Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

you tried to counter against behe in post 90, but not dembski. and again there you quoted me out of context in one place.

dembski takes the assertion that you can take the present and make a case for the improbability of it happening by random chance from events in the past, which is absurd. it's nothing more than a mathematical trick. the present is here no matter the probability.
a good anology is take 3 friends, shuffle a deck of 52 cards, and keep track of each card and the order it's dealt. you could look back, and say how improbable that they were dealt. you could say to each other, we could sit down and play cards for the rest of our lives and never have it happen again. and you'd be right.
never the less, they were dealt out, and that was the order.

so whether it is improbable or not becomes irrelevent. it happened just the same.

and as for trashing dembski, when he stops making extraordinary claims(you have heard extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, not just assertion) and solves the problem of induction (he won't), then he might be believable. but simple minds will take him at his word.
 
you tried to counter against behe in post 90, but not dembski. and again there you quoted me out of context in one place.

Opps! Your right. My mistake. That was rather sloppy of me...

dembski takes the assertion that you can take the present and make a case for the improbability of it happening by random chance from events in the past, which is absurd.

First, you are oversimplifying Dembski's claim and effectively mischaracterizing it. Here is what Dembski himself has said concerning his explanatory filter:
...it is not just the sheer improbability of an event, but also the conformity of the event to a pattern, that leads us to look beyond chance to explain the event.​

And even when you can rule out chance, you still also have to rule out natural regularity to be able to infer intelligent design. Only when an something is improbable, conforms to a specific, and cannot be plausibly attributed to natural regularity is design able to be logically inferred.

And that same logic is not "absurd" when it is used in other scientific endeavors, such as forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis, etc. Why is the application of the same logic and processes used to infer intelligent design in other scientific endeavors, absurd when it is applied to the idea of speciation?

it's nothing more than a mathematical trick.

How? It is easy to label it as such, but without specifics, that critique is without substance and worthless.

Since you don't give any specifics, I am left to assume what you are talking about. Given the review by Pigliucci of Dembski's book that you cite in the "wall 'o' text" post you are spamming, I am assum you are talking about this line:
Although Dembski cloaks his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism, the essence of his argument is easy to understand.​
Maybe this passage from that rebuttal of Pigliucci's review that I posted would help clarify:
Pigliucci, in fact, makes only one criticism which is directed at the actual content of The Design Inference. It is that Dembski "cloak his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism." Presumably the bulk of the book (for instance, the demonstration of Caputo's rigging) is trivial and obfuscates with jargon that which should just be left to common sense. I have heard many of my students make similar criticisms of formal logic. They simply do not appreciate the importance of attempting to make precise and set on a rigorous foundation patterns of reasoning which appear common-sensical. Pigliucci fails to appreciate Dembski's attempt to do the same for the patterns of reasoning we employ when we attempt to discern whether an intelligent agent is responsible for certain phenomena we observe. Dembski's attempt may or may not fail (I am agnostic here) but his project is neither trivial, nor a gratuitous (or "pseudo") use of mathematical symbolism.


...the present is here no matter the probability.
a good anology is take 3 friends, shuffle a deck of 52 cards, and keep track of each card and the order it's dealt. you could look back, and say how improbable that they were dealt. you could say to each other, we could sit down and play cards for the rest of our lives and never have it happen again. and you'd be right.
never the less, they were dealt out, and that was the order.

so whether it is improbable or not becomes irrelevent. it happened just the same.

Now this is nothing more then a red herring aimed at misdirection to set up a straw man. Dembski is not arguing that the present is not here. Demski is only concerned with weather the event in question occurred through chance, natural regularity or intelligent design. the improbability of something occurring is very relevant in determining from which of those processes the event occurred. It is only irrelevant if you are not interested in determining that; possibly simply wanting to assume that it is due to natural causes and leave it at that (speculation).

and as for trashing dembski, when he stops making extraordinary claims (you have heard extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, not just assertion) and solves the problem of induction (he won't), then he might be believable.

What "problem of induction"? All science is built on induction. To draw a conclusion from observed events (empirical research) is to use inductive reasoning.

You are actually attempting to justify trashing Dembski?! That is very telling.

FYI; his claims are only "extraordinary" if you have a prejudice against them. And, either way, that doesn't justify trashing him. But it would justify that prejudice

And that is what seems to be the case for you. Considering both the post you are spamming, the fact that you are mischaracterizing Dembski in this post (either intentionally, or due to a lack of understanding due to a lack of consideration of his ideas on your part), this...

but simple minds will take him at his word.

...your blatant attempt to poison the well by smearing anyone who would "take him [Dembski] at his word" and the fact that you are making superficial smears of his idea (calling it "absurd" and a "a mathematical trick") in what appears to be another attempt to poison the well it seems that you have a prejudice against Dembski's ideas and are unwilling to consider them. Your understanding of his work only seems to come from people decidedly hostile to, and contemptuous of his work, suggesting an attempt to rationalize an out-of-hand dismissal of Dembski's work.
 
Ah, yes, the last resort of the atheist argument: name calling. Hitchens, Dawkins, et al cannot keep from it.
I don't much care for Dawkins, but I think Hitchens is interesting and thoughtful.
The D'Souza/Hitchens debates are pretty good.
 
Ah, yes, the last resort of the atheist argument: name calling. Hitchens, Dawkins, et al cannot keep from it.
If one person calls you an ass, oh well.
If 2 people call you an ass, sattle up.

Hah. But it's true. Christianity, is something mostly taught from birth. There are clearly cases of people being "saved" later on in their life, sure, but the US is a predominately Christian nation from birth. You're weak minded as a kid. You can't go, research, and make a rash decision.

Did you ever watch that video on that muslim speaker i posted in the bicker and bitch thread?
 
Wiggles, your posts are irritating. You not only post with a very high level of over-confidence and aggression, but you do so from a complete position of ignorance. You have no reservations about making very confrontational statements entirely based on your "opinion" without a shred of knowledge at it's foundation.

Everything you say is entirely observational, and it's apparent that you have a very limited amount of experience and observations to draw from. And even when you're provided with information, sources, and topics to look into, you chose not to and wallow in your blissful ignorance.

Perhaps you were unaware, but about 40% of adults in this country call themselves "born again Christians." This means that they DO make a conscious and informed decision regarding spirituality as adults.

Were you impressed by the O"Reilly interview?
I wasn't, by either of them.
The fact that Dawkin was so unspectacular, debating a windbag like O'Reilly, is rather telling. Purely speculating, but it seems like Dawkin's is interested in promoting his brand, not pursuing a truth. Otherwise he'd debate challenging people and not simply appear on highly rated cable TV programs with pompous windbags who don't do any research.

Dinesh D'Souza debates subject like this frequently, and it should be noted that he's not a religious leader or theologian all the time. He's done debates with Hitchens, who's much more thoughtful and articulare than Dawkins.

Check out those debates. They ultimately end inconclusively, but that's to be expected. They are interesting, none the less.
 
Dude... What are you ranting about?

A conservative giving a lesson about aggression and ignorance. There's something new.

Now that sir is... something, trolling maybe, idk.

Were you impressed by the O"Reilly interview?
I wasn't, by either of them.
The fact that Dawkin was so unspectacular, debating a windbag like O'Reilly, is rather telling. Purely speculating, but it seems like Dawkin's is interested in promoting his brand, not pursuing a truth. Otherwise he'd debate challenging people and not simply appear on highly rated cable TV programs with pompous windbags who don't do any research.
He didn't have a chance to present an argument. It was faith vs science (proof) and, o'riley wasn't having any of it. Mostly because, he didn't give a :q:q:q:q. Most christians aren't willing to "un-believe". Which, is what i was trying to convey.
 
Hah. But it's true. Christianity, is something mostly taught from birth. There are clearly cases of people being "saved" later on in their life, sure, but the US is a predominately Christian nation from birth. You're weak minded as a kid. You can't go, research, and make a rash decision.

Do you have any basis for this, or is it simply conjecture on your part?

A conservative giving a lesson about aggression and ignorance. There's something new.

Why? If anything, most liberals tend to be overly aggressive and exceedingly ignorant. Conservatives, for the most part, don't hold a candle to liberals in those areas (though the few that can match liberals when it comes to aggressiveness tend to have a spotlight on them that is never on liberal agression; like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc.). A good part of that is because most people tend to be more liberal in their younger days, when emotion rules their attitudes and actions. As they grow older, and emotions gives way more and more to reason, they tend to become more informed and more conservative. Just look at Thomas Sowell. In his youth, he was an admitted Marxist. Now he is one of the preeminent modern conservative thinkers.
 
No, i dont have any concrete numbers. Just, preconcieved notions.

Have you ever seen the movie Jesus Camp?

YouTube - Crazy Christian Camp For Children

Actually, I am the son of a retired pastor. I have a very good idea of what does and does not go on in Churches and what you are perpetuating with that video is nothing more then slander and demonization of Christians. The video even admits as much at the very beginning of the video when it says, "This video isn't to demonize Christianity, only these so called 'Christians'!"
 
Dude... What are you ranting about?

A conservative giving a lesson about aggression and ignorance. There's something new.

Now that sir is... something, trolling maybe, idk.
Not at all, merely a response. A bit of constructive criticism. And one that I elaborated explained and am completely willing to defend.

And your "reply" reinforces exactly what I just said.

Are you saying that I'm "aggressive or ignorant?" If you'd like to elaborate on this most recent completely unsupported, observation, please do so.

You are aggressive, confrontational, and completely clueless. And regardless the amount of patience extended to you, you have absolutely no interest in learning or acquiring a better understanding of the issues that you feel so compelled to interject your observations on.

He didn't have a chance to present an argument. It was faith vs science (proof) and, o'riley wasn't having any of it. Mostly because, he didn't give a :q:q:q:q. Most christians aren't willing to "un-believe". Which, is what i was trying to convey.
Your point was that during a 4 minute segment on the O'Reilly fact, Dawkin's didn't have enough to time to adequately present his argument debunking God?

O.K. unfortunately, that point was not associated with anything said prior. In fact, your link REINFORCES the point Shagdrum was making in the prior post:

At least Hitchens will debate! Dawkins tends to avoid debating any substance. He is the AlGore of Atheism.

There countless, recognized, and respected theologians and writers who would love to have the opportunity to debate Dawkin's in a public forum, yet he rarely makes himself available. A 4:51 minute segment on the O'Reilly factor isn't a challenging or thought provoking forum. Dawkin's avoided a debate of substance by appearing on that show, as you demonstrated with that video.

Dawkins has recently rejected another invitation to debate Dinesh D'Souza.
And, as noted before, D'Souza isn't a theologian or a religious leader. And that's one of the reasons people are reluctant to debate him. The fact is, most preachers or rabbis or educated laypeople aren't experienced at debate and are often easily out matched.

Here's Dawkins and Ben Stein:
And in it- Dawkin's recognizes that intelligent design is a viable possibility.
YouTube - Expelled: Stein's Interview with Dawkins
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If one person calls you an ass, oh well.
If 2 people call you an ass, sattle up.
Pretty sure more than two people on this site on multiple occasions have labeled you as a troll and as an irritant. If the shoe fits...:rolleyes:
 
then-a-miracle-happens.gif


So, why debate ID vs evolution? Because many people would like you to think that it is good science and should be taught in public school.

Which is exactly why you don't teach it in school. As a faith based belief, teach it at home or in church, but you have to keep it out of school.

We managed to remove creationism being taught in schools, and now, this is a way to wheedle faith based ideology back into school curriculum.

It is why shag won't answer the 'why even look at ID if we aren't looking at modern day humans as a desired end result.' It ties in directly with 'created in His own image' and other faith based decrees. There is no need to look at 'then a miracle occurred' steps in science, unless you want to introduce divinity.

Actually, I am the son of a retired pastor.
Shag - I thought your father was a parole officer.

I understand where you're coming from. My father was an atheist. Now he's a Christian.

And Foss, your father was a Catholic - wasn't he - and a scholar on the subject I do believe... Odd... he went from atheist to catholic - but, that wouldn't work, catholics aren't christian... atheist to catholic to christian, maybe... sounds rather circular to me.
 
So, why debate ID vs evolution? Because many people would like you to think that it is good science and should be taught in public school.

Which is exactly why you don't teach it in school. As a faith based belief, teach it at home or in church, but you have to keep it out of school.

We managed to remove creationism being taught in schools, and now, this is a way to wheedle faith based ideology back into school curriculum.

Let's walk through this logic.
ID says that there is a principle of design.
Darwinian Evolution says that it's entirely random.

Which one is faith based exactly?
The better question is- which one isn't.

We can play word games with this all day long.
One theory is things are completely random. The other is that there is some kind of design. It's really as simple as that. And neither of them can be proven.

So why explain only one of the arguments and present it as fact?
The entire argument is in the realm of the hypothesis. A formal endorsement of any one of those hypothesis implies that it's been concluded. It hasn't.
It makes more sense to merely explain the prevailing theories and not engage in the blacklisting that those that don't embrace the origins of species approach associated with Darwin.

This argument need be no more complicated than that.
Teach the prevailing theories, especially while none of them are even formally "theories."
 
So, why debate ID vs evolution? Because many people would like you to think that it is good science and should be taught in public school.

Which is exactly why you don't teach it in school. As a faith based belief, teach it at home or in church, but you have to keep it out of school.

ID is not faith based. In fact, it can be argued that Darwinism is based more in faith then ID (just not faith in a religion). What you are doing is perpetuating a mischaracterization.

We managed to remove creationism being taught in schools, and now, this is a way to wheedle faith based ideology back into school curriculum.

No. ID is not the same as creationism. The fact that you are equating the two only shows that you don't understand what ID is. Maybe you should stop getting your information about ID from sources that are hostile to ID (secondary sources), but instead, read the proponents of ID (primary sources) to find out what ID truly is and is not. Though, given your past here, I suspect you would only skim those sources for something you could use to spin ID to fit your preconceived notions of what ID is (rationalization). :rolleyes:

It is why shag won't answer the 'why even look at ID if we aren't looking at modern day humans as a desired end result.' It ties in directly with 'created in His own image' and other faith based decrees. There is no need to look at 'then a miracle occurred' steps in science, unless you want to introduce divinity.

You are implying that there is an assumption of the supernatural in ID. There is none. ID makes no assumptions concerning the supernatural either way. You are functioning under a false premise due to a mischaracterization of ID that you seem to have bought into.

The burden of proof is on you here to show that ID somehow assumes God or a supernatural being (as opposed to simply allowing for the possibility). All you have been able to provide thus far is fallacious "proof by assertion" arguments based on nothing more then conjecture from the name of the theory.

Simply because a scientific theory doesn't explicitly reject the supernatural doesn't mean that it subscribes to those views. Allowing for the possibility doesn't mean that the theory assumes the possibility as truth. You are making a huge logical leap.


Yes, now he is a parole officer. He used to be a pastor. "Retired" is a nicer way of putting it. Basically, politics inside the church caused certain key people in the Church to stab my dad in the back. We, as a family did not want him to get back into the ministry after that. This (among other factors) eventually lead to my parents divorce. I have no love for the church. Is it somehow relevant?
 
And Foss, your father was a Catholic - wasn't he - and a scholar on the subject I do believe... Odd... he went from atheist to catholic - but, that wouldn't work, catholics aren't christian... atheist to catholic to christian, maybe... sounds rather circular to me.
I can see how it would sound circular to the ignorant and uninformed.

Tsk tsk, fox, you shouldn't make stupid assumptions.

He went from Catholic to atheist to Christian. That was all in high school. He's remained a Christian, completely apart from Catholicism, for the last 40 years. His own Catholic family has rejected him. They will tell you that there is a difference between what he believes and what they believe.

Nice try, but you FAIL again. As though any of it is your business. :rolleyes:

Did you have an argument that was relevant to the topic?
 
Actually, I am the son of a retired pastor. I have a very good idea of what does and does not go on in Churches and what you are perpetuating with that video is nothing more then slander and demonization of Christians. The video even admits as much at the very beginning of the video when it says, "This video isn't to demonize Christianity, only these so called 'Christians'!"

That's the least-slandering video i've seen so far though. It's purely a documentary about evangelicals.. Throughout the vid, they dont "attack" them at all (the parts i've seen, latter part of 2/3rds). At the end, there's a segment where the woman pictured is interviewed, and is confronted about 'brainwashing' the kids.

But, for the most part, the leader of a megachurch of evangelicals, gives some stats/info on the church itself.
I can see how it would sound circular to the ignorant and uninformed.

Tsk tsk, fox, you shouldn't make stupid assumptions.

He went from Catholic to atheist to Christian. That was all in high school. He's remained a Christian, completely apart from Catholicism, for the last 40 years. His own Catholic family has rejected him. They will tell you that there is a difference between what he believes and what they believe.

Nice try, but you FAIL again. As though any of it is your business. :rolleyes:

Did you have an argument that was relevant to the topic?

If he doesn't make it into heaven, would that deter any of your heavenly bliss? Not that it's any of my business, just wondering.
 
Your point was that during a 4 minute segment on the O'Reilly fact, Dawkin's didn't have enough to time to adequately present his argument debunking God?
No, i said "He didn't have a chance to present an argument". And, believe it or not, that's exactly what i meant.
There countless, recognized, and respected theologians and writers who would love to have the opportunity to debate Dawkin's in a public forum, yet he rarely makes himself available. A 4:51 minute segment on the O'Reilly factor isn't a challenging or thought provoking forum. Dawkin's avoided a debate of substance by appearing on that show, as you demonstrated with that video.

Dawkins has recently rejected another invitation to debate Dinesh D'Souza.
And, as noted before, D'Souza isn't a theologian or a religious leader. And that's one of the reasons people are reluctant to debate him. The fact is, most preachers or rabbis or educated laypeople aren't experienced at debate and are often easily out matched.

Here's Dawkins and Ben Stein:
And in it- Dawkin's recognizes that intelligent design is a viable possibility.
YouTube - Expelled: Stein's Interview with Dawkins
It's a false preconceived notion, that dawkins is actually the leader of the "atheist belief structure", or whatever it's called. He just speaks on things that interest us.

Before looking for "theories" that were "proven wrong", make sure you
understand what a (scientific) theory is, because a scientific theory is
more specific than the colloquial use of the word theory as "a guess".
A scientific theory is:
"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;
an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety
of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena."
So for an explanation to pass the test of being a "scientific theory" it
must meet a higher standard of rigor and generality than "my guess". First:
Scientific theories are seldom, if ever, "right" or "wrong" in an absolute
sense. Second: One has to be careful about tossing the term "proven" around
loosely. What does "proven" mean? By its definition a scientific theory is
"organized", "generally accepted", and "widely applicable". However, a
"scientific theory" explains or applies to a "specific set of phenomena".

Theories aren't fact. But, they're god damn close.
 
Let's walk through this logic.
ID says that there is a principle of design.
Darwinian Evolution says that it's entirely random.

Which one is faith based exactly?
The better question is- which one isn't.
Random... you just can't wrap your head around random

We are random.

You get in a car accident. A random event. Unless you are look at it in reverse.

If only you hadn't left 20 minutes early. If only you hadn't stopped for a donut 3 blocks off the freeway. If only the donut hadn't fallen onto the floor. If only you hadn't bent over the shift knob to reach for the donut. If only you hadn't bumped the shifter into reverse. If, you weren't confused by your odd position being bent over the gear shift knob, so you pressed on the gas instead of the brake, hurling your car backwards into a Mack truck.

Then it looks like it was designed, how else could all those events occur in exactly that sequence? That is what is wrong with ID. You are taking the final result - and working backwards - therefore the event no longer looks 'random.' However, if you start at the beginning - the events are obviously random. Just as the events leading up to the accident - they are a series of unrelated events, no 'designer' decided to imprint you with a need for a jelly filled donut.

Cal - that is why random works in science - there is good science behind random - there is no good science behind Intelligent Designer... Science deals with random events all the time, it makes up the fabric of the universe. Science rarely leads credence to 'some outside force that we don't really understand, but has this big plan in mind that leads us to humans as we are designed today'.

How long ago was the atom just a theory... not that long ago.... However, the science leading up proving the existence of the atom was 'sound'. Just like the science leading up to evolution is sound, unlike the 'science' behind ID. There isn't good science behind ID.

No. ID is not the same as creationism. The fact that you are equating the two only shows that you don't understand what ID is.

Shag - I didn't say that ID was creationism -
Note - this is what I said...

We managed to remove creationism being taught in schools, and now, this is a way to wheedle faith based ideology back into school curriculum.

It is faith based. Underneath ID is a dirty little secret - it isn't about aliens directing the creation of humankind, it is about a divine entity - it is a way to get 'God' reintroduced into the fabric of our 'being'. As creationism obviously became more and more a quaint story that explained our origins and as a way to tie us to a 'maker' there was a need to create another way to tie our creation to some sort of divine plan. Then there was the incarnation of 'short earth,' but good dating systems laid that fable to rest. Now we have ID rising out of the ashes of the myths that have gone on before. What will be the next fantasy?

Nice try, but you FAIL again. As though any of it is your business. :rolleyes:

This (among other factors) eventually lead to my parents divorce. I have no love for the church. Is it somehow relevant?

And I just find it interesting - family history - why people end up the way they are - random events, leading to where they are today - and shaping how they view life. How they have evolved. And the fact that viewpoints regarding faith are very much related to personal history.
 
That's the least-slandering video i've seen so far though. It's purely a documentary about evangelicals.. Throughout the vid, they dont "attack" them at all (the parts i've seen, latter part of 2/3rds). At the end, there's a segment where the woman pictured is interviewed, and is confronted about 'brainwashing' the kids.

But, for the most part, the leader of a megachurch of evangelicals, gives some stats/info on the church itself.

If it is aimed only at those in that particular church and/or involved in that particular camp that is one thing. But if it is going further to say something about all Christians, or even all evangelicals that is something else. I read the little blurb which I quoted from beginning of the film as talking about all Christians. Maybe I misread it...
 
Random... you just can't wrap your head around random

We are random.

Well, it is clear that someone is basing their views on faith...

That is what is wrong with ID. You are taking the final result - and working backwards - therefore the event no longer looks 'random.' However, if you start at the beginning - the events are obviously random.

You are, again perpetuating this obvious lie about ID; that is has some sort of different perspective then Darwinism. You have yet to be able to offer anything more then conjecture and spin to back this claim up. Sorry, conjecture doesn't prove your claim. All it demonstrates is that you have your own preconceived notions about ID that are not based in reality and that you refuse to reconsider those notions in the face of evidence to the contrary. That is called prejudice.

This is something that you constantly do and it is really frustrating!! There is no chance for an honest and straightforward debate because you are only interested in rationalizing your ill-conceived notions in the face of facts and arguments offered to counter it. This leads to you constantly obfuscating and making blatantly dishonest and deceitful arguments to marginalize and/or neutralize those "inconvenient" facts and/or arguments.

Shag - I didn't say that ID was creationism -
Note - this is what I said...

We managed to remove creationism being taught in schools, and now, this is a way to wheedle faith based ideology back into school curriculum.

I said you were equating the two, which you clearly were and which mischaracterizes ID.

It is faith based. Underneath ID is a dirty little secret - it isn't about aliens directing the creation of humankind, it is about a divine entity - it is a way to get 'God' reintroduced into the fabric of our 'being'.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or simply conjecture in an attempt to rationalize your obvious prejudice? You are making assumptions with no logical basis in any facts.

ID is no more an attempt to "reintroduce God" then Darwinism is meant to promote Atheism.

As creationism obviously became more and more a quaint story that explained our origins and as a way to tie us to a 'maker' there was a need to create another way to tie our creation to some sort of divine plan. Then there was the incarnation of 'short earth,' but good dating systems laid that fable to rest. Now we have ID rising out of the ashes of the myths that have gone on before. What will be the next fantasy?
Apparently conjecture is all you have...

It is abundantly clear that there can be no honest debate with you on this subject. Any disagreement with you on this is ultimately a waste of time because of your lack of honesty and your notorious obtuseness. There is no point in discussing this with you. :Bang
 
Then it looks like it was designed, how else could all those events occur in exactly that sequence?
Actually, that isn't the argument.
It's been stated, restated, sourced, linked, and referenced countless times in these threads. If you haven't even acknowledged it after all of that, it hardly seems worth the effort to restate it now.

Nor do we need an additional voice in the volley.
Take it up with Shag.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top