|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17906 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
quote: So let's get this straight Buz. Your only attempts to post anything supporting your assertion appear to be massive non-sequiturs. Most of your posts don't even manage to be that productive. Other people give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain your argument, instead of dismissing it as worthless rubbish. You refuse, wasting time with evasive replies which suggest that you don't even understand your own argument. And you try to blame your opponents for your own behaviour, falsely claiming that you had already given the answers. ("Repetitive" means MORE THAN ONCE Buz - the answer can't be "repetitive" if you haven't given it at least once before). We can all see what you're doing - and not doing. So why try to pretend that things are not as they are ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
We can all see what you're doing - and not doing. So why try to pretend that things are not as they are ? I honestly don't think he's pretending. I think he truly doesn't understand what people are saying to him; he can't follow the flow of the argument. He's not pretending not to get it just to cock things up, he's doing the best he can. Unfortunately, his best just isn't good enough for a meaningful conversation.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17906 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Let's take the simple point of my asking for an explanation of how the biopoesis definition Buz provided supported his assertion,
He must know that he hasn't provided an explanation of how the definition support his claim. He must know that I have provided an explanation of how the definition contradicts his claim. Therefore he must know that he is the one to blame for the state of the discussion on that point. So if he says otherwise he's pretending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
I guess if evolution and abiogenesis are not related (how convienient) then there really is no need to ask any patients for their medical history or who their parents were or what hereditary traits they may have developed. After all it's not about origins but simply dealing with existing life. It makes no sense. You can't have evolution without abiogenesis. They don't mix in the evolutionary scheme of things. That's why they seperate them.
It's like when Christians say Christianity is not a religion but a Relationship and all the atheists insist it is a religion even tho they are wrong. Well, this is the same thing, except in reverse and we are just supposed to believe they are seperate because you say so but you don't accept that Christianity is Relationship but religion? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Deal with it. It's flawed and you are all grasping at straws here to try and prove otherwise, and failing miserably. Evolution and abiogenesis don't work together because it ruins the whole theory of evolution. So they seperate them and say it's different. We only deal with existing life. Great, tell your doctor that next time he asks for your medical history. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Do you really need it pointing out to you that your parents were alive when they begat you? Life from life means evolution can act there, genetic traits exist and are important medically.
Your post is utter nonsense. Christianity isn't a religion?? Let's see. The Oxford English Dictionary says
Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/noun [mass noun]the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods What on earth are you defining religion to mean? Anyway, back on topic, evolution acts on life. Yes, there has to be life for it to act, but it doesn't matter how that life arose. It could be abiogenesis, it could be panspermia, it could be God. Once there is life, evolution will act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17906 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
quote: Of course, nobody is saying that they aren't related only that evolution can still occur given life as we see it, no matter how life originated. If you want to limit your God that's up to you, but you can't sensibly limit every conceivable God. Even your examples are hopelessly weak. Asking about medical history and parents is a short cut to information that - at least in principle - could be obtained by direct examination of the patient. Origins and history may give us information about the present but it's far from the only way to obtain that information, and if in some cases it is the best, it is only because it is the easiest way (certainly it it in your examples!)
quote: I suppose it is in the sense that the Christians are obviously wrong (and they are quite happy to call Christianity a religion when it's to their advantage to do so!) Now I can make a solid case for the separation you are objecting to:Many gods - including the Christian God - are supposedly more powerful than nature and should be capable of creating the first life and leaving it to evolve. Even the Christian God supposedly acts in ways beyond human understanding so we have no basis for even claiming that no imaginable God WOULD do that. And there you are. So where's your argument ? Or do you have nothing but assertions ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Chuck77 writes: I guess if evolution and abiogenesis are not related... Of course evolution and abiogenesis are related. Science believes that life, which is subject to evolution, had a non-biologic but natural origin, otherwise called abiogenesis. Saying abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution would be like saying trees have nothing to do with lumber. But they're not the same thing. Abiogenesis is a non-biologic origin of life, while evolution is change in that life over time through a process of random mutation and natural selection. We know quite a bit about evolution, and very little about abiogenesis. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, a significant portion of creationists also separate the origin of life from evolution. They believe that God created life (holygenesis ) and that after the flood an accelerated form of evolution produced all the species we see today. Understanding that the origin of life and evolution are separate concepts is not unique to science.
Evolution and abiogenesis don't work together because it ruins the whole theory of evolution. No one's said anything that would indicate they don't work together. We certainly don't know much about itt, but science sees the development of life from non-life as a gradual and continuous natural process under the conditions of the then-young Earth. No one's trying to pull a shell game on you. We're merely explaining the science.
It's like when Christians say Christianity is not a religion but a Relationship and all the atheists insist it is a religion even tho they are wrong. Is there no position so untenable you won't argue for it? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 286 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
It's like when Christians say Christianity is not a religion but a Relationship and all the atheists insist it is a religion even tho they are wrong. Yeah, what kind of asshole would imply that Christianity is a religion?
Chuck77 writes: The Bible says you go to Heaven or Hell. Other religions say certain animals are their relatives reicarnate so don't kill them. Chuck77 writes: I accept all religions books as subjective evidence. I feel it all points to one absolute truth. I.E. other religions borrowing from the Bible etc. To me all these religions makes a case for a God but doesn't all lead to the same one. (from Message 28)
Chuck77 writes: All religions are sprinkled with little "truths". Mostly stolen from other religions, mainly Christianity. (from Message 511) ...oh. Never mind. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It would not have been life from the primoridial soup (aka cosmic slime) which Buzsaw has stated many times is a pre-requisite for evolution. Not technically, but again, the only word for "non-religious origin of life" that Buzsaw knows is "primordial soup", so when he says "primordial soup", he's talking about everything from RNA world to extraterrestrial intelligent design to panspermia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Perhaps we need to add to our lists of Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Christian:
You think 300 posts of people showing how wrong you are is proof that you are right.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Chuck77 writes: I guess if evolution and abiogenesis are not related (how convenient) then there really is no need to ask any patients for their medical history or who their parents were or what hereditary traits they may have developed. After all it's not about origins but simply dealing with existing life. It makes no sense. You can't have evolution without abiogenesis. They don't mix in the evolutionary scheme of things. That's why they separate them.It's like when Christians say Christianity is not a religion but a Relationship and all the atheists insist it is a religion even tho they are wrong. Hi good bud. So glad you're getting active. We need each other, being so few of us, others need us and and we need others debating our views. That's how iron sharpens iron and we all become edified, knowing more about the accuracy of our beliefs being tested and knowing more about what our oponents actually believe. EvC is blessed with above average intelligence of the membership at large. This why, contrary to what adversaries believe, I've learned so much since I first came on over nine years ago. Whether the adversaries, claiming that I have no evidence to share for for my paradigms and never learn, I know how little I knew eight years ago compared to what I know now about my beliefs and theirs. It's the same with us who are believers. Iron sharpens iron. Our doctors of divinities are essentially ignorant and keep their congregations ignorant on a third of the Bible which is prophetic in nature. Thus my good pastor, the first ever that I've encountered who has his doctorate teaches me much and allow me, peon Buz who has no degree to teach him what he did not learn in higher education. Having studiously been daily in the scriptures (all of them) for over six decades, I know the prophecies and how to corroborate them all from all of the Biblical prophets, including Jesus, so as to provide evidence of the supernatural. Whether or not our opponents will admit it, they all know more about scripture, Biblical archeology (including the Exodus), the prophecies and Biblical stuff than when I showed up, years ago. Why? Because my creation paradigms are unique to mainstream YEC creationism. Our opponents continually debunk and effectively refute creationists because our elite creationist professionals like the majority of renowned scientists have been manufactured on the carbon copy assembly lines of the institutions of higher learning. Now, regarding your message: Yes, our opponents, as usual want it both ways; They are indeed related, but dare anyone of us to try to show how they are related. They deny that life's abiogenesis, i.e. biopoesisis is a prerequisite, needful for evolution to allegedly happen. I have to go out of town. Will do what I can when I return. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
To reiterate once more, Buzsaw's position (at least in one post) is that if life did not originate through abiogenesis (i.e. primordial soup) then no evolution. No, again, you've misunderstood - Buzsaw's position is that naturalistic evolution of life implies a naturalistic origin of life and that the existence of life is a prerequisite for the evolutionary history of life. Attacking him for not considering extraterrestrial intelligent design is overlooking that that's one of the things he means by "primordial soup." I know, I know. It's stupid. But remember who you're talking to. Buzsaw just isn't capable of learning anything about the origin of life beyond this: there's what it says in the Bible, or there's "primordial soup."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10293 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
I guess if evolution and abiogenesis are not related (how convienient) then there really is no need to ask any patients for their medical history or who their parents were or what hereditary traits they may have developed. After all it's not about origins but simply dealing with existing life. It makes no sense. You can't have evolution without abiogenesis. They don't mix in the evolutionary scheme of things. That's why they seperate them. Subbie asked Buzsaw the original question and I have modified it somewhat. Perhaps you can try to answer it. Let's say that God created a simple RNA replicator 4 billion years ago on Earth, and from that first life all life then evolved through the mechanisms of evolution. How would we need to change the current theory of evolution (the theory on how life changes over time) in order to explain how life evolved from that RNA replicator? How does a supernatural origin of life change the theory of evolution? If you can not describe how the theory of evolution would change then your claim that one requires the other is simply not true. Or better yet, we can turn the tables. Creationists like to claim that we can not test for abiogenesis, much less gather evidence for it. Both your argument and Buzsaw's argument give us a perfect way to test abiogenesis. All we need to do is seek evidence for evolution. Both of you have said that in order for evolution to occur that abiogenesis had to occur. Therefore, evidence demonstrating that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes is evidence of abiogenesis. You want evidence of abiogenesis? Look no further than orthologous ERV's shared by humans and other apes and all of the other ironclad genetic evidence which demonstrates that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes.
Well, this is the same thing, except in reverse and we are just supposed to believe they are seperate because you say so but you don't accept that Christianity is Relationship but religion? The Big Bang is the scientific pre-requisite for the existence of all matter in the universe. Do you have to accept the BB in order to explain how oxygen and hydrogen combine to make water? Afterall, no Big Bang, no oxygen or hydrogen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
crashfrog writes: Attacking him for not considering extraterrestrial intelligent design is overlooking that that's one of the things he means by "primordial soup." I know, I know. It's stupid. But remember who you're talking to. Buzsaw just isn't capable of learning anything about the origin of life beyond this: there's what it says in the Bible, or there's "primordial soup." Maybe, but my own view is that since Buzsaw doesn't know what he means, no one else can know what he means, either. We can point out when what he says makes no sense, but we can never really know what he means because he doesn't know what he means, either. We've all been in the position of arguing for something illogical that made perfect sense to us at the time. Something in our brains accidentally made the "makes sense" light go on. When it comes to his own ideas Buz's "makes sense" light is on all the time, so he never catches himself making an error. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4059 Joined: Member Rating: 9.4
|
Hi Chuck. As I type this, I know you're getting dogpiled, and you might not see my response, but I hope that you do. I'd wager I'm going to be nicer and less insulting than many of the other responses you're likely to receive.
I guess if evolution and abiogenesis are not related (how convienient) then there really is no need to ask any patients for their medical history or who their parents were or what hereditary traits they may have developed. After all it's not about origins but simply dealing with existing life. It makes no sense. You can't have evolution without abiogenesis. They don't mix in the evolutionary scheme of things. That's why they seperate them. Your metaphor here really just doesn't work. I understand you're going for a historical approach, that understanding the present is predicated on an understanding of the past, but you're missing the point a bit. Evolution is an observed fact. We know that it happens. We've directly observed it. You can observe a quickie version of evolution any time yourself by observing a population of organisms with a fast reproduction rate (the "slowness" of evolution is of course because change is small and can only increment by generations, which can be bypassed somewhat through the use of fruit flies or bacteria as examples) and artificially adding some selection pressure that may duplicate a possible environment change in nature. It's not hard - it's so easy in fact that undergraduate biology students do this every semester in universities around the world. Evolution, too, describes a great deal of the past. Your metaphor regarding family medical history actually describes evolution, not the relationship between evolution and abiogenesis. The Theory of Evolution predicts that traits are passed from parent to child with slight modification, and this means that an understanding of your family history can give a doctor an idea of what potential traits you may have inherited, and it's a lot cheaper and faster than examining your complete genome for specific risk factor genes. As I've described to Buz, evolution is inevitable given just a few prerequisites: 1) life must exist2) resources needed for life must be limited 3) life must reproduce such that traits are inherited from parent to child, but with slight modification. We've run computer simulations by the hundreds feeding in just exactly those prerequisites...and lo and behold, the simulated population of organisms change over time. The mechanism is obvious - if I take a population of birds, and I kill off the least colorful 25% before they can reproduce, then obviously the 75% remaining, who are more colorful, will pass their colorful traits on to their children, and the subsequent generation will be slightly more colorful on average. If I do this for a few dozen generations, I can wind up with a population of birds significantly more colorful than my original population. The only way the mechanism would ever not work that way is if one of the prerequisites above were taken away. If resources were completely unlimited, for example, and every individual in a population had the same ability to survive and reproduce with no fear of predators or other selective pressures, then you wouldn't tend to see a lot of change in the population of successive generations. If you remove the inheritance of traits, then "successful" traits don't get passed on. If there's no variability between generations, no mutations, then change can never happen, and the population will always be a cohesive set of clones no matter how long we breed them. And if life doesn't exist, well...what exactly would we be breeding? Abiogenesis is one possible starting point for life on Earth. It looks the most likely to me and scientists in general, but it's not the only option. To carry your family history metaphor to a more accurate description, imagine that you had a very good knowledge of your family's genealogy back to your great great great grandfather...but you don't know who his father was. His mother had multiple husbands, you see, and you aren't certain if your branch of the family is actually descended from John Jackson, or Jack Johnson. Your great great great great grandfather's birth date is too smudged on the old birth certificate to know whether it matches up to Johnson or Jackson. You don't know the origin of your family tree, but you do know the rest. And the parts you do know still fit, whether you're actually descended from a Jackson or a Johnson. Evolution has a similar relationship with abiogenesis. There are several conceivable possibilities to explain the origin of life on Earth...but the Theory of Evolution describes how life changed after that origin into the diverse biology we see today. If abiogenesis originated life, then evolution took over and the mechanism of descent with modification guided by natural selection diversified life from a single organism to all of the organisms that exist and have ever gone extinct. If YAHWEH magically Created a few original organisms out of dust, then evolution took over and the mechanism of descent with modification guided by natural selection diversified life from the original created organisms into all of the organisms that exist and have ever gone extinct. If aliens from another planet or even reality created the first Earth-bound life form, then evolution took over, etc. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis regarding the origin of life. The Theory of Evolution is the description of the mechanism that causes life to change over time. Imagine that I don't know the identity of the inventor of the internal combustion engine, but I do know the details of the development of all f the internal combustion engines in use today and over the last few decades. Does the identity of the first inventor potentially validate or invalidate my knowledge of engine history? No! Of course not. Regardless of the origin, my knowledge of the history of the combustion engine rests solely on the evidence I used to build that knowledge in the firt place. If the original inventor turns out to be different from the person I thought was most likely, Ford still made all of the engines I thought they made in the intervening time - the origin is nice to know but irrelevant, at least so far as confirmation or falsification of my existing knowledge. So too with evolution and abiogenesis. If abiogenesis is confirmed to be the absolutely certain origin of life on Earth tomorrow, the Theory of Evolution would be unaffected - it would neither be additionally confirmed, nor contradicted. If conversely abiogenesis were absolutely falsified with 100% certainty tomorrow, the Theory of Evolution would not also be falsified, nor would it be confirmed. The origin is a separate issue from the mechanism that governs life after it exists. The inventor of the internal combustion engine is a separate issue from the physics and chemistry that allow the mechanism to work once the engine is built. If we discovered that Henry Ford was a mythical figure who never really lived, that doesn't mean the Ford Model-T sitting in the automotive museum doesn't exist. I'm still pretty convinced that abiogenesis is by far the most likely origin of life on Earth, Chuck. Don't get me wrong. But the evolution-abiogenesis relationship is a logical non-sequitur. The veracity or falsehood of evolution does not follow from the veracity or falsehood of abiogenesis, and vice versa. They both depend on different evidence. The evidence supporting evolution is not the same as the evidence that supports abiogenesis. Do you understand, Chuck?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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024