote-miners before him. If the latter, were I Harris, I would be asking why the people on my side are lying. In that sense, I was Harris, once upon a time. Repeatedly finding that the creationist side engaged in wholesale deceit was a major catalyst in my decision to investigate what scientists were really saying about evolution, before having it filtered through sources quite happy to make it look like a reputable scientist's opinion was the opposite of what they actually thought.

No apology for you, Harris, but you owe US one.

You have used quiet strong expressions out there.

I am please you have responded, and glad my estimation of the odds that you would was incorrect. If you are so senstive about strong expressions, perhaps you should have avoided saying this about me: "Whether you are ignorant or trying to mislead the world on purpose. Based on this fact I reckon any of your comments meaningless."--Harris

It makes complaining about my tone sound very hypocritical.

Perhaps in vain. I am very keen to see what you have to say on the following quotations;

We have seen this quote before

"IF YOU EQUATE THE PROBABILITY OF THE BIRTH OF A BACTERIA CELL TO CHANCE ASSEMBLY OF ITS ATOMS, ETERNITY WILL NOT SUFFICE TO PRODUCE ONE FOR YOU. SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL ACCEPT, AS DO MOST SCIENTISTS that the process was completed in no more than 1 billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet, to produce, as early as 3.3 billion years ago, THE BACTERIUM LIKE ORGANISMS REVEALED BY FOSSIL TRACES."

There are no extra points for repeating yourself. The quote is an explanation for why people concerned with real science think the earliest bacteria did not spring into existence whole like Athena from the brow of Zeus, but evolved from simpler precursors, as you have been told repeatedly in this thread.

Now compare this with the following quote from the same old De Duve and tell me are these quotations out of context!

Quote
Look at the five “words” below, knowing that they were written with an alphabet of 20 letters:

ILDIGDASAQELAEILKNAKTILWNGP
GLDIGPDSVKTFNDALDTTQTIIWNGP
GLDVGPKTRELFAAPIARAKLIVWNGP
GLDCGTESSKKYAEAVARAKQIVWNGP
GLDCGPESSKKYAEAVTRAKQIVWNGP

If I were to tell you the words were typed separately by five different monkeys, would you believe me? Not if you have taken more than a passing glance at them. “All five words end with WNGP,” you would point out to me, “and for monkeys hitting keyboards independently, this cannot be.” Actually it can. But the probability of such a coincidence is one in 655 billion billions. You would need a pretty large number of monkeys for five of them to have a reasonable chance of coming up with the same word ending. Surely, a more likely possibility is that the monkeys cheated. They copied! … If you look more closely, you will see that four other letters, in addition to the terminal four, are the same in all five words (LD in position 2 and 3, G in position 5, and I in position 22). This lowers the odds of a fortuitous coincidence to one in 429,500 billion billion billion billions. Trillions of planets like ours could not possibly provide enough monkeys. And this is not all. Five other letters are the same in four out of the five words (G in position 1, S in position 8, A in position 13, and AK in positions 19–20). Even more striking, the two last words have 25 out of 27 letters in common; they differ only in positions 6 and 17. There can be no doubt. If monkeys there were, they most certainly did not hit their typewriters’ keys at random.

The words shown are not inventions. They represent real things, fragments of molecules called proteins, which are very long chains of up to several hundred units called amino acids, of which 20 different kinds are used in the assembly of the chains. Each word represents the sequence of a 27-amino acid piece (each letter standing for a given kind of amino acid) present somewhere in the heart of a large protein molecule containing more than 400 amino acids. This protein is an enzyme, or biological catalyst, known as phosphoglycerate kinase, PGK for short. PGK is a key participant in one of the most fundamental processes that take place in living organisms, the conversion of sugar to alcohol (or lactic acid), which occurs in virtually all forms of life, whether microbes of various sorts, plants, molds, or animals (including humans).

Now comes the central piece of information, which explains why the words serve as an introduction to this book. The five structures shown belong to the PGKs of five widely different organisms. The first one belongs to Escherichia coli, or colibacillus, a common microbe that we all harbor in our gut. The others are from the wheat, fruit-fly, horse, and human PGKs, respectively:

Colibacillus:------ILDIGDASAQELAEILKNAKTILWNGP
Wheat:-----------GLDIGPDSVKTFNDALDTTQTIIWNGP
Fruitfly:----------GLDVGPKTRELFAAPIARAKLIVWNGP
Horse:-----------GLDCGTESSKKYAEAVARAKQIVWNGP
Human:---------GLDCGPESSKKYAEAVTRAKQIVWNGP

What our monkey parable has brought to light is that the similarities among the PGKs of our sample organisms could not possibly be due to chance. A possibility could be—this, no doubt, would be the “creationist” view—that the similarities betray the intervention of a “hidden hand.”

End Quote

Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning
Pages 3-4
Christian de Duve

Please check out my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
https://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

You should stop posting quotes you don't understand. This is a quote mine. The part where you left off, without even looking, is just before de Duve goes on to explain how evolution accounts for the lack of randomness. That's how predictable this quote-mine lie is. The man is not a creationist, you are misrepresenting his position. Again. Dr. de Duve has a habit of offering the creationist explanation before demolishing it, which makes him trivially easy to quote mine. It's not hard to quote mine, just deceitful.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. I am willing to lay down a thousand dollars of my own money, payable to the charity of your choice, which I will show official acknowledgement of my contribution for, that de Duve goes on to say how evolution accounts for the phenomenenon described in what you've chosen to quote. If you agree to do the same if you are shown to have quote-mined de Duve, it will certainly be worthwile for me to order another de Duve book from Amazon if necessary, presuming the proof isn't available on the internet.