Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 187 of 297 (551170)
03-21-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
03-11-2010 2:45 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
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.
It’s not an informal consensus when it comes to ID, is it? ID has to conform with many formal requirements that abiogenesis and the SETI institute never had to, doesn’t it?
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).
That it’s a step beyond anything ID has managed is only your opinion. ID has also put forward some serious ideas.
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.
Experiments that supported? It says;
quote:
While Oparin himself was unable to do extensive experiments to investigate any of these ideas, scientists were later able to. In 1953, for example, Stanley Miller performed what is perhaps the first experiment to investigate whether chemical self-organization would have been possible on the early earth..."
Dembski and Behe haven’t released any extensive experiment to investigate any of their ideas either, but that doesn’t mean no one possibly can 30 years from now, at least to the feeble extent that Miller did for abiogenesis. Yet abiogenesis was science when Oparin was only forwarding his ideas, wasn’t it?
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.
Abiogenesis IS considered science — I’m saying it has been there since long before the politics of today, long before separation of church and state, long before the ACLU. There’s nothing to suggest that it was legally prohibited from being in science textbooks 90 years ago. If it was limited in science textbooks 90 years ago, (as I suspect it was) it was because of school board decisions, not legal action. ID’s content in science textbooks should equally be determined by school board decisions, not legal action as it is today.
PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
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 ?
As we now see, abiogenesis didn’t start with research, it started with ‘ideas’ (Oparin) One book called The Design Revolution by William Dembski (2004) has enough ideas about ID to compare with a couple of decades of abiogenesis ideas by Oparin and several of his friends, I’d venture to say. But I know that’s never good enough. The scientific community constantly clamors for evidence of research for ID, as if to imply that if the research is good enough, thorough enough, scientific enough, then it will welcome ID into the scientific community with open arms. As we clearly saw with Behe, it doesn’t matter what the ID community comes up with, when it releases anything, the scientific community goes into destroy mode.
And why are you ignoring the many serious criticisms of ID ?
For the same reason that evolutionists ignore the many serious criticisms of abiogenesis! Did you notice this on the above Oparin link;
quote:
Oparin sometimes is called "Darwin of the 20th century.
How can that possibly be? I’m constantly told that evolution and abiogenesis don’t have a thing to do with each other!
PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
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".
Hahaha — IF NO CHALLENGES WERE MADE, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A FREE PASS! One thing is for sure - the scientific community doesn't have the market cornered on logic!
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) ?
Because of the differences in reaction of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY to popular books — the way it embraces the authors and ideas of atheist books (Stenger/Dawkins), and tries to discredit the authors of books that scientifically challenge evolution. (Behe/Dembski)
PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
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 ?
Not by government action, by government INACTION, the same inaction that abiogenesis got 90 years ago. Why do you put the words affirmative action in quotes, as if I said them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2010 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2010 4:58 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 188 of 297 (551172)
03-21-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
03-11-2010 7:39 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Percy writes:
Scientists are members of all religions, come from all cultures, and are citizens of all nations. Scientists are a very diverse group. IDists, on the other hand, are primarily evangelical Christians.
But when 90+ percent of them oppose religion, or fundamentalist Christianity, they all have one huge thing in common, the worldview of naturalism. That all of reality can be defined and explored in terms of two words; TIME and REARRANGEMENT.
IDists, on the other hand, are primarily evangelical Christians.
All traditional Christian denominations, both Protestant and Catholic, believe that there is a realm beyond time and rearrangement — one where the supernatural can create and destroy, where the supernatural is outside of time. Scientists (humans) cannot create nor destroy, nor can they directly comprehend or observe creation or destruction. That’s why they’ve created all these elaborate constructs about how rearrangement can account for all of reality. Evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, it’s always about rearrangement.
Percy writes:
marc9000 writes:
They don’t even seem to bother to separate the vast differences between atheistic speculation of billions of years ago...
It is evidence gathered from the natural universe, not speculation, that leads scientists to the consensus that the earth is 4.56 billion years old and the universe 13.7.
And what was happening 13.8 billion years ago? Will we figure it all out someday in terms of still more time and rearrangement, or does there come a time when we acknowledge that there was a start of something from nothing that our limited realm can’t comprehend? If there is, and we keep applying only time and rearrangement to it, we’re not ‘doing the best we can’, or ‘doing science’, we’re GETTING IT WRONG.
Again, abiogenesis has no specific theory regarding how life began. There is very little we know about the origin of life. The only assumption abiogenesis makes is that life began through natural processes, an assumption that underpins all of science. Origins of life research, indeed any research, that follows scientific methodologies, requirements and assumptions is considered valid science.
ID leaders like Dembski have put forward ideas about how design in biology can be detected by scientific methods. There should be a difference between the understandable opposition to it by atheists, vs the open inquiry of it by valid science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 03-11-2010 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2010 5:08 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 6:03 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-21-2010 6:08 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 189 of 297 (551174)
03-21-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dr Adequate
03-11-2010 8:05 AM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Dr Adequate writes:
marc9000 writes:
Maybe we’re getting somewhere, you’re right, my problem IS with science, because it’s controlled by atheists!
Interesting. Is this, in your opinion, because the only people smart enough to do science are atheists, or because anyone who learns enough science becomes an atheist as a result of this study? Do expand a little on your fantasy.
Science is a much larger world to an atheist. In addition to actual nuts-and-bolts, present day experimentation and application, it’s a philosophical reinforcement to their worldview, including almost unlimited speculation about what happened millions or billions of years ago, and therefore attracts more non-religious or undecided students. As time has progressed and more and more non-religious people teach it, of course they’re going to influence students to follow their own non religious philosophy.
But there are many such practical goals which are equally elusive, and yet working on them --- and with hope of success --- is indeed considered science. Gene therapy, nanotechnology, a cure for HIV, manned interplanetary travel, high-grade automated translation, economic cold fusion, the abolition of polio, economic nuclear fusion ... are these scientific endeavors to be deemed unscientific because they are as yet incomplete?
Yes, because ID is deemed unscientific because it is yet incomplete. Speculative subjects with ideas (abiogenesis has them — ID equally has them) should be treated equally.
Physics is incomplete. Chemistry is incomplete. That's why people are still working on them. Are these not to be considered scientific endeavors? Is no field of science to be considered science until all the answers have been found?
Not if ID can’t be considered science until all its answers have been found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-11-2010 8:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 190 of 297 (551176)
03-21-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by bluescat48
03-11-2010 8:20 AM


Re: Theistic science?
Science is without religion. Science and religion mix as well as oil & water. They are 2 different things. Science deals with reality, religion with the supernatural. They are mutually exclusive. Science with religion is not science.
That’s how it should be, but it’s not how it is. Science is WITH religion, when it tries to challenge it, oppose it, replace it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 03-11-2010 8:20 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by bluescat48, posted 03-21-2010 11:05 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 191 of 297 (551178)
03-21-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Peepul
03-11-2010 8:20 AM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
Some of the founders of ID declared it religion themselves. Some of them invented it specifically to counter materialism.
That doesn’t matter, because some founders and promoters of abiogenesis declare it to oppose religion. To disregard ID because of that shows a double standard.
ID self destructs if religion is left out of it. If life was designed, then the designer must have been a complex entity. Applying design detection to that entity will inevitably show that it too must have been designed. And so on, infinitely.
That’s only if you restrict that entity to time and rearrangement. ID does not self destruct if religion is left out, any more than abiogenesis/evolution self destruct if religion is included.
The only ways out of this are
- some designer came to exist without design
- an ultimate designer has always existed, by necessity, who needs no explanation.
Who needs no explanation — that’s good enough. Science claims no need for an explanation for what was going on before the ‘big bang’, so ID doesn’t require one for its designer.
The first disproves ID, or at least makes it completely naturalistic. The second is a religious statement.
When science searches for answers to all questions about reality through only time and rearrangement, it is also a religious statement. An atheist statement.
There's no way out of this.
There is if you can unchain your mind from that very restrictive time and rearrangement realm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Peepul, posted 03-11-2010 8:20 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 4:41 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 192 of 297 (551179)
03-21-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by nlerd
03-11-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Theistic science?
Which religion should science take into regard when being taught to students?
NONE, including atheism.
If it takes one into regard it would have to do the same for all, wasting time that could be spent looking into something that has a basis in science.
That’s what I’m saying. It needs to quit teaching a godless speculation about what went on billions of years ago, and stick to scientific facts in the present, facts that can be verified by the five human senses of hearing sight, taste, touch, and smell. Proclamations of events of billions of years ago are not facts.
Should they teach about Norse gods, Hindu beliefs, Scientology? You seem to be saying that students aren't getting exposed to religions in science class but I am willing to bet that you only want one religion to be taught there. Religions are personal, they have no place in the classroom beyond history class.
Your bet is the same straw man against me that is common in this thread. I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.
Not teaching about religion is not the same as teaching that there is no religion. Would you want other personal beliefs such as UFOs, Bigfoot, or ghosts to be taught as science?
Abiogenesis is a scientific subject that strongly implies that religion is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by nlerd, posted 03-11-2010 9:59 AM nlerd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Huntard, posted 03-21-2010 4:47 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 195 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 4:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 197 by Apothecus, posted 03-21-2010 4:59 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 6:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 199 of 297 (551192)
03-21-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
03-17-2010 10:08 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
RAZD writes:
Hi marc9000, sorry to take so long replying.
If anyone doesn’t deserve an apology for someone else's long absence, it would be me.
RAZD writes:
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
This is the general definition that I started with, and have then compared to old definitions of science to show that it has not changed in the last 182 years in order to exclude ID but have already allowed abiogenesis.
Do you agree that this 1828 definition includes abiogenesis in the same way that it "falls under" the definition above?
I don’t think abiogenesis can get any closer to a prediction or predictable type of outcome than ID can, because there are limits to proof and facts about an early earth atmosphere, and many other things about naturalistic life from non-life. Very comparable to the limits ID has in addressing a realm other than time and rearrangement. Abiogenesis can make suppositions about those gaps, and then experiment and observe in the time and rearrangement realm based on it. ID can do exactly the same things — it can make suppositions about matter/conditions appearing from nothing by supernatural causation, then experiment and observe a subsequent~design~ in the time and rearrangement realm.
Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.
So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.
If you can't show that ID meets these definitions then you will need to agree that the definition has not been changed to omit ID, rather that ID just has not stepped up to the plate yet, and that it is not the fault of the science community that ID has not stepped up to the plate.
I can easily show that ID meets those definitions. It is a science of design detection, and there are already other sciences of design detection. Anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and SETI, are others. Design detection — detection of purpose in nature is natural philosophy just as much as abiogenesis.
RAZD writes:
marc9000 writes:
I’d like to see some documentation on that. I’d like to see the date when abiogenesis was declared to be science, and what science it had done to gain that status.
These threads show the ongoing scientific investigation of the possibilities of life forming through natural laws from available chemicals, including several different options and including the PAH hypothesis, and that show that this subject is "founded on experiment and observation" and meets the 1828 definition as well as the general definition above.
But that’s not what I asked for, and that’s not what you allow ID time to do. You don't allow ID to be "ongoing", you require it to be complete for its scientific entrance. I asked for documentation of abiogenesis STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE, The opening details and date of it. You require ID to step up to the plate, and no one seems to be able to tell me when or how abiogenesis was AWARDED FIRST BASE. The 1920's it appears, with one persons "ideas" and little else. The ID community has plenty of ideas.
These threads only touch the surface of the volume of ongoing scientific study into the possibilities of life forming through natural means from available chemicals.
I know — searches for atheism. Time and rearrangement, with everything else ruled out.
Except that the 1828 definition does not "forcefully excludes the supernatural (atheism) art, agriculture, navigation, arts, painting, sculpture" does it? Rather it distinguishes between difference between natural science, art and philosophy, notably including metaphysics.
The 1828 definition doesn’t say anything about testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable either does it? Why are those things constantly applied to ID?
Curiously, mathematical (and philosophical) challenges are not facts, and fact is what you need to challenge science. Scientific theories and hypothesis are only falsified by facts that contradict them, not by contrary theories and hypothesis (which is all mathematical and philosophical deductions can be).
Falsified? That word doesn’t appear in your 1828 definition.
It isn't religious to propose the concept of irreducible complexity, where it gets religious is in the assumption that if an observed instance of irreducible complexity cannot be explained by evolutionary processes that the default is that some god or other was involved.
That’s not one bit different than the evolutionary process explaining something, so that by default no God was involved. Theistic evolutionists will claim that God was sitting there, doing nothing, just that he wasn't involved. Other than that, atheists can answer all their questions for them. It's not convincing.
Interestingly, the Irreducible Complexity Hypothesis has been falsified, yet the IDologists refuse to discard it as would be done in any proper scientific investigation.
This is a clear indication of the dangers of only one worldview (godlessness/naturalism/atheism) ruling science. When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill, and it’s a FACT that it can, and almost always does, in systems that humans have designed, and in biology as well. The remaining parts sit still, and almost always quickly deteriorate / die. If this is naturally true after the beginning of a complex system, questions can arise about that natural characteristic during the formation of that system. Naturalists can launch themselves down complex paths to show that it doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect the evolutionary process that they hold dear, but they can’t conceal their anger, or their desire to discard, and not teach, a fact of nature. Just because it’s provable to be applicable to existing biological systems so far, doesn’t mean it’s not biology.
If you cannot defend the points of a website, then it would appear that you would not have the understanding of the subject to know whether what the website is saying the truth or an elaborate fabrication intended to delude the more under-informed and gullible people, telling them what they want to believe, and relying on confirmation bias.
Or, it could also appear that I CHOSE not to defend the more detailed points of a website (that I put forward way back in message 56) that most of my opponents here showed no interest in. I count a total of 25 posters in this thread. Excluding myself, Admin, and four others who’ve taken no exception to anything I’ve said, that leaves 19 opponents that I have. That makes you 1/19th of my opposition. It was you who said the following, in message 59;
quote:
The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply.
And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic.
I feel that the focus of what 19 combined people are saying about this specific topic is best served by not going into more detail about a website that only you appear to be interested in. If I’m accused of being UNABLE to respond to something that I CHOOSE not to respond to as I face a large number of posters, it’s simply another example of the shouting down process that is common from evolutionists, as they seek to oppose anything but naturalism.
marc9000 writes:
Your curiousity should diminish when you add up the instances when abiogenesis was on the receiving end of an ACLU lawsuit, vs that of the ID community.
Poor baby. Gotta have that persecution complex or you're not happy.
The presence (and absence) of ACLU lawsuits are facts. Let’s review what a fact is — the scientific community often seems to do some stretching with it. A fact is generally described as something that actually happened in real time, known to be true by evidence, etc. The best way to clarify it is that it would transcend worldviews, by being obvious to the five human senses of hearing, sight, taste, touch, and smell. When the scientific community says it’s a fact that a big bang happened billions of years ago, or that a Tiktaalik Roseae crawled out of the ocean millions of years ago to later sprout into a human, they’re not entirely correct, because they’re not observable by those five human senses of persons from a wide variety of worldviews. When we look at the basic existence of lawsuits, they come on real strong with the hearing and sight senses of any person, of any worldview, if that person takes the time to do some serious historical research on them. The philosophical application of the outcome of those factual lawsuits isn’t a persecution complex to near the extent as the persecution complex that atheists feel from a different type of scientific study that need not concern them if they choose not to participate in it. Unless of course, they’re afraid of it.
ID is not recognized as science because it is not a testable hypothesis based on observation and testing of the evidence found in the natural world.
The word testable, or even an abstract reference to it, does not appear in your 1828 definitions above. That’s one of the ways you allow abiognesis in — an early earth atmosphere is not testable. You’re not able to get away from your double standards.
It currently is political trash-talk at its worst, and philosophical hypothesizing at its best. Fascinatingly neither is considered the pursuit of science.
Abiogenesis is atheistic trash talk. It can be dressed up in the shiny suit of science only because of the atheists who control science.
I note that you have ignored the several opportunities that ID had been given, both from the Discovery Institutes pet research facility and from Templeton Foundation (Message 149):
I haven’t ignored them, I’ve noted that politics is involved, and considering the emotional treatment that ID proponents like Dembski and Behe have received in the past, I’ve actually explained them. (personal, emotional opposition to these two men in the past are facts. )
William Dembski has written several books on Intelligent Design, describing exactly what it is, and what it proposes, and ideas about research for it, the same type of ideas that were good enough for abiogenesis at its beginning.
As for funding, try this little piece of news:
[link]
There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.
Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.
There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):
quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions.
Yes, I glanced over that thread. Message 16 from administration warned the poor babies about the personal sniping against the lone ID proponent. The persecution complex often goes through the roof when the subject of ID comes up, doesn’t it?
In that opening post, we had a c/p with some quotes from Derek Davis, of Baylor, a Baptist university, who wants to quit playing games about the religious worldview being advanced. I wonder what he thinks about the atheist worldview being advanced? What he thinks about the list of books that I showed in message #171. (the existence of those books is a fact)
If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?
Even religious schools have to be very careful about what goes on in their science classes. They’re not immune from politics.
I have falsified several of your claims, particularly that the definition of science has been changed in order to exclude ID,
With your additions of the words testable and falsifiable for ID that are not included in your definitions, sorry, you have not.
that ID is just as scientific as abiogenesis,
With your complete inability to document the opening, original abiogenesis step up to the place, you have not.
and that ID is unable to find funding to do science,
PUBLIC funding to do science. It was offered bait, and it had political reasons for not taking it. It’s a mousetrap thing — ID goes for the cheese, and the ACLU becomes the spring and the bar.
so it seems that all you have left is repeating your pet peeve rants in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Let me ask you this, in my message #157, I responded to this statement;
quote:
science seeks to prove itself WRONG
  —hooah212002
.
By saying this;
Today’s scientific community does not seek to prove Darwinism wrong.
Then again, in message #159;
marc9000 writes:
bluescat writes:
If there was anything that was considered absolute truth, then the research into that study would cease, and would then be as religion that is dogma.
Public research involving a disproof of Darwinism HAS CEASED. ALL scientific study of it today only seeks to support/strengthen it, nothing more. It is dogma.
Neither of these posters have challenged my responses so far. Do you have evidence to show that science seeks to prove evolution wrong? If not, why would you think it would seek to prove abiogenesis wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2010 10:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Iblis, posted 03-22-2010 1:39 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 208 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2010 2:20 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 200 of 297 (551193)
03-21-2010 5:28 PM


Haha - I knew I wouldn't have time to line-em all up in a row! In a few weeks, guys.

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 211 of 297 (552379)
03-28-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by cavediver
03-21-2010 4:41 PM


Re: The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
cavediver writes:
marc9000 writes:
There is if you can unchain your mind from that very restrictive time and rearrangement realm.
it seems if it is you, my friend, that is chained to this very restictive view. Those of us who actually work (or have worked) in the area of fundemental physics have no such restrictions.
I don’t think you understood what I said — time and rearrangement is all that can be scientifically studied. Physics is about nothing more than rearrangement. Humans can’t create nor destroy matter, and they can’t directly comprehend its actual creation or destruction, and humans can’t comprehend a realm outside of time.
If you light a piece of paper with a match and burn it up, you haven’t actually destroyed anything. You’ve just rearranged it into smoke & ashes. Every product we have and use wasn’t created by us, we just rearranged what we already had.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 4:41 PM cavediver has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 212 of 297 (552380)
03-28-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Huntard
03-21-2010 4:47 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Huntard writes:
marc9000 writes:
Proclamations of events of billions of years ago are not facts.
Of course they are. Are proclamations of the holocaust not fact because wee can't see, smell, hear, taste it? What about say, King Henry VIII? Nothing to see or smell or taste or hear there either. Absolutely no facts known about him? Do you really want to have this untenable position?
Human witness from the past fits the sight sense. Authorized written history counts as fact, because the acceptance of it’s accuracy almost always transcends worldviews.
Huntard writes:
marc9000 writes:
Your bet is the same straw man against me that is common in this thread. I believe the atheism that’s in science should be balanced, but not by religion, by evidence of design.
The best way to do that is to actually show evidence for design. Since nobody so far has been able to do that, why should we even consider it?
Because atheists don’t have a perfect record in presenting evidence before presenting their godless views. Surely you’ve seen the ape-to-man picture (who hasn’t) that shows the progression of 8 or 9 gradual steps as a chimpanzee turns into a caveman. That illustration actually originated in Darwin’s time before there was any evidence for ape-to-man evolution. It’s clear that religious people aren’t the only ones who start with a pre-existing concept and then try to make evidence fit what they want it to fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Huntard, posted 03-21-2010 4:47 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Huntard, posted 03-29-2010 4:34 AM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 213 of 297 (552381)
03-28-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
03-21-2010 4:58 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
PaulK writes:
marc9000 writes:
It’s not an informal consensus when it comes to ID, is it? ID has to conform with many formal requirements that abiogenesis and the SETI institute never had to, doesn’t it?
That seems to be an unfounded assumption on your part.
No, I’ve proven it. It’s a fact that ID is required to conform with many formal requirements to become science, and it’s a fact that no one here can show me where abiogenesis ever had to do that as a requirement for entrance as a scientific subject.
It seems to be an obvious fact to me. What has Id produced that is comparable ? How productive has it been in terms of inspiring research ?
It’s not a research volume thing. It’s a research-pathway thing, and both have the experimentation/curiosity/speculative principles/predictions requirements satisfied to comparable ways.
Oparin outlined a way in which basic organic chemicals might form into microscopic localized systems - possible precursors of cells - from which primitive living things could develop. He cited the work done by de Jong on coacervates and other experimental studies, including his own, into organic chemicals which, in solution, may spontaneously form droplets and layers. Oparin suggested that different types of coacervates might have formed in the Earth's primordial ocean and, subsequently, been subject to a selection process leading eventually to life.
Did you miss that part ?
might form — may spontaneously form — might have formed? I wonder how thick the stack of paper was that contained his outlines. The thicknesses of only Dembski’s and Behe’s books in one stack would probably be measured in feet. But it’s never enough, I know.
Whether or not a field of study is considered science has nothing to do with separation of church and state or the ACLU.
It had everything to do with it at the Dover trial. ID is religion in disguise — that was the main case made by..the ACLU.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2010 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2010 3:58 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 217 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2010 4:22 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 214 of 297 (552382)
03-28-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
03-21-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
What makes you think "90+ percent of [scientists] oppose religion or 'fundamentalist Christianity'"?
Atheism
Polls, statistics, political action, the movie "Expelled", reviews and references to the list of books I showed in message #171, etc.
More scientists than not believe in God and have nothing against Christianity. Scientific conceptions are not atheistic but naturalistic.
I hope to have a discussion with a theistic evolutionist here someday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 03-21-2010 6:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 03-28-2010 6:50 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 216 of 297 (552384)
03-28-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Iblis
03-22-2010 1:39 AM


Re: abioGENESIS
Iblis writes:
marc9000 writes:
Abiogenesis is atheistic trash talk. It can be dressed up in the shiny suit of science only because of the atheists who control science.
No, I can't let this stand, sorry. You think you are defending some sort of high ground, whereas in fact your position is untenable. There is nothing intrinsically atheistic about abiogenesis. Far from it!
NEWS FLASH: The Jesuits believe in God! And they have defended abiogenesis throughout the history of their order. And they aren't alone, the vast majority of intelligent Christians with an interest in natural history have always defended it, going back at least to the 3rd century when the New Testament's view of the Old and the doctrines of the Church Fathers had certainly begun to be collected.
Do you know why? Because it agrees with the Bible! It is a Biblical concept, and it only became a scientific concept when science began to be the prevailing world view.
Abiogenesis is a Biblical concept? Why do so many atheists and atheist organizations propose it as a naturalistic, godless method for life to be generated from non life? Richard Dawkins has said this;
quote:
‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.
Do you think most people in the scientific community agree more that abiogenesis is a Biblical concept, or a godless, naturalistic concept?
[though interesting, I'd rather not respond to most of this, it's too far off topic]
So stop claiming there's anything atheistic about matter bringing forth life the way God commanded it to in Genesis 1. Now.
Why should I stop claiming it when so many atheists claim it’s completely naturalistic and has nothing to do with the Bible? That it proves Genesis false?
NOTA BENE: Apologies to everyone fighting the good fight, I know this is a science forum. But he keeps claiming a literal reading of the book says something that it doesn't, and that's not right. I would maintain that literacy is a genuine academic study, and that calling him on it is of interest to science. But I'm done now, with the provision that any further attempts to claim abiogenesis is the least bit atheistic are also off topic. Thanks!
What is the good fight? That abiogenesis is Biblical, or that abiogenesis is completely naturalistic? How can increasing studies of it CONFIRM both positions indefinitely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Iblis, posted 03-22-2010 1:39 AM Iblis has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 218 of 297 (552390)
03-28-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Otto Tellick
03-24-2010 2:20 AM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi, marc9000,
I'll start by saying I feel some regret or pangs of conscience about being your 20th (or so) antagonist in this thread -- the pro-science folks at EvC seem prone to ganging up on the poor anti-science folks (who seem to be rather outnumbered).
Not a problem!
Or maybe it's just that the anti-science folks can't seem to stand together in mutual support the same way that the pro-science folks do... (Why would that be?)
Because they’re more confident in their position. They don’t see gaps and inadequacies in like minded members posts, and don’t feel compelled to attack from every possible angle. You asked!
It’s a little unfair for you to label people without a naturalistic worldview as anti science. That’s exactly the same as my labeling a godless person immoral. I can believe the scientific community should restrain itself, or follow certain paths, without being anti-science, just the same as a godless person can practice morality without acknowledging the actual source of their morality.
Otto Tellick writes:
marc9000 writes:
ID ... can make suppositions about matter/conditions appearing from nothing by supernatural causation, then experiment and observe a subsequent~design~ in the time and rearrangement realm.
I don't understand what you're saying there. Can you describe what sort of experiment your referring to? What sort of experimental result would support inferences about a "designer" or assertions that a specific biological form was "designed" (as opposed to resulting from evolution)?
It can correspond to what goes on in other sciences that seek to determine if an event was caused by an intelligent cause or an unintelligent one. In the forensic sciences, an investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder). It’s similar in archeology, arson investigation, and SETI. Dembski has described a three-part Explanatory filter that, very briefly summarized, looks like this;
quote:
The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a specification or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.
However beautiful and amazing and comforting naturalists find abiogenesis (and evolution) to be, it’s a fact that material causes can’t comprehend the past, present, or future. They can’t plan for the future, or know their environment and then seek to change it for a purpose. Humans are designers, and through science, are learning more and more about it. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and random occurrences. Patterns produced by a mind, whether it be the mind of an animal in nests or dams, to the countless things designed by humans, reflect starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of purposeless natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear to any open minded person, when the pattern is both complex and useful. It’s a human desire, a human stretch, to insist that patterns produced only by chemical and physical changes in matter by natural uniform motion, will have the required starts and stops necessary to produce and maintain life. The window of perfect natural conditions for life to exist, let alone form by chance, is very small. Probably far smaller than evolutionists care to admit, and of course, far smaller than students in only naturalistic science classes are learning.
An inference of design, an inference of purpose in nature, comes naturally to many people. Subconscious pattern matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. It’s like seeing a knife in the back of a dead man - the one who did it can testify in court about all the perfect naturalistic conditions - the wind blowing, the rain falling, the guy backing up REALLY FAST - to show that blind natural processes killed the guy. But someone in the jury won't believe him, and his fanaticism about purpose won't be the only reason.
marc9000 writes:
I can easily show that ID meets those definitions [for science]. It is a science of design detection, and there are already other sciences of design detection. Anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and SETI, are others.
First, if it's easy to show, please show it, or point me to where it has been shown. (In the Dover trial, Behe admitted that a definition for "science" that included ID would also, logically, include astrology. Do you agree with Behe on that point?)
Second, if you are comparing the "design detection" of ID to that of anthropology, archeology, etc, you are missing a crucial point: those other sciences seek to detect design on the basis of having observable evidence regarding the action or process of design, the physical properties and abilities of the designer, and the purposes that the designer has for the design.
For example, the archeologist detects design in the shaping of stones to form tools, and attributes the design action to humans, because (a) the stones are found with other indications of human presence, (b) humans can be observed to perform similar actions today, making tools out of stones, and (c) we readily understand at least some of the purposes served by the affected stones. In cryptography, they don't even look at anything that isn't known to be created/designed by humans for use by humans. In the relatively fringe case of SETI, the capacity to detect design is constrained by our limited ability to conceive of communication methods that we've never experienced; the strategies are inescapably founded on an assumption that other life in our galaxy must have something physical in common with us, in order to be recognizable by us as having "intelligence" expressible through physical media.
In contrast, every explanation of ID I've seen refers to some unspecified designer who cannot be directly observed at all (let alone while performing the actions to implement a design), and whose purposes are not discernible, knowable, or comprehensible by mere humans. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, but if that's correct, then I really don't understand how ID can establish any sort of objective, scientific basis for anything it asserts to be "designed" in that sense. Can you explain in what sense such a design assertion would be scientific and objective? (And different from the assertions of astrologers?)
Starting with Dembski’s words;
quote:
[ID] is not like someone claiming that ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so gods or goblins must have done it. We can show how, with the technological resources at hand, the Egypitians could have produced the pyramids. By contrast, material mechanisms known to date offer no such insight into biological complexity. Cell biologist Franklin Harold in The Way of the Cell (Oxford, 2001) remarks that in trying to account for biological complexity, biologists thus far have merely proposed a variety of wishful speculations. If biologists really understood the emergence of biological complexity in purely material terms, intelligent design couldn’t even get off the ground. The fact that they don’t accounts for ID’s quick rise in public consciousness. Show us detailed, testable, mechanistic models for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum, and ID will die a quick death. But that hasn’t happened. Nor does it show any signs of happening.
Now, more of Dembski’s words that I’ve already shown (twice) in this thread;
quote:
ID supplements material mechanisms with intelligent agency — intelligent design can subsume present biological research. Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.) Intelligent design can also look for function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them. Also, Design is always a matter of tradeoffs. ID can help us understand these tradeoffs and clarify the design problems that organisms actually face. This in turn keeps us from sweeping problems under the rug simply because evolution is purported to be a blind and wasteful process. A non teleological approach to evolution has consistently led biologists to underestimate organisms. Is, for instance, junk DNA really junk? Work by John Bodnar and his associates suggests that some of it is not.
I posted this in message #100, it was completely ignored. Again in post #111, it was again ignored, except for claims that naturalistic science would have reversed its beliefs about junk DNA without challenges from ID. Not convincing claims, considering facts of how sometimes atheistic assumptions are made in science before 'evidence' is produced to support them.
marc9000 writes:
When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill, and it’s a FACT that it can, and almost always does, in systems that humans have designed, and in biology as well.
You misunderstand the intent of ID/IC and how these were supposed to "counteract" evolutionary explanations; you also you misrepresent the impact of falsifying ID/IC. The point of the ID/IC argument is to say that some biological system could not have evolved to be the way we see it today, because the ID/IC "theorist" asserts that all conceivable evolutionary pathways to the given system involve stages that are not viable -- that is, that some forms of an organism that would need to be posited in the evolutionary chain could not survive, due to missing some essential component.
It's not an argument about cutting some piece out of a viable organism and noting whether or not it dies as a result. No one is arguing about that -- "evolutionists" fully understand and accept the notion that organisms can die when vital parts are removed.
Then they shouldn’t say Irreducible complexity has been falsified — that’s not a true statement. . They can claim that it’s not an issue concerning evolutionary processes, but they can’t claim it’s falsified.
{AbE: This is also fully understood by every school-age child. Alas, this notion does get in the way when people consider donating a kidney...}
Every school age child? We’ll never agree on that — school children are impressionable when they see authorities making statements that favor one worldview over another.
What the argument is about, and what scientists don't accept, is that the assertions of an ID/IC "theorist" about the possible pathways of evolutionary development are supposed to suffice as the last word, the closing of the door on further research into a given question of biology. Based on every explanation of ID/IC I've seen, the intent of their assertions is to say "further research into the developmental history of this biological form is no longer needed and should not be done, because we have decided that it results from purposeful design by some entity, which we know nothing about and claim is unknowable."
When scientists falsify these assertions, they are simply demonstrating that the ID "theorist" failed to account for a particular evolutionary pathway where viability is established for each of the relevant intermediate stages of development, based on observable evidence.
In an earlier message (Message 56) you said:
This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed?
I hope the last few paragraphs above help to make this clear. Please let me know if you're still wondering about this. If you think I've misrepresented ID/IC, please explain.
I’m still wondering. You haven’t misrepresented, you’ve just gone down a path that ignores the big picture. An acceptance of ID into science doesn’t mean a takeover of science by ID. The Wedge Document isn’t about force, it’s about voluntary acceptance, through
common sense. If ID claims it has a last word, a closing of the door on further research, it can’t prevent other people, other scientists in other labs, from doing more research. But an ID claim of a last word can provide a little more of a motive for godless scientists to do something with more time restrained, result oriented research. Science can’t do everything, and maybe it needs something like ID to discourage it from trying to do things that it can’t do. Science doesn’t know what the nature of consciousness is, or how conscious mental activity arises out of physical brain activity. It doesn’t know why the universe exists — why there is something rather than nothing. It doesn’t know why the universe has three spatial dimensions and only one time dimension. It doesn’t know what the nature of mass is. It doesn’t know what the universe is made of (most of it seems to be ‘dark matter, but we don’t know what dark matter is) It doesn’t have a single fundamental theory of physics (the TWO theories it does have, general relativity and quantum theory, are incompatible) Concerning the abiogeneis and evolutionary attacks on religion, it’s constantly stated and implied that all gaps in the past have been naturalistically filled in, so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well. It’s not logical for open minded people to assume that — it’s not logical to try to fit all of reality in our limited realm of only time and rearrangement. It’s not logical for abiogenesis to be considered science, with all its promissory notes of the past 90 years, and at the same time declaring ID to not be science.
In that same previous message, you also said:
The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible.
That has been disproven -- in a court of law, no less. The judge's conclusion was based on ample physical evidence involving the editors and contributing authors of the book Of Pandas and People, as well as the various web sites and organizations that support ID and promote that book, all of which had a primary focus on evangelical Christianity in various fundamentalist forms, rather than on science. Remarkably, some "staunch Christian" Dover school board members perjured themselves at that trial regarding their acquisition of the book for use in the classroom --so much for honesty as a "Christian virtue".
It matters little what the ACLU warchest was able to buy. ID is related to religion just as much as abiogenesis/evolution is related to atheism.
The subject of ID would not have existed, had it not been for the fate of the more explicitly Christian-based "Creation Science"
The whole controversy wouldn’t exist if science hadn’t been taken over by atheism.
(which was also shown, in a court of law, to be essentially religious rather than scientific). Most of what you've posted in this thread has further solidified the linkage between ID and particular anti-scientific religious beliefs that are characteristic of some fundamentalist Christian sects. I guess I should thank you for that (?)
I don’t think what ~I’ve~ posted has told you that as much as what others have posted about how only one tiny little Christian sect (mine, which of course, I haven’t detailed at all) has a problem with abiogenesis/evolution, while others don’t have a single problem with it. Again, I hope to discuss that with a theistic evolutionist here sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-24-2010 2:20 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2010 5:36 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 226 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-28-2010 7:11 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 227 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-28-2010 7:35 PM marc9000 has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 219 of 297 (552393)
03-28-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Blue Jay
03-28-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Bluejay, are you a Kenneth Miller type of Christian? If so, we'll have to go at it about "fundamentalist Christianity" someday.
Abiogenesis is the only hypothesis to have ever risen in a tiny, sparsely-populated field of study that still has not produced a single, actual theory; while ID is the revival of a long-ago debunked piece of pseudoscientific piffle from a field in which a very strong and well-supported other theory has proven its utility in generating predictions and satellite theories.
If you're going to label ID as a "revival", you're going to have to do the same for abiogenesis! Aristotle had primitive ideas about life from non life, debunked by Pasteur. If anything has been "revived", it's been abiogenesis!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2010 4:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2010 5:33 PM marc9000 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024