Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 12:27 PM
408 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,210 Year: 9,816/21,208 Month: 2,903/2,674 Week: 327/961 Day: 57/134 Hour: 7/19

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 166 of 177 (549808)
03-10-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
02-28-2010 6:30 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
quote:
The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.[18][19] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology.[4]

It’s understandable that how ID research is released is something that must be done very carefully, considering the emotion and personal attacks by the scientific community over Michael Behe’s work, as well as Dembski’s mathematical applications concerning probabilities in biology. The scientific community’s success in shouting down ID so far has been to declare it religion, and disregard it without addressing the scientific challenges it provides to naturalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2010 6:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 167 of 177 (549810)
03-10-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Courts have traditionally held that the right to practice atheism

How does one "practice atheism"? Is there an atheist church I don't yet know about? An atheist bible? Man, I really am out of the loop here.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:26 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5650
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 168 of 177 (549812)
03-10-2010 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Science that disregards religion completely is what students are being taught.

I should hope so! That is what science is.

Miller writes it exactly the same way an atheist would. He doesn’t avoid religion as he should, he makes positive assertions about nature (including abiogenesis) that contradict it.

So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?

So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?

Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:35 PM Coyote has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 169 of 177 (549814)
03-10-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
What are you two on about with SETI? What is your gripe with it? Are you afraid we just might not be alone? Will that make us not-so-special?

My gripe is that it has a free pass to be loaded into biology textbooks for school students, and doesn't get sued by the ACLU.

Did you bother looking? Here is a start: Peer Reviewed Journal Publications
and Other Recent Articles on The Society for Planetary SETI Researchp

I'll have to check that out when I have more time. I was just going by the basics of their website, a lot of inquiry for communications from outer space, with NO results yet.

First, show me a science textbook that "teaches" SETI. Again, you astoundedly have no clue as to what SETI is, apparently.

Here's what it said in the link I just provided you;

quote:
We're in classrooms across the nation. Institute scientists are co-authors of college-level textbooks:

Did you simply miss that, or are you goalpost moving?

That's because "Darwinism" is a buzz word for creo-tards. You will not find anyone trying to prove "Newtonism" wrong either, or "Einsteinism".

It's a descriptive word for godless, purposeless random mutation and natural selection. How about if I say the scientific community does not seek to prove random mutation and natural selection wrong? Or, more on topic, that the scientific community does not seek to prove atheistic abiogenesis wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 9:02 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 170 of 177 (549817)
03-10-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by marc9000
03-10-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
My gripe is that it has a free pass to be loaded into biology textbooks for school students, and doesn't get sued by the ACLU.

Surely you read the entire site, yes? The textbooks you are referring to are their own. Their own curriculum.

SETI writes:

The SETI Institute, the California Academy of Sciences, NASA Ames Research Center, and San Francisco State University have developed standards-based curriculum materials for a one-year high school integrated science course centered on the unifying theme of evolution and delivered on CD-ROM. Scientists, teachers, curriculum writers, and media specialists have created six modules that integrate astronomical, geological, and biological sciences. The sequence of lessons in each module is designed to promote students' understanding and skills as defined by the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy

It's a descriptive word for godless, purposeless random mutation and natural selection. How about if I say the scientific community does not seek to prove random mutation and natural selection wrong? Or, more on topic, that the scientific community does not seek to prove atheistic abiogenesis wrong?

Yep. buzz-words.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 171 of 177 (549821)
03-10-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by hooah212002
03-10-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
How does one "practice atheism"? Is there an atheist church I don't yet know about? An atheist bible? Man, I really am out of the loop here.

You very well may be - check out some best sellers of the past few decades, some will be found in this list. (this is just a partial list)

*Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
*The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
*The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
*Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
*The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
*Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
*Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
*The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
*The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
*Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
*The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
*God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
*God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
*50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison – 2008
*Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins - 2008

You could do some internet searches on "atheism" too, plenty of organization, plenty of solicitations for your donations to help them separate church and state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 10:06 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 11:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 838
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 172 of 177 (549823)
03-10-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Coyote
03-10-2010 10:10 PM


Re: Theistic science?
So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?

They're not turning up facts, they're speculating on things like godless abiogenesis. Atheist philosophy, nothing more.

So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?

I want atheist speculation suppressed, to restore the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.

There have been societies in the past where militant atheism ruled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:10 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2010 10:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 5650
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 173 of 177 (549826)
03-10-2010 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by marc9000
03-10-2010 10:35 PM


Re: Theistic science?
So the facts that science is turning up don't confirm your particular religious beliefs, and even contradict them, eh?

They're not turning up facts, they're speculating on things like godless abiogenesis. Atheist philosophy, nothing more.

Not so. There are millions of scientific facts that disprove one religious claim or another. I have turned up facts in my own archaeological work that disprove the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago.

Young earth has similarly been disproved by a lot of different scientific fields.

But it seems you have a particular problem with the fledgling field of abiogenesis. Is this problem based on scientific data or some narrow religious belief?

So rather than questioning your beliefs, you want science and science books to suppress those facts? Is that what you are asking for? You want science suppressed for the convenience your personal whims and beliefs?

I want atheist speculation suppressed, to restore the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Atheist speculation? And what is that? Is that defined as anything that contradicts your religious beliefs, or what? And you want it all suppressed?

You realize that to suppress any science that disagrees with your particular brand of religion will require a theocracy, with your brand of thugs in charge, don't you? And you realize that those thugs will have to resort to the tactics of the Inquisition? (Can you say, Dark Ages, boys and girls? I knew you could!)

Sorry, we're not going back. The Enlightenment, remember? That showed us that we don't have to kowtow to the shamans any longer.

Better get your pitchfork and torch because that's the era your longing for, when religion ruled and heretics were burned at the stake. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason.

There have been societies in the past where militant atheism ruled.

Non-sequitur.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 174 of 177 (549829)
03-10-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by marc9000
03-10-2010 10:27 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Good. So your bible is just a book about christianity. Thanks for clearing that up.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12563
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 175 of 177 (549839)
03-11-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:34 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
quote:

ID research doesn’t have the same establishment in public universities as does naturalism. The political “separation of church and state” diminishes its access to public grants.

Then perhaps they should drop the religious aspect of ID instead of unconvincingly trying to hide it when it is inconvenient. Producing some real scientific research using the Discovery Institutes money would be a good start (it has to be better than financing bad history books trying to blame Darwin for the Holocaust).

quote:

It can't easily demonstrate its merit while simultaneously warding off powerful, emotional claims that it's nothing but religion.

It's even harder when the merit is conspicuously lacking.

quote:

I’d like to know the date, and research established on that date, when abiogenesis was first accepted as science by the scientific community. I don’t think you’ll be able to produce it, because no one really has that information. Its acceptance was automatic, and no one knows when that was.

Now let us remember that most of what ID objects to is evolution rather than abiogenesis, as I pointed out. And I should also point out that you aren't giving any details of what is actually taught.

Because acceptance is an informal consensus and because it is based on a body of research looking for a specific date would be foolish. But let's look at what Wikipedia - a popular and easily accessible source has to say.

Wikipedia puts the real start of modern abiogenesis in the 1920s when Oparin and Haldane put forward serious ideas on how abiogenesis might have happened, according to the scientific knowledge of the time. (This is already a step beyond anything that ID has managed). If we follow the link to Oparin we see that he performed experiments which supported some of his suggestions (the article on Haldane doesn't talk about abiogenesis at all, probably because his other accomplishments were considered more important). By the 50's we have the Urey-Miller experiment and Fox had started work.

Then we need to talk about where it first appeared in school textbooks and what those textbooks said if you want to say that that preceded acceptance of abiogenesis as valid science.

quote:

Again, it's hard to forward the talk of research while defending against the screams of religious accusations.

It's even harder when you haven't got the research to talk about. I'm not screaming at you, so if this research exists, where is it ? And why are you ignoring the many serious criticisms of ID ?

quote:

So you can give me examples of when abiogenesis status as science was challenged in court?

So you want me to find evidence that supports YOUR claim ? If no challenges have been made then there's no evidence of any "free pass".

I'll also like to take on your claim made in Message 161

You claim that the Wedge document was:

quote:

...a reaction to the science (nonsense) of Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, William Provine, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, many others.

Might I ask why the reaction to the publication of popular books putting forward a view you disagree with needs to be any more than writing popular books putting forward an opposing view (as, for instance, Francis Collins has done) ?

quote:

There is no proposal to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview by “enforcement”, the proposal is to reverse it by “open inquiry”

Yet you have proposed giving ID unearned privileges, by government action based on the strange idea that the First Amendment requires "affirmative action" to support religious beliefs that can't stand up to open inquiry. Can you try to be more consistent ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:34 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12428
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 177 (549859)
03-11-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
03-10-2010 9:37 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
marc9000 writes:

Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists!

Whether science is controlled by atheists is a topic for another forum.

Why is the exact location of a discussion within forums all that important?

Because changing topics is a common evasive tactic in debate.

This thread was started by me, and its location is where the administration put it. My posts have followed my opening post, combined with the responses to it.

When I promoted your thread I assumed that your comment about atheistic science was a side comment because you had titled your thread "abiogenesis" and had argued abiogenesis did not qualify as science, and that it was only considered science because of atheistic bias. I can see now that atheistic bias and control of science is what you really want to discuss and that abiogenesis is just an example, so I'll move your thread to the Is It Science? forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12428
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 177 of 177 (549861)
03-11-2010 6:43 AM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the abiogenesis thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017