abiogenesis hypothesis and the despair of professed materialist

There seems to be a implied sentiment among some Christian posters that Christian apologists are always straightforward and morally just and no cross examination and other safeguards are not necessary.In case you don't recognize the standards you hold others to.

to: chriro1. genetic logical fallacy2. professed atheism/skepticism must abide by its own standards if it is to be consistent. If you want to argue it should be inconistent then open a new thread on this topic.In the meantime please search for witnesses. I doubt you will find them.

quote:

---

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance (348).......

---

The above quote is from:Klaus Dose, 'The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers', Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, (1998), p. 348.Notice the date, 1998. This was not a quote about the mood of the meeting, but rather a quote from Dose's work in 1998.Next . . .

quote:

---

"Grim, full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation" (Fazale and Ross).

---

Fazale and Ross are creationists, most notably Ross who is a popular figure in the creationist political movement. Their quote can be found here:
Fazale R. Rana, and Hugh Ross. "Life From The Heavens? Not This Way." Facts for Faith, Quarter 1, 2000.So again, I want a quote from a scientist who participated in the conference about the mood of the conference. You have yet to provide it.

Loudmouth:1.genetic logic fallacy.2. You have no witnesses.

to: Loudmouthaddendum:1. Please show my witnesses have a track record of inordinate amount of lying or moral turpitude. For example, a couple of traffic tickets and saying darn do not count.

Actually, if it actually is the conference I've been trying to pin him down on, it was a pretty up beat meeting. It was where the existence of Fullerenes found in nature was initially made. From Science DailyIt was also where some of the finding on how early transitions to life were made, and the origin of proto-cells. Molecular Simulations of Protocellular Membrane FunctionsThat mechanism, the folding into ordered structures was significant since it gives insight into the formation of proto-cells.I can well imagine that Fazale and Ross were grim, full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation since there were many clear indications at the conference that there could well be natural rules that inevitably lead to life forming.This message has been edited by jar, 09-03-2004 05:57 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

to: loudmouthI wrote:

quote:

---

Please show my witnesses have a track record of inordinate amount of lying or moral turpitude. For example, a couple of traffic tickets and saying darn do not count.

---

Actually I will take just one lie from these gentlemen. Please do not cite disreputable behavior by a particular creationist and then try the logical fallacy of guilt by association. I insist on this because if you want to be a freethinker you need to avoid logical fallacies.TO: JARA preacher could mention something interesting at a funeral that you do not hear everyday. This does not directly answer the question.Second, even if allowed I still have two witnesses to your one.

quote:

---

genetic logical fallacy

---

What genetic logical fallacy? I am merely pointing out a double standard that you are using. Atheists have to be proven to be unimpeachable sources before you will accept their testimony as to their beliefs, yet we are expected to accept the comments of certain apologists as to the "mood" of a scientific conference without question.-

quote:

---

professed atheism/skepticism must abide by its own standards if it is to be consistent.

---

What standards are you talking about? Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. There are no standards for all atheists (or all theists, for that matter.) A person believes what she does. You would have to ask each individual why she believes as she does.And you still haven't told us what you mean by "skepticism" -- until you do, I can't claim to be a follower of "skepticism", and until I do I am not obliged to follow whatever standards such followers are supposed to follow.I think some people are working to find out about that conference. If only you would tell them which one it is. Do you even know? Or did you just come across that one quote by Walter Bradley and decided to use it to stir things up?

to: Jaraddendum:Science daily does not mention being at the conference.Here is why your interesting finding cannot necessarily be used to describe the overall mood. Please pay attention to rule #2:GUIDELINES FROM A HISTORIANNow here is something I wish to give to readers as some very useful guidelines:Here is a review of a book that I think is very pertinent to this debate:Quote:Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics.taken from: Thinking About NASA HistoryHere is a highlight of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion. (2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

I'm not at all sure how you arive at that assertion. I would think that the presenters I mentioned, Andrew Pohorille, Michael A. Wilson, Karl Schweighofer, Christophe Chipotte, and Michael H. New as well as Luann Becker and NASA colleagues Theodore E. Bunch and Louis J. Allamandola are more than two people.But I'm not up on new math.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please refer to my previous post as far as teh historians Fischer's Rule #2 in regards to:Here is why your interesting finding cannot necessarily be used to describe the overall mood. Please pay attention to rule #2: One interesting find does not make a conference upbeat. You need testimony regarding the whole mood. Please refer to rule #2 of the historian Fischer.

quote:

---

The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

---

Again I point out (futiley) that as the one who started this thread you are the one making the assertian. So you do agree that you are the one who bears the burden of proof? That you are the one who must show that his sources are "unimpeachable", as you put it in another thread?

to: chiroIn a debate both parties need to support their assertions if they choose to make them.The historian Fischer's rule #2 is relevant unless shown otherwise.

to: chriroUsing the historian Fischer's rule #2, I have two witnesses that describe the general overall mood of the conference. It is direct evidence that directly relates the question of the general overall moods conference.The professed materialists have no witnesses that describe the general overall mood of the conference.

So far, in this thread I have made no assertians. I have merely pointed out that the evidence for your assertians is weak, being based on reports by persons whose accuracy may legitimately be questioned.