You may discuss these important points in a thread more appropriate to them. No one is stopping that.

You could at least get the quote right. In full it is (quoted from an article by Dawkins himself in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3): In the article Dawkins talks about what he meant and why he said it.You should read it.If you want to talk about it more start a new thread and I'll be happy to join you there - we are so far off topic at the moment we are bound to get thumped by a mod soon!Edit: Oh I see one did while I was writing this...This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 10-24-2005 11:23 PM

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

For this reason, Darwin's apologists...Science doesn't deal in philosophy. It deals with impersism. (sic) No apologetics needed.
===============================Mirabile Auditu responds:You must be thinking of "empericism." You almost had me there, misspelling your word of choice two different ways. You clever devil.The very word, "science," is derived from "scientia," Latin for "knowledge." While empericism can and does teach us much, it is not the sole source of scientific knowledge. To pretend, or even to state otherwise is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.
Moreover, it is anti-intellectual to restrict the search for knowledge to naturalistic phenomena. Preconceived notions have a way of misleading people.
============================================... are extremely eager to dissociate themselves from abiogenesis.Never was associated, never has been, never will be. If you are trying to imply some sort of evasion on the part of biologists, you have plenty of targets in the field of origins without having to pick on the evolution camp.
===================Mirabile Auditu responds: The subject is first life. How arbitrary of "EVOLUTIONISTS" to limit discussion when convenient. First, the Miller-Urey experiment is invoked to provide fodder for a naturalistic continuum from the Big Bang to homo sapiens. Then when science advances sufficiently to demonstrate unequivocally how UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE the origin of the first living organism is, then it "never was associated" with "EVOLUTION." Miller-Urey is an icon of evolution, along with other misleading (or trivial) icons such as Haeckel's frauds, peppered moths, and finches.
==============================================They claim, very nervously, no doubt, that "evolution does not include abiogenesis."//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------compare and contrast with the definition of abiogenesis:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a·bi·o·gen·e·sis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What makes the two similar? Come on, I read them both, they have nothing to do with each other.=============================Mirabile Auditu responds: :::sigh:;::
You're entirely correct. The first organism had "nothing to do" with the second. "Nothing." I must say, it certainly learned to reproduce in a hurry, didn't it."Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan (Citation available for those who wish to know)
=====================================This is because like Haeckel's drawings, the Miller-Urey experiment was completely misleading. Countless millions (including one of my own chemistry professors) cite Miller-Urey as compelling evidence of the naturalistic development of life. It is far - very far from that.blah blah blah Haeckel blah blah blah Urey blah blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about blah blah blahSave it. We've heard it. Your (sic) wrong.
========================Mirabile Auditu: It doesn't take long for an "EVOLUTIONIST" to slide down into ad hominem rudeness, does it? I've posted, what, twice? And Yaro starts in with "blah blah blah" and "Save it. Your (sic) wrong." This is no way to reason together. Alas it is the preferred tactic for "EVOLUTIONISTS."
================================================Have you read any RECENT RESEARCH!!!!! (CAREFUL, YARO ! YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE HEADED...)Let me put it to you this way, 50 years ago, we barely had computers. 50 (sic) years ago we didn't have color tv. 50 (sic) years ago we were in the middle of the cold war.
====================
Mirabile Auditu responds: Fascinating. I had no idea. Really.
Please go on. I'm learning SO much.
========================================Things change! Don't you think things have MOVED ON/ PROGRESSED/ ADVANCED???? Try reading a National Geographic, or Scientific American for christ's sake!
==========================================Mirabile Auditu responds: I must take issue with the invocation of inappropriate language here. Not everyone is an atheist, and taking the Divine's name in vain is rude if not profane. I repeat again, for someone newly welcomed here, this kind of dialogue is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. Nevertheless it is all too common from people who consider themselves self-important and arrogant and condescending. Moderators, please take note and take action if appropriate.===============================================Miller produced only a small quantity of one amino acid, and a few traces of others, all of them of course racemic mixtures, and not the optically active stereoisomer, of which our own proteins are made.I love crap like this:"he made only a small quantity gufaw gufaw... psh..muh muh muh muh..."WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A SMALL QUANTITY! WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU TRIED THE EXPERIMENT?????You act as if the man wouldn't be right less (sic) a pig crawled out of his petri dish fully formed. What the hell did you expect? An entire ecosystem???????
=============================Mirabile Auditu responds:
I would expect GOOD SCIENCE to ensue.
This would include:
1. A recognition of the fact that the conditions were grossly wrong.
2. A recognition of the fact that both the quantity and quality of the paltry few amino acids produced were far more equivocal than is pretended by "EVOLUTIONISTS."
3. A de-emphasis of this icon of evolution, particularly given the emphatic nature of abiogenesis being completely unrelated to EVOLUTION by "EVOLUTIONISTS."
4. Less emotionalism, and vulgarity on your part.
5. Do learn how to write English better, while you're at it.
It's far simpler than thinking and analyzing facts.
=======================================The fact that he got ANYTHING AT ALL is a freakin ACCOMPLISHEMENT (sic) WORTHY OF ACCLAIM!Are you gonna fault Lewie (sic) Pasture for not finding the cure for AIDS as well?"he only found the cure for a few bacterial disease gufaw gufaw... muh muh muh muh...."=============Mirabile Auditu: Do you speak like this in person?
===============================Beyond these incredibly vexing (for Darwinists) problems lie even bigger hurdles, as is abundantly evident from the following quote:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate and biochemistRight... Right right. uhuh... you know what Quote mining is? I have heard Crick speak live and in person and the man by no means disputes evolution or it's (sic) validity.
================Mirabile Auditu responds:
1. First you INSIST that abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with "EVOLUTION."
2. THEN you snivel because I quoted Francis Crick's comment on abiogenesis and YOU link it to "EVOLUTION."You're being anti-intellectual again. Please, a little more consistency on your part, or else we can't even discuss things.
(Should I add "guffaw, guffaw" here?)
===================================Darwin's seminal book was not called "The Origin of Species NOT COUNTING the First Critter." No, it was called "The Origin of Species." It had precisely one picture/drawing, viz. the "tree of life."It is also 150 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY!!!!! Years old!
=================
Mirabile Auditu responds:
You adhere to this ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY year old theory, and embrace it as if it were high tech stuff!In conclusion, not only do I read the magazines cited by Yaro, viz. National Geographic and Science, but my letters have appeared in both of them, usually offering a correction or else a different point of view that the editors respected enough to print.Moderators, please keep this individual under control. He bears watching.

This is not on topic. Please do not respond here.

Sorry BOSS. I will take this no further. Well, speaking as a Christian I'd have to say that's very true. IMHO there are few that are too stupid to understand Evolution or the evidence supporting it. You really have to be dumber than a red brick to nor be able to understand the TOE. While there may be such folk, like kids under six, I don't think it's a large percentage.The same thing goes for insane. I don't think that there are that many folk that deny evolution based on insanity, although there is certainly the possibility that Fundyism could well be a psychological condition. I don't see it listed in the DSM IV.That leave ignorant and wicked. Let me deal with the later first.There are many that oppose Evolution for what appear to be entirely wicked purposes. There's Kent Hovind and Walt Brown and the folks ta ICR and DI and Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston and Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn and Gene Scott and Oral Roberts or Fred Phelps. They are using it just to pull more money from gullible suckers.That leaves ignorant.Ignorant breaks down into two groups, those that are just ignorant and those that are willfully ignorant.The ignorant ones simply have nor been presented with all of the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution happened and that supports the Theory of Evolution as our best explanation so far for the process. As they gain access to the information they quickly come to realize that the TOE is correct.The second ignorant group are those who are willfully ignorant. The willfully ignorant look at all the evidence but then say "Sorry, that goes against my beliefs and so I will not accept it." For such people there is little that can be done except to realize that they are handicapped.This message has been edited by jar, 10-24-2005 10:35 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-24-2005 11:41 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mirabile Auditu wrote: Then there's this beauty by Richard Dawkins:
"ANyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked."MangyTiger replied:You could at least get the quote right. In full it is (quoted from an article by Dawkins himself in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 3):"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."In the article Dawkins talks about what he meant and why he said it.You should read it.=======================Mirabile Auditu rebuts:I have read, and critiqued, several of Dawkin's entire books, thank you. Moreover I have corresponded with this vile, hateful, socialist atheist via e-mail. I sent him my critiques of several of his books, including incredibly foolish mistakes he published in them. Dawkins has not retracted his vile, hateful language a bit.
In fact, he personally told me that "The Pope is evil."Please spin that how you will. Dawkins' mistakes and inconsistencies will be presented separately in the Thread of Appeal to the Dictators.Meanwhile after only a few exchanges here, I find the arrogant condescension of the "EVOLUTIONISTS" offensive and inappropriate, but wholly consistent with the ongoing debate."EVOLUTIONISTS" : "Try reading a book some time, fundie."

Words change their meaning over time. Today the term "science" generally has to do with discovery using empirical methodology. Please note that empirical methodology is not the same as empiricism (a branch of philosophy). Strictly speaking, this paragraph is off topic. Please keep the discussion to abiogenesis. Start a separate thread if you want to discuss other issues. You already said much of that in your original post. Several people have responded. Please comment on some of the responses given. That way we can have a positive thoughtful discussion. Repetition is boring.

Hey Mirabile_Auditu,first off. Your reply formating could use a little work. When you wan't to reply to a particular person please use the reply button at the bottom of that persons post.When you wan't to quote something the person said, use the quote box feature by surrounding their blocks with {qs}{/qs} except with "" instead of "{}".For example: Your response is kinda hard to read because of your formatting. If you have any other questions about how formating is done, you can also hit the "peek" button at the bottom of anyones posts. Note from Adminnemooseus - you have "" when you want to have something else. You want to have the square brackets in the middle of the "", but for some reason the system won't display them (I tried to fix it by edit, but couldn't get it to work either).This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-25-2005 01:15 AM

Thank you for that. Not a native speller It is. Sorry. Nothing in science has ever been gained through non-empiricism.... can you name an example ? Also incorrect. Naturalistic phenomena is all phenomena. Can you name an unnatural one? It seems to me that everything that happens in this universe, is by definition, natural.On to the actual topic. Alright. Then your quarrel is not with evolutionists per say. You are now in the field of origins and abiogenesis.Further, it is not arbitrary. I posted a definition, did you read it? Did you see how the two things had nothing to do with each other?Evolutionists don't address abiogenesis (for the most part) because it has nothing to do with living organisms. How it got here is anyones guest, an evolutionist deals with what it is doing now. Miller Urey did nothing of the sort. Do you realize how your hopscotching all over the board of science here?Miller-Urey was basically an experiment in chemistry, Big Bang theory is related to cosmology and physics (theorized long before Urey BTW), and homo sapiens is a concern of biology. How the hell did Miller-Urey help the big bang theory, it's not even in the same branch of science?! Wow there.... science rarely speaks in absolutes. "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE"? Where are you getting this? Because last time I checked origins was a pretty hot fields with lots of advances in the other direction. That is, we are learning more and more about what it takes for life to arise. Panspermia being an interesting hypothesis.Abiogenesis - WikipediaCan you show me some RECENT literature that has declared life's origins as "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE"? I mean, we are here. Certainly we had an origin right Miller-Urey performed an experiment in chemistry. His experiment, while related to evolution, has nothing to do with the science. It's like cosmology, it's heavily related to physics, but the two are different fields all together.AS far as Haeckel I refuse to talk about him. His work is Over 100 years old. I don't care what he did as it is obviously outdated. You shouldn't care either. Infact, you should judge your position suspect because of it.It seems you feel forced to bring it up simply because he is one of the few things that you can misrepresent to support your cause:"Haeckel was inacurate! Thus all science since the 1800's is inacurate! QED God! YAY! I WIN I WIN!"Sorry bud, it don't work that way. Yes. And by all indication this is a basic requirement for first life. It would have likely been something like the archybacteria we find in sea vents, or even something like a virus. In any case, replication is what the chemistry of life does. No. your wrong. I refuse to talk Haeckel as it has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Your understanding of the Urey experiment, and it's significance, is flawed at best. Somehow I don't think you are. LOL! Well, I don't respect silly ideas. But if it bothers you that much, I will refrain. See, I refuse to even address this. You have misinterpreted the experiment, and again you seem to have any concept that the experiment was about chemistry not evolution. Your point is mood.Miller-Urey's point was that life molecules COULD arise from chemical processes. That's all. Weather or not the conditions were correct is moot. It's a 50 year old experiment.Updated versions, based on the same premise, have been performed to greater success. The fact is, life chemicals can arise through purely naturalistic processes given enough time.In any case, it has nothing to do with evolution. If you wanna say your sky man did it, have at it. But I take issue with the idea that this has anything to do with the validity of TOE. It doesn't. Did you read the definitions? If all Abiogeneis theories diapered tomorrow, it wouldn't change the TOE. No. You do. The fact that you put it there was to bolster your position that evolution has a problem because of the mystery associated with origins.I was pointing out that even if Crick thinks all abiogenesis theories are bunk and that the world came from a chicken fart, it has no bearing on his ideas concerning TOE. Nor should it, TOE is a different field all together. You were quote mining. I called you on it. No one is gonna tolerate that kind of malarkey. Oh that's a laugh! See what I mean? Your stuck in a time warp.The evolution of today has very little to do with Darwin's original work. Darwin only came up with the very basics of the theory, it has taken decades of research, discovery, advancement in technology, to amass the wealth of evidence and robustness that the TOE now holds. The TOE of today is vastly different from what Darwin would have ever dreamed. Good show. But I don't know why you bother, those publications are apparently filled with lies and falsehoods like Heackel. You know better apparently.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-25-2005 12:47 AM

As pointed out your post is off topic, though it does have one on topic point to which I will be responding. Incidentally, you quoted me and were replying to my post, but the person who actually said what you quoted was Chiroptera, which confused me somewhat. Neither Chiroptera nor I made this comment. Chiroptera argued that abiogenesis is an interesting subject but 'doesn't matter how it came about...the evidence that evolution has occurred...is pretty much indisputable'. Which is a true sentiment - life could have arisen theogenetically and evolved from that point: evolution would still be intact, the ToE still relevant.You see, ToE is a theory about how populations change over time. sourceThis message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 25-October-2005 06:47 AM

Mirabile -First off, use the HTML help and dbCodes help guides on the left hide side of the chat window to figure out how to make quote boxes. It's much easier to sort out what's a quote and what's a response.Second, you seem to be misunderstanding the evolutionists point. Let's take a car as an analogy.Evolutionists/Darwinists are interested in how the engine works. We look at the pistons, the gears, the fuel, the oil, etc.Is the starter part of the car? Sure. Are their cars with choke starters? Yeah. Are their cars with crank starters? Yes. Are there cars which need to be jump started? Yep.Is abiogenesis a part of the larger picture / something implied or hinted at by the Theory of Evolution. I would say yes. But, ToE does not need abiogenesis to work.ToE takes over once life exists. Just as an engine is running after any of the starters I mentioned in applied.Personally, do I believe abiogenesis? Yes.If you could show me that aliens came down and dropped off the first life form on Earth, would it change my understanding of ToE? No.If we were to wipe out every living thing on the planet except, lets say plankton, would ToE still apply? Yes. Though we'd have to check back every few million years to check on the progress.Which brings me back to your original post.Is it that you have a problem with ToE and therefore disbelieve abiogenesis? Or is it that you have a problem with abiogenesis and therefore have a problem with ToE?Hopefully I've helped to seperate the two concepts in your mind.

If we're talking about this quote: It's not particularly vile or hateful. If someone is ignorant of science, it's reasonable to assume that they may not believe in the ToE. If someone isn't ignorant of science, but can not make the logical connections between data and results, it's reasonable to assume that they are either stupid or insane.As for the Pope being Evil, I don't know if we was talking about John Paul or this new Pope. But, in Dawkins defense, the new Pope looks exactly like Emperor Palpatine.

If you are going to correct someone's spelling, you'd better have it right yourself, or you are going to be looking a bit foolish. The correct spelling is 'empiricism'.And while you're at it, you might want to think about your use of "anti-scientific" and "anti-intellectual". There is a difference between "anti-scientific" and "non-scientific". I don't think that people who are arguing in favour of evolution can rightly be called "anti-scientific".

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

The conditions were grossly wrong, yet the experiment yielded amino-acids from basic chemicals. If abiogenesis is so very improbable, and we didn't even get the conditions right, then how improbable is it that this first attempt hit upon another combination of chemicals and circumstances that actually produces a result?My conclusion would be that the production of amino-acids under abiotic conditions may not be all that improbable after all.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 25-Oct-2005 12:36 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Hi Mirable,Welcome to EvC, I hope you enjoy your stay. Perhaps you'd consider using quote boxes in your future messages, it'd make things easier to read (if you don't know how, click on the 'peek' button next to this message and you can see the source - the qs and /qs bits are what create the quote boxes). I'm wondering, Mirable, where you've actually seen the Miller-Urey experiment presented? Have you actually seen a scientist, science writer or textbook present the experiment without caveats or have you - as I suspect - simply been told by other creationists that it is so presented?

Well hello SpiderMBA aka Buxup200 aka DarwinsProf aka John Jaeger, jactitating jingoist aka aka etc etc ... funny how you cannot hide in any name you choose because you cannot keep from going over the top in your own particular fashion. Time to check for spelling errors next right? Yes, and I have seen those "reviews" and dismantled them in their entirety for the logical fallacies and the misrepresentations and the misconceptions that you invoke in the name of reason. You know me as RAZD8 and as AbbyLeever on another board. Would you like me to post one of your "reviews" complete with the rebuttal that you have never ever answered with any substance? Maybe the "Booknook" would be the place, so everyone can see the level of rationality and logic you put into the effort ... although the thread "Return to Humor" might be more appropriate.I have also frequently corrected you on the above noted quote and you still choose to get it wrong: this makes you the intentionally wicked one in the subset, but we knew that. Note to admin: this is one of the most hate filled posters ever seen on the other board I frequent. You would do well to watch him. I predict he will get himself banned, and fairly soon. His blanket condemnation of others as hateful and vile is one of his trademarks. He also classifies anyone not in his orbit around Neptune as being leftist, lying, lockstepping liberals. I can give you some examples if you like.Same old stock phrases John, even though you have been using them for over 3 years.What have you done that's new John? Or is "invisible glass" still it?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.