|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Buz writes:
Are you not "similar to, yet slightly different from" your parents and do you not know how they 'assembled' you? ...he did not explain what would randomly assemble multiple copies similar to, yet slightly different from the original.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Panda writes: quote: Are you not "similar to, yet slightly different from" your parents and do you not know how they 'assembled' you? For the most part, your example of multiple copies being assembled is not random, but due to a vast amount of information within the genes and DNA of the original being copied. I understand Dawkins's argument to apply to the very beginning stages of evolution, when a scant amount of information existed within the organism as well as advanced modern observable stages. Environmental and ecological conditions would likely factor in relative to survival of early stages of evolution. Survival would be no problem in your example. Survival of originals in the beginning stages, long enough to produce similar copies, would have been highly unlikely. In your example, reproduction of originals is not a problem whatsoever. We can physically observe similar copies now. The beginning theorized stages never have been physically observed. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Buz writes:
Hmm...I did not present an example. For the most part, your example of multiple copies being assembled is not random, but due to a vast amount of information within the genes and DNA of the original being copied. Try again:
Buz writes:
Are you not "similar to, yet slightly different from" your parents and do you not know how they 'assembled' you? ...he did not explain what would randomly assemble multiple copies similar to, yet slightly different from the original.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Unless I missed something, he did not explain what would randomly assemble multiple copies similar to, yet slightly different from the original.
Uh, life. Please pardon us for looking at you like you've just grown a second head, but ... you have heard about life, haven't you?
Regarding cumulative selection, Dawkins said the above.
Indeed? Then why in the qs block did you attribute it to me? Perhaps because you had copied that straight from the beginning of the third paragraph after the quotations on my MONKEY page? Where I am describing the algorithms for implementing both kinds of selection in MONKEY. Now, Dawkins could have written the same thing -- I had written that over 20 years ago -- , so could you please cite for us which page in his book he had written that? And please do try to keep in mind the context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The beginning theorized stages never have been physically observed. Not so. We have contemporary examples both of RNA reproduction and RNA catalysis, and even of RNA self-catalyzed reproduction. Something that small, of course, cannot fossilize so we can only look to contemporary evidence to support our notions of the original protolife, and we can't really "prove" that it happened this way or that. But creating a model that says "this is how it could have happened" goes a long way to answering the question, and certainly rebuts creationist arguments that it was impossible for life to have evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I understand Dawkins's argument to apply to the very beginning stages of evolution, when a scant amount of information existed within the organism as well as advanced modern observable stages.
May I ask what you base that understanding on? Because my understanding is that he was talking about how life, having already been established, works. Indeed, as I recall from over 20 years ago when I had worked on MONKEY, he specifically used the example of the evolution of the eye, which is hardly in the "very beginning stages of evolution." How does life work? Doesn't life make multiple copies which are very similar to, yet slightly different from their parents? And then don't those copies not all live to create the next generation of copies (whether due to natural selection or to sexual selection)? And isn't the next generation of copies very similar to, yet slightly different from, the previous generation's copies who were able to participate in spawning that next generation? That is what cumulative selection describes. Or does life instead work by single-step selection? Does each new offspring just fall together randomly in one single act of creation without any kind of genetic information from the parents being applied? Think about it. What does single-step selection describe except creationism? Clearly, cumulative selection, not single-step selection, is descriptive of how life works. Single-step selection is much more descriptive of creation ex nihilo. Comparing the two forms of selection, we find that single-step selection is extremely improbable of working, whereas cumulative selection's success is virtually inevitable. And yet whenever creationists come up with one of their probability claims, they never ever apply cumulative selection, but rather they try to saddle with evolution with their own sorry excuse for a selection method, single-step selection. Does evolution say that modern proteins came into existence through single-step selection? No, evolution says that modern proteins evolved, which means that cumulative selection was used. No wonder creationism has to constantly lie about evolution; if they were to ever tell the truth, then they would have no case. Now, in the matter of the very beginnings of life, single-step selection would have indeed predominated, but once a mechanism for replication was established then cumulative selection would have taken over. But in working out the probabilities for the single-step selection that would have preceded that, you have to weigh in all the factors. Like multiple trials; eg, the probability of any one individual winning the lottery is very small, but when you have several millions of individuals playing, then the probably that at least one of them will win is fairly high and we do see that happening all the time. And the way that things work also has to be factored in. As with Hoyle's poor "tornado in a junkyard" example, mechanical parts do not assemble in the manner described, so the probability that they would of course has to be extremely small. But chemical reactions happen very readily, even though the probability of a specific reaction with specific atoms is very small, as a chemistry PhD friend had informed me. So the probabilities of certain chemical reactions taking place among many billions of atoms/molecules would of course be very much higher than Hoyle's junkyard. As I pointed out from Sidney Fox's work with thermal proteinoids, they assembled themselves very readily, unlike Hoyle's junk, and some were chemically active, able to perform some protein-like activities. Any serious attempt at working out the probabilities of the origin of life would have to take those kinds of factors into account. But, of course, creationists will continue to make up their bullshit probability claims unabated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: About personal attacks, there was none. Chuck didn't write the opening post, he cut-n-pasted it. My comment was about his cut-n-paste. Specifically, I said: Percy in Message 54 writes:Chuck, your top 10 list was childish, idiotic, and said almost nothing that was actually true. All this is saying is that Chuck posted a cut-n-paste whose content was childish and idiotic. In that Chuck, et al, agreed by cheers that it would be something depicting our list, we would be implied as childish idiots, believing falsehoods.
Percy writes: Buzsaw writes:No, I don't subscribe to everything in the message. So you presumably understand that it was block-headed to claim that atheists blame God for anything. Let's go on to the next item: No. I understand, after going on nine years, debating atheists, et al, that they often do blame God for some things.
Percy writes:
quote: Is this what you were referring to when you mentioned the primordial soup? If so, then you realize this is a false, too. On to the next: I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution.
Percy writes:
quote: Obviously false. Agreed as false.
Percy writes: quote: Does this make sense even to you? It absolutely does. Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics, for the most part, apologize for Islam and submit negative posts about Christians, the Bible and Christianity.
Percy writes: quote: Except for the gratuitous opinion offered at the end, this one is true. I would cheer the whole thing.
Percy writes:
quote: Presumably you know, after all your time here, that no such calculation has ever been made by scientists. I believe that the odds would be scientifically, highly unlikely; what we observe in the Universe, all progressing from disorder to order, naturally, over the millenia.
Percy writes: 4.
quote: I think we can both agree that there's a lot of hateful talk on both sides, so let's call this one true. I would say a lot on the evolutionist side and relatively little from creationists, especially Biblical creationists.
Percy writes: quote: This one is so confused that it defies analysis. I won't fault you if it sounds correct to you. I understand it and agree to it fully. Your side picks and chooses whatever scientific concepts fit the ticket at hand in the debates, ignoring the implications of thermodynamic laws, arguing abstract methodologies such as relativity quantum and string theory. OTOH, your side rigidly imposes letter of the law scientific laws upon creationists.
Percy writes: quote: After all your time here I assume you understand that evolution of not a theory of the creation of the universe. I see that statement as are some that all of us post on occasion, essentially ok but technically flawed.
Percy writes: quote: This one is accurate in an ironic kind of way. I would wholeheartedly cheer it.
Percy writes: Adding this all up we have only 3 statements out of 10 that are correct. The numerous incorrect statements make the list a target for criticism. I see this, your last statement as among the incorrect ones. Thanks for waiting patiently for my response. --PercyBUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Buzsaw writes:
Some links on what an evolutionist thinks of primordial soup:
I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution. Metabolism First and the Origin of Life More Prebiotic Soup Nonsense A Julia Child Recipe Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution. You'd also be flat-out wrong. This is somewhat like saying that without Ford factories, there could be no internal combustion engines. Evolution is the change in species over generations via mutation guided by natural selection. It doesn't matter how life began. A "primordial soup" is one option; others include space aliens, beings from another reality, deities, or any number of options we just haven't imagined yet. Now, abiogenesis (which isn't really a "primordial soup" hypothesis anyway, but think what you will) may be the most probable of the possibilities we've been able to imagine thus far, simply because it doesn't require the existence of additional entities that we don;t already know exist - it only requires chemistry, and I'm sure even you would agree that the periodic table of the elements is pretty well-established. That doesn;t mean it's a prerequisite. The only prerequisites to evolution are: 1) life must exist, though its specific origins are irrelevant2) resources necessary for life (sunlight, food, water, etc) must be limited 3) life must reproduce such that traits are passed from parent to child but small variations happen over generations via a method similar to mutation, which we have actually observed to happen. Given those three prerequisites evolution is inevitable. Small variations and competition for resources for survival mean that the variants that are best suited to their environment will acquire resources more frequently than other variants and thus will reproduce more, passing their traits on to the next generation at a higher rate than the other variants, causing change in the total population over time. It really is inevitable, and this has been shown countless times in many simulations and via direct observation of nature. A "primordial soup" may or may not have been the origin of life on Earth, but that fact is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution, just as disproving the existence of the Ford Motor Corporation would not disprove the existence of internal combustion engines.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
No. I understand, after going on nine years, debating atheists, et al, that they often do blame God for some things. If I explain to a child that Santa Claus does not exist because it is simply impossible for Santa to visit all of those houses as it is described in myth could the child then turn around and say that I have to believe in Santa Claus to make such a determination? You are like the child. You think that we must first believe in God in order to point to the inconsistencies between reality and theology. This obviously isn't so.
I would say that the primordial soup was a prerequisite to the ToE. No premodial soup; no evolution. It isn't, and never has been. You might as well argue that water doesn't form from hydrogen and water because the oxygen and hydrogen ultimately require the Big Bang as a prerequisite which I am guessing is something that you don't accept. So at least be consistent and argue that water does not exist since you reject their prerequisite as well. Let me stress this again. Do you really think that we can not describe the changes that chemicals go through without first describing the ultimate origin of those chemicals? Think about this. Do you really think that we can not describe the change in the physical characteristics of a substance when it goes from being hydrogen and oxygen gas to dihydrogen oxide in the form of a liquid until we first produce a well evidenced theory on the ultimate origin of the universe? Do you really think this? If not, then why would we need to explain the ultimate origin of life in order to understand how life changed once it was here? Can you even understand how stupid it is to reject the theory of biodiversity because there is no solid theory on the origin of life?
I believe that the odds would be scientifically, highly unlikely Why should we care what you believe? When you can demonstrate these odds then it will hold some weight. Until then, it is nothing more than incredulity.
what we observe in the Universe, all progressing from disorder to order, naturally, over the millenia. No, we don't. There are tons of examples of negative entropy, even outside of biology. The water cycle on Earth is a perfect example. This system is constantly moving from disorder to order. How else do you think we can get separate salty and fresh water?
It absolutely does. Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics, for the most part, apologize for Islam and submit negative posts about Christians, the Bible and Christianity. We criticize each equally for believing in gods that don't exist. What we stress is that evil people will do evil things with their religious beliefs often being irrelevant. This applies to christians as well as muslims. We don't blame christianity for child molestaion as it relates to priests. We blame people for commiting the crime and other people for covering it up.
Your side picks and chooses whatever scientific concepts fit the ticket at hand in the debates, ignoring the implications of thermodynamic laws, arguing abstract methodologies such as relativity quantum and string theory.
This is pretty sad. When creationists get the laws of thermodynamics wrong we explain to them why it is wrong. Don't blame us for the mistakes that creationists make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taq writes: If I explain to a child that Santa Claus does not exist because it is simply impossible for Santa to visit all of those houses as it is described in myth could the child then turn around and say that I have to believe in Santa Claus to make such a determination? You are like the child. You think that we must first believe in God in order to point to the inconsistencies between reality and theology. This obviously isn't so. No. We must not first believe anything. We must first determine that there is sufficient physically observable evidence to believe something.
Taq writes: quote: It isn't, and never has been. You might as well argue that water doesn't form from hydrogen and water because the oxygen and hydrogen ultimately require the Big Bang as a prerequisite which I am guessing is something that you don't accept. So at least be consistent and argue that water does not exist since you reject their prerequisite as well. Say what? Water from hydrogen and water??. If you mean from hydrogen and oxygen, the proper combination of these elements is indeed a prerequisite to make water. The BB is not the only prerequisite to any existing thing. It's the first prerequisite, in your thinking. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
No. We must not first believe anything. But you do believe in something, and it is those beliefs that we are addressing. We are pointing out that reality does not conform to your beliefs. That is the whole point. We do not "blame God" for the bad things that happen. Instead, we point out that bad things are inconsistent with a loving omnipotent god.
The BB is not the only prerequisite to any existing thing. Then we can not say that oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water, according to your argument. The BB is a prerequisite for these atoms as described by science as much as abiogenesis is a prerequisite for life. If you reject the theory that explains how life changes because you reject the origin of that life then you must also reject how atoms change because you reject the scientific explanation for how those atoms came about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: In fact Chuck's list was silly and childish - it was an attempt to "mirror" another list - and not a very good one (the second item is a notable failure that nobody's defending). We don't have to be silent on that fact just because you cheered it. Should the truth be silenced just because you made a silly mistake ?
quote: After nine years debating atheists you still don't understand that atheists don't believe that God exists ?
quote: As others have pointed out, you're dead wrong here, too. (Do you really believe that God is incapable of creating life that could evolve ? because that's the implication of what you are saying).
quote: That's not even what it says. Nor is it true. There is a difference between disagreeing with your false attacks on Islam and supporting it. If a Muslim Creationist came here we'd argue against him just as much as we argue against the Christian creationists.
quote: In other words you write off well-established science as a fairy tale. I don't think that I need to point out the implications of that.
quote: Which doesn't change the fact that the list item is dead wrong, since no valid calculation exists.
quote: Given that you seem to strongly object to any criticism of people on your side, no matter how true or justified, then I'd say that your assessment is more than a little biased.
quote: Of course that's nonsense. In the recent thermodynamic thread you were the only one arguing against the implications of any of the laws of thermodynamics. And your childish rants against science you don't even understand are not convincing to any rational person.
quote: Cosmology is so far outside the scope of the theory of evolution that it's not even remotely sensible to claim that it doesn't cover it.
quote: I bet that you can't offer a coherent argument in favour of the first sentence. I bet that you don't even understand the dubious philosophy behind it. The rest of it is simply irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which remains the truth no matter how much you might dislike it. It might be a blow to your pride to accept that you are merely human, but that does not mean that you are anything more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Do you honestly believe that people who do not believe in the existence of God, blame God for the bad things that happen Are you sure this is what you want to say?
Is it not more accurate to say that people who do not believe in the existence of God justify this non-belief by pointing out that bad things happening doesn't really gel with an omnipotent, loving God who has a finger in every pie? Think of it this way. How can they blame a (from their point of view) non-existent being for all the ills of the world? I suggest you have a wee think about this because it's a nonsensical position to hold. Edited by Trixie, : To lassoo and return a runaway colon to it's rightful place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Obviously atheists believe in God. Every time Buzsaw posts you can hear them muttering, "Jesus Christ and God almighty, I can't believe he just said that!"
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024