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!
May 13, 2011 at 8:11 am (This post was last modified: May 13, 2011 at 8:13 am by orogenicman.)
Statler Wrote:My examples were completely valid. We are talking about unobserved events, and their probabilities of occurring. I say the probabilities of abiogenesis occurring are so small any statistician would just round it off to p = 0. Usually values smaller than 1 in 10^50 are rounded off to zero anyways. Or at least they were when I was taking statistics in university. Who knows, they may have changed that rule just to preserve abiogenesis.
Erm, there are many very small numbers that no scientist in his right mind would ever round down to zero. Examples are Avagadro's number, Planck length, and Planck time.
This goofy idea that abiogenesis has virtually no chance of ever happening ignores the fact that over 70 amino acids (many of which are the building blocks of cells) have been detected in meteorites. It also ignores all of the recent research into the subject, and it does so for one simple fact. If creationists can ignore the science by simply making stupid probability statements, it makes them feel much more comfortable getting on their knees and declaring "God did it" with respect to any phenomenon we might discuss. And the simple truth is that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. It is not a scientific statement. And neither is the statement that abiogenesis has zero probability of ever occurring. People who make unsupported statements like that have historically been the ones who ended up wiping mud off their faces when their goofy ideas are refuted. People like Bishop Ussher, for instance.
'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! "
Sure Christians believe God is great, but they do not believe he is a fairy, nor do they believe he lives in the sky. So out of three words, you only used one accurate one.
Quote: This is not a "no true scotsman", the cretinists are not scientists.
For the simple reason that they start with the premise that the bible is true and bend the evidence to fit that premise. That does not fit ANY definition of real science.
Secular scientists start with the premise that the Bible is false, and bend the evidence to fit that premise. So maybe they are not real scientists either?
Creation Scientists conduct their operational sciences exactly the same way as the secular guys do. They only differ in Origins Sciences.
Quote: Really? name them then.
I guess I can just go to Albert, since it is his theory we are talking about. When Einstein discusses whether a person can prove that light moves at a constant speed in one direction he concedes this is impossible without already assuming it does,
“If only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels along the length A → M with the same velocity as along the length B → M. But an examination would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961, pp. 22–23).”
Einstein also confirms my original assertions that the one way speed of light being constant is by no means a requirement of nature, but rather a man-made convention. He states,
“That light requires the same time to traverse the path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) “
So you wasted all that time arguing points that Einstein himself didn’t even agree with. This is why I asserted that if you had a basic knowledge of physics and relativity, you would not have wasted all that time arguing these points.
Quote: On the same vein since we have been unable to sustain a fusion reaction in the laboratory mean that stars don't actually work that way?
And does that mean goddidit?
False analogy. We can observe how stars react; we cannot observe abiogenesis occurring 3.5 million years ago. Secularists such as you are the ones asserting that abiogenesis happened, so the burden of proof is not on me but rather you to prove it did happen. Unfortunately for your side, nobody has even demonstrated that it could happen, much less that it actually did.
Quote: But that intelligent cause started the universe 13-14 billion years ago and isn't the god of your bible.
First of all, you should not be so confident that this cause happened 13-14 billion years ago, since that is a figure that changes yearly it seems. Secondly, you could not make such a definitive assertion without you yourself being all knowing. When you actually start running through the necessary attributes of this first intelligent cause it starts sounding more and more like the God of the Bible.
You really are the off topic king though Zen : - ) I think that only you could cover the Definition of Science, ASC, and the Causality Argument all in a thread about abiogenesis. Kudos for that.
Quote: Actually I was referring to Zeus. You didnt address the question, you just spouted off what you thought. Abiogenesis is provable, as is any science. If say we find it occurring on another planet. That will be proof. Now as for the question about "I love you" in the sand, that is a human phrase, and a human method for showing human sentiments. Whom else would it be. I can prove humans exist, you cannot prove god exists. So how can anyone possibly claim that the attributes of creation are attributes only of god, that it could be nothing else? They cant. So that is a bad analogy. How can you claim that natural laws demonstrate anything in regards to god while being unable to adequately demonstrate the existence of god? Your logic is as follows. I believe in god. Abiogenesis is impossible, god did it. Oh, gravity? Science doesnt know everything about gravity, because god use gravity to maintain order. But you never demonstrated how god fit into this. If all things in the universe operate by natural processes, where exactly is god required? Abiogenesis? Because we don't know yet? You have no previous examples to confirm those statistics, we have only explored a handful of planets remotely. For all we know the universe has life abundant. Claims of the improbability of abiogenesis is based upon what exactly? Our vast experience in goldilocks zone planets? Furthermore why in this case do you defer to experts? When you so boldly claim they are wrong in evolution?
Hey SD,
I don’t believe you could ever prove abiogenesis happened on Earth. Even if we did observe it happening on another planet, this is not logical proof it happened here. That’s like observing a government forming in one country and saying that is proof of how it formed in another country.
As to your point about the writing in the sand and God’s existence, I think that you could use the writing in the sand to prove the human who wrote it existed. If you were on a desert island, and you believed you were all alone, but one morning you woke up and found the words, “Hello, I am here” written in the sand where the previous day there was nothing you could logically conclude that not only did a human write this, but that human also exists on that island. I would not call you irrational for making this conclusion because you know that the message contains information and information only comes from an intelligent mind. This is just one proof theists use to demonstrate God’s existence when they look at the hugely complex information contained in living cells; I think this proof is completely valid and rational.
As to your points about natural laws, they demonstrate an underlying uniformity, order, and predictability to our universe. These are things that should not have and I would argue could not have originated given the current Godless theories about the universe’s origin. So again, I think this helps to confirm God’s existence.
Quote: Erm, there are many very small numbers that no scientist in his right mind would ever round down to zero. Examples are Avagadro's number, Planck length, and Planck time.
Well I would hope that these scientists you refer to would realize that Avogadro's number (6.0221415 × 1023) is not a very small number at all, but rather a very large number. I think any Junior in high school would know this. I imagine that unlike you these scientists would also realize that there is a big difference between rounding off statistical probabilities and rounding off actual measurements and constants.
Quote: This goofy idea that abiogenesis has virtually no chance of ever happening ignores the fact that over 70 amino acids (many of which are the building blocks of cells) have been detected in meteorites.
So? That’s like saying, “we found naturally occurring rocks, and therefore stone pyramids form themselves!” Amino acids have no natural tendency to arrange themselves. So I am afraid it is you who is merely ignoring the actual science and believing what you want to believe rather than what you should believe.
May 17, 2011 at 10:17 pm (This post was last modified: May 17, 2011 at 10:46 pm by orogenicman.)
Statler Wrote:Secular scientists start with the premise that the Bible is false, and bend the evidence to fit that premise.
Well, first of all, very few "secular"scientists even bother to study the bible in the first place, so your premise starts out on very bad footing. That said, I know quite a few "secular" individuals who apparently know more about the Bible than many non-secular people do. I know one individual who can quote it at will, and then tell you at length why it is a bunch a crap. And what they start with is what the Bible actually says. Your problem, Statler, is that you begin with the assumption that the Bible is the unerring word of God, and then you try to bend science to your own misguided Biblical beliefs. And THAT, my friend, is about as unscientific as it gets
Statler Wrote:(Einstein 1961, pp. 22–23)
Erm, Einstein died in 1955.
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.
Statler Wrote:First of all, you should not be so confident that this cause happened 13-14 billion years ago, since that is a figure that changes yearly it seems. Secondly, you could not make such a definitive assertion without you yourself being all knowing.
Consider me all-knowing, then.
Statler Wrote:I don’t believe you could ever prove abiogenesis happened on Earth. Even if we did observe it happening on another planet, this is not logical proof it happened here. That’s like observing a government forming in one country and saying that is proof of how it formed in another country.
This sounds remarkably similar to the arguments that Christians who first conquered North American made in declaring that the natives where somehow less than human, and so it was okay to either destroy them or enslave them. So when we do find life on other planbets, and discover that abiogenesis fits for them, are you going to declare them the work of the devil which needs to be eradicated?
Statler Wrote:Well I would hope that these scientists you refer to would realize that Avogadro's number (6.0221415 × 1023) is not a very small number at all, but rather a very large number. I think any Junior in high school would know this. I imagine that unlike you these scientists would also realize that there is a big difference between rounding off statistical probabilities and rounding off actual measurements and constants.
Yes, you are correct. It was late when I wrote that, and I was trying to find small numbers very fast and made a mistake with that one. My apologies. I was thinking about the very small quantities of matter that it represents, tiny quantities, actually. Call it a brain fart, if you will. We all have them from time to time. At least I am man enough to admit when I have them. Yes?
Statler Wrote:So? That’s like saying, “we found naturally occurring rocks, and therefore stone pyramids form themselves!” Amino acids have no natural tendency to arrange themselves. So I am afraid it is you who is merely ignoring the actual science and believing what you want to believe rather than what you should believe.
If I was suggesting that rocks can spontaneously form pyramids, you might have a point. But amino acids do spontaneously form peptides.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.
But let me ask you a question. I believe that we are about 25 years away (or sooner) from showing in the laboratory that abiogenesis is a valid theory. If you are around when that happens, what will be your response?
'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! "
Quote: Well, first of all, very few "secular"scientists even bother to study the bible in the first place, so your premise starts out on very bad footing. That said, I know quite a few "secular" individuals who apparently know more about the Bible than many non-secular people do. I know one individual who can quote it at will, and then tell you at length why it is a bunch a crap. And what they start with is what the Bible actually says. Your problem, Statler, is that you begin with the assumption that the Bible is the unerring word of God, and then you try to bend science to your own misguided Biblical beliefs. And THAT, my friend, is about as unscientific as it gets
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.
Quote: Erm, Einstein died in 1955.
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.
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.
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.
Quote: This sounds remarkably similar to the arguments that Christians who first conquered North American made in declaring that the natives where somehow less than human, and so it was okay to either destroy them or enslave them. So when we do find life on other planbets, and discover that abiogenesis fits for them, are you going to declare them the work of the devil which needs to be eradicated?
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: Yes, you are correct. It was late when I wrote that, and I was trying to find small numbers very fast and made a mistake with that one. My apologies. I was thinking about the very small quantities of matter that it represents, tiny quantities, actually. Call it a brain fart, if you will. We all have them from time to time. At least I am man enough to admit when I have them. Yes?
Kudos for manning up. I know how the late night thing goes.
Quote: If I was suggesting that rocks can spontaneously form pyramids, you might have a point. But amino acids do spontaneously form peptides.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.
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. 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…
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.
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.
3. The heat used in the experiment also led to extremely random polymers.
4. All the chiral amino acids that resulted were racemized, which is not what we find in biological chains.
5. The temperature conditions found in the lab have never been observed naturally occurring on Earth.
6. The amino acids were purified and concentrated. Assuming we’d ever find this in nature is also a bit of a pipe dream.
Quote: But let me ask you a question. I believe that we are about 25 years away (or sooner) from showing in the laboratory that abiogenesis is a valid theory. If you are around when that happens, what will be your response?
How would they show it is a valid theory? I do not think the logic behind this is valid. I can make a model boat in the lab and put animals on it, does that make the Ark story a valid theory? Abiogenesis doesn’t scare the YEC community in the slightest; all that comes from the experiments is a greater understanding of just how amazingly complex life really is, even in its “simplest” forms.
May 20, 2011 at 7:53 am (This post was last modified: May 20, 2011 at 7:54 am by Zen Badger.)
(May 17, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Secular scientists start with the premise that the Bible is false, and bend the evidence to fit that premise. So maybe they are not real scientists either?
Creation Scientists conduct their operational sciences exactly the same way as the secular guys do. They only differ in Origins Sciences.
No, they just realize that since there is no supporting evidence for the bible using it for the basis of any experiment would be a waste of time.
Quote:
I guess I can just go to Albert, since it is his theory we are talking about. When Einstein discusses whether a person can prove that light moves at a constant speed in one direction he concedes this is impossible without already assuming it does,
“If only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels along the length A → M with the same velocity as along the length B → M. But an examination would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961, pp. 22–23).”
Einstein also confirms my original assertions that the one way speed of light being constant is by no means a requirement of nature, but rather a man-made convention. He states,
“That light requires the same time to traverse the path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) “
So you wasted all that time arguing points that Einstein himself didn’t even agree with. This is why I asserted that if you had a basic knowledge of physics and relativity, you would not have wasted all that time arguing these points.
But Einstein went with Occams razor and concluded that isotropic light propagation was the logical answer in the absence of a viable mechanism for ASC.
Any others?
Quote:False analogy. We can observe how stars react; we cannot observe abiogenesis occurring 3.5 million years ago. Secularists such as you are the ones asserting that abiogenesis happened, so the burden of proof is not on me but rather you to prove it did happen. Unfortunately for your side, nobody has even demonstrated that it could happen, much less that it actually did.
You've jumped on the wrong boat, you have constantly maintained that since we are not able to reproduce Abiogenesis in the lab it is therfore false.
My argument is that just because we haven't been able to reproduce it yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Quote:
First of all, you should not be so confident that this cause happened 13-14 billion years ago, since that is a figure that changes yearly it seems. Secondly, you could not make such a definitive assertion without you yourself being all knowing. When you actually start running through the necessary attributes of this first intelligent cause it starts sounding more and more like the God of the Bible.
But you're absolutely confident that the bible is true. Gee, you must be ALL knowing.
Quote:You really are the off topic king though Zen : - ) I think that only you could cover the Definition of Science, ASC, and the Causality Argument all in a thread about abiogenesis. Kudos for that.
As opposed to being the deflection king?
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Quote: No, they just realize that since there is no supporting evidence for the bible using it for the basis of any experiment would be a waste of time.
Evidence is interpreted through the lenses of a person’s presuppositions. So to presuppose the Bible is false and use this to interpret evidence accordingly and then turn around and use this to argue against the inerrancy of scripture is completely circular.
Quote: But Einstein went with Occams razor and concluded that isotropic light propagation was the logical answer in the absence of a viable mechanism for ASC.
Any others?
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. Even if it were used, I think you misunderstand what it means. It’s a tendency towards the theory with the fewest assumptions; however both ESC and ASC have the same number of assumptions. One assumes light is velocity dependent, the other assumes light is position dependent. So nice try. I think Einstein made it more than clear that what you are claiming is a necessity of nature is merely just a convention of man.
Quote: You've jumped on the wrong boat, you have constantly maintained that since we are not able to reproduce Abiogenesis in the lab it is therfore false.
My argument is that just because we haven't been able to reproduce it yet doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
I never said it proved it was false, I said that these lab tests cannot be used as evidence to support the theory. If you want to believe that abiogenesis did occur, be my guest, but don’t tell me I should also ascribe to this blind faith position. I already have my own faith.
Quote: But you're absolutely confident that the bible is true. Gee, you must be ALL knowing.
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?
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.
[quote] This sounds remarkably similar to the arguments that Christians who first conquered North American made in declaring that the natives where somehow less than human, and so it was okay to either destroy them or enslave them. So when we do find life on other planbets, and discover that abiogenesis fits for them, are you going to declare them the work of the devil which needs to be eradicated?
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."
'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! "
Quote: 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.
So you are admitting you are not neutral on the matter? Well then you should not criticize the creation guys for not being neutral on the matter either.
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.
Sure he established this convention. Nobody is arguing that. What I am pointing out is that it is just that, a convention set by man. As I demonstrated even Einstein agreed with this. It is not a requirement of nature at all. I don’t understand why you guys all act like you know more about the theory than Einstein himself.
Quote: WTF?
Read exactly how these experiments are conducted and you’ll understand what I meant by that. They hardly replicate natural conditions.
Quote: 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.
Huh? When I say “naturally”, I mean taking place in nature apart from any intelligent interference. So men helping amino acids line up in the laboratory is not proof it can happen naturally at all. Just like if I line rocks up to say “Hello” it does not prove they can do this naturally in a river bed somewhere.
Quote: 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.
Even if it were true? Obviously you have not read the procedures section of Fox’s work, it is true. You can’t create life by destroying the very amino acids you need to create it. I am sorry. You can’t bake a cake with only a few of the necessary ingredients; they all need to be used.
Quote: This is incorrect, since several tri-functional amino acids (such as histadine) are essential amino acids in mammals, including humans.
Not what I said. I said they are rare in nature (true), and the ones in Fox’s experiment led to branching that is not found in biological life (also true). I never said no trt-functional amino acids are found in life, I said the branching was not.
Quote: 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?
I hope you realize you don’t need random polymers to create life, you need very specific ones. Secondly, sure heat has been observed to exceed that in the experiments but not the very controlled application of extreme heat followed by extreme cooling. The conditions used in the laboratory have never been found on earth. They were very controlled and calculated; it is what we call unjustified intelligent interference.
Quote: 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.
I am sure you are aware that life requires mono-chiral amino acids. So forming peptides out of a 50/50 chiral mixture of amino acids proves nothing. He is building with the wrong blocks.
Quote: Oh really?
You seriously think that deep sea vents replicate the very controlled, calculated, and timed out heating and cooling patterns used in this experiment? I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Quote: If he had used unpurified and unconcentrated amino acids, you'd complain that his experiment was contaminated. Its a red herring, dude
Actually I would support him using impure amino acids because they are actually found in nature and they would not have formed peptides in the laboratory. Rather, he is using things that we don’t’ find in nature to form bonds, and then trying to say it could happen in nature. It’s silly and proves nothing.
Quote: Do you understand how the scientific method works? Do you need a lesson?
Dodged the question, nice.
Quote: 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.
So you are agreeing with me? I think.
Quote: 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."
How is that a “pro-slavery” position?
1. Slavery in Bible times was not the same as 18-19th century American slavery. It was more a path many desolate people took in order to have food and shelter (slaves were set free after a certain time period).
2. The point of the verse is to illustrate man’s relationship to the Lord and that both servant and master can be part of God’s chosen people (a very radical idea in those times).
So I think you are going to have to dig deeper if you want that verse that says, “I am the Lord and I think slavery is awesome!”
Why do you think slavery is wrong given your atheistic worldview? Be specific please.
May 24, 2011 at 8:48 am (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 8:53 am by orogenicman.)
Statler Wrote:So you are admitting you are not neutral on the matter? Well then you should not criticize the creation guys for not being neutral on the matter either.
No, I am not neutral on the matter. Is that clear enough. I haven't criticized creationists for not being neutral on the matter. I've criticized them for their ignorance. Are we clear?
Statler Wrote:Sure he established this convention. Nobody is arguing that. What I am pointing out is that it is just that, a convention set by man. As I demonstrated even Einstein agreed with this. It is not a requirement of nature at all. I don’t understand why you guys all act like you know more about the theory than Einstein himself.
All measurements to date show that the veolocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all directions, and there have been many made by scientists all over the world. So your conclusion that it is not a requirement of nature is non-sequitur to the fact that the data that shows this feature of light can only lead to Einstein's conclusion. Now, if you want to present any peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, be my guest.
Statler Wrote:Read exactly how these experiments are conducted and you’ll understand what I meant by that. They hardly replicate natural conditions.
It doesn't work like that. You made a claim (they hardly replicate natural conditions). It's yours to support. I'll be here when you decide to do that.
Statler Wrote:Huh? When I say “naturally”, I mean taking place in nature apart from any intelligent interference. So men helping amino acids line up in the laboratory is not proof it can happen naturally at all. Just like if I line rocks up to say “Hello” it does not prove they can do this naturally in a river bed somewhere.
Erm, Amino acids react with one another and with enzymes ad some metals whether the reaction takes place in nature or inside a petri dish. These reactions are well documented.
Statler Wrote:Even if it were true? Obviously you have not read the procedures section of Fox’s work, it is true. You can’t create life by destroying the very amino acids you need to create it. I am sorry. You can’t bake a cake with only a few of the necessary ingredients; they all need to be used.
I guess these life forms growing in this superheated environment don't actually exist, according to your rationale:
Do you know anything about biochemistry? Anything at all?
statler Wrote:Not what I said. I said they are rare in nature (true), and the ones in Fox’s experiment led to branching that is not found in biological life (also true). I never said no trt-functional amino acids are found in life, I said the branching was not.
You said "chiral amino acids that resulted were racemized". Well, dude, these types of amino acids are found in meteorites. Not only that, nine of the nineteen l-amino acids commonly found in proteins are dextrorotatory. And so they ARE commonly found in nature.
Statler Wrote:I hope you realize you don’t need random polymers to create life, you need very specific ones.
And you haven't explained what you mean by random polymers, and how that applies to the Fox experiments. Simply saying it is so doesn't make it so.
Statler Wrote:Secondly, sure heat has been observed to exceed that in the experiments but not the very controlled application of extreme heat followed by extreme cooling.
Ever hear of water currents? Extremophiles undergo EXTREME rapid temperature changes due to changes in current flow, and manage to survive it quite well.
Statler Wrote:The conditions used in the laboratory have never been found on earth. They were very controlled and calculated; it is what we call unjustified intelligent interference.
What utter crap. If you are going to try to revise 200 years of chemistry, I think you are going to have some problems doing so. You devise a hypothesis, then you set up an experiment under controlled and calculated conditions in order to determine if your hypothesis has merit. It's what we call part of the scientific method. Is this your way of saying that because he used the scientific method, heis results are bogus? Good luck with that.
Statler Wrote:I am sure you are aware that life requires mono-chiral amino acids
What do you get when you switch a dextrorotatory amino acid to a mono-chiral amino acid?
Statler Wrote:You seriously think that deep sea vents replicate the very controlled, calculated, and timed out heating and cooling patterns used in this experiment? I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Many of the conditions of this experiment are found at deep sea vents, as I pointed out above.
Statler Wrote:Actually I would support him using impure amino acids because they are actually found in nature and they would not have formed peptides in the laboratory. Rather, he is using things that we don’t’ find in nature to form bonds, and then trying to say it could happen in nature. It’s silly and proves nothing.
And you would be laughed right out of the laboratory. You really don't have a clue as to how biochemistry works, do you? The amino acids that were used are found in nature. In fact, they are the most common amino acids. You complain that he used pure forms of these amino acids. But if he hadn't, he would have contaminated the experiment (in other words, he couldn't guarrantee that his data wasn't the result of the impurities) and likely gotten unexpected results, and his experiment would have failed. So your complaint is silly and proves nothing.
Statler Wrote:How is that a “pro-slavery” position?
Really? You need it explained to you?
1) Wrong, wrong, wrong. You really need to stoip trying to revise history.
2) The point of the verse was that Jesus was prescribing how to treat one's slaves. Now, if he was anti-slavery he would have told people to free their slaves. There were a lot of slaves and slave owners in those days. Where is the verse showing Jesus telling people to free their slaves?
Statler Wrote:Why do you think slavery is wrong given your atheistic worldview?
(After cleaning the spittle off my monitor) If you have to ask that question, I think you've revealed more about yourself than I care to know. And you wonder why atheists have so many issues with fundamentalists!
'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! "
Quote: No, I am not neutral on the matter. Is that clear enough. I haven't criticized creationists for not being neutral on the matter. I've criticized them for their ignorance. Are we clear?
No actually we are not clear. Ignorance of what?
Quote: All measurements to date show that the veolocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all directions, and there have been many made by scientists all over the world. So your conclusion that it is not a requirement of nature is non-sequitur to the fact that the data that shows this feature of light can only lead to Einstein's conclusion. Now, if you want to present any peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary, be my guest.
Actually you are the one who claims someone has directly measured the one way speed of light. So please provide your proof of this. Remember they can’t use the Einstein Synchrony Convention to synchronize their clocks because they would be assuming the proof (I know you cannot provide any examples of this because Einstein himself said it is impossible).
Quote: It doesn't work like that. You made a claim (they hardly replicate natural conditions). It's yours to support. I'll be here when you decide to do that.
Nowhere on earth can we find the precise temperature conditions used in the experiment. It used very calculated temperatures and heat application and removal. You are the one suggesting this can happen naturally, so I would argue you have the burden of proof here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Quote: I guess these life forms growing in this superheated environment don't actually exist, according to your rationale
It’s obvious you don’t even read my posts. Where did I say life doesn’t live in superheated conditions? I said the temperature conditions used in the experiment are not found anywhere on earth.
Quote: You said "chiral amino acids that resulted were racemized". Well, dude, these types of amino acids are found in meteorites. Not only that, nine of the nineteen l-amino acids commonly found in proteins are dextrorotatory. And so they ARE commonly found in nature.
You mixed up your responses (again). The branching is due to the use of tri-functional amino acids, not 50:50 chiral amino acids.
Quote: And you haven't explained what you mean by random polymers, and how that applies to the Fox experiments. Simply saying it is so doesn't make it so.
The polymers produced in the experiment were not the polymers required to form life.
Quote: Ever hear of water currents? Extremophiles undergo EXTREME rapid temperature changes due to changes in current flow, and manage to survive it quite well.
He didn’t use water to cool the experiment; water breaks down amino acids, hence the need for the extreme heat (to remove the presence of water). So look elsewhere on earth I guess…keep looking.
Quote: What utter crap. If you are going to try to revise 200 years of chemistry, I think you are going to have some problems doing so. You devise a hypothesis, then you set up an experiment under controlled and calculated conditions in order to determine if your hypothesis has merit. It's what we call part of the scientific method. Is this your way of saying that because he used the scientific method, heis results are bogus? Good luck with that.
Give me a break. You are talking about justified interference; I am talking about unjustified interference. Setting up the experiment is one thing, but if your hypothesis is that these things can occur naturally you do not set up your experiment using conditions that are un-natural and guided by intelligence. If he wanted to test his hypothesis he would have used natural temperature conditions, an accurate amount of tri-functional amino acids, and impure amino acids because this is what we find in nature. However he did none of this, probably because he knew he would not have observed any peptides forming under those conditions. He stacked the deck and by doing so proved nothing.
Quote: What do you get when you switch a dextrorotatory amino acid to a mono-chiral amino acid?
No ‘origins of life’ experiment has ever produced only mono-chiral amino acids, they all fail.
Quote: Many of the conditions of this experiment are found at deep sea vents, as I pointed out above.
Except for the tiny fact that deep sea vents are found in the ocean which contains water right? Fox removed all water from his experiment.
Quote: And you would be laughed right out of the laboratory. You really don't have a clue as to how biochemistry works, do you? The amino acids that were used are found in nature. In fact, they are the most common amino acids. You complain that he used pure forms of these amino acids. But if he hadn't, he would have contaminated the experiment (in other words, he couldn't guarrantee that his data wasn't the result of the impurities) and likely gotten unexpected results, and his experiment would have failed. So your complaint is silly and proves nothing.
Never said the amino acids were not found in nature, I said their pure forms were not, the impure forms would not form peptides. So my argument still stands. Yes, I have done laboratory work before.
Quote: Really? You need it explained to you?
1) Wrong, wrong, wrong. You really need to stoip trying to revise history.
2) The point of the verse was that Jesus was prescribing how to treat one's slaves. Now, if he was anti-slavery he would have told people to free their slaves. There were a lot of slaves and slave owners in those days. Where is the verse showing Jesus telling people to free their slaves?
I didn’t see your historical source saying servants in Bible times were treated the same as American slaves.
Secondly, Jesus said that quote? I thought it was the apostle Paul.
Thirdly, the entire book of Exodus is about the freeing of slaves, so your point really is silly.
Were American slaves released after 6 years?
“2 “If you buy aa Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.” Exodus 21
12 “aIf your 1kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him 2free. Deut 15
If an American slave was freed was he given gifts by his master so he could survive on his own?
14 “You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Deut 15
"Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force." – Harper’s Bible Dictionary
So maybe it is you who is revising history.
Quote: (After cleaning the spittle off my monitor) If you have to ask that question, I think you've revealed more about yourself than I care to know. And you wonder why atheists have so many issues with fundamentalists!
Oh I so called this one!! I told a few of my friends I had asked this question and we all agreed you would dodge it because atheists have no logical basis for saying slavery is wrong. So how can you bash the Bible for supposedly not condemning something you seem to have no basis to condemn either? So typical.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
![[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)
![[Image: black+smoker+jason.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_4vn24YA-Rc4%2FSR1-oqOHXnI%2FAAAAAAAAAWI%2FCC_aU_7PYsQ%2Fs400%2Fblack%2Bsmoker%2Bjason.jpg)
