|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2006 : 14:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill scott:
So what odds does the Harvard Doctor put on abiogenesis vs. the god hypothesis and how did he come to this conclusion?
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist. All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Where is any evidence that God exists? Faith? So there really isn't any empirical and falsifiable evidence for God?
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 15:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
1. Where did the primeval soup come from?
2. Where did these first molecules come from?
3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?
Those are good questions and question like that are what real scientists work with.
Right, as opposed to fake scientists.
As opposed to fake scientists like Kent Hovind, Jonathan Sarfati, Bill Dembski, Michael Behe? Absolutely! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 16:03:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. Where did the primeval soup come from?
2. Where did these first molecules come from?
3. Where did the inorganic crystals-minerals and little bits of clay come from?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
But yet Dawkins feels he knows enough about them to conclude that, statistically speaking at least, there is no god? He has yet to even explain the existence of the primordial soup, where life may have arose, for Pete's sake.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
And excepting a just-so story from a Harvard professor, who lacks knowledge of chemistry, geology and cosmology, who makes definitive claims of knowing that life arose by chance, is somehow not ill-logical?
Bill scott, for a discussion of Creation/Evolution, I refer you to that forum. There are many good topics which discuss these exact questions.
For information about Richard Dawkins, I refer you to his web page (which actually points you to another Oxford webpage, but that's ok). Turns out that Dawkins is English, which explains his manner of speech; also, he is an Oxford scientist (not Harvard, which you seemed to assume). His science background means that he's most likely in possession of a sufficient "knowledge of chemistry, geology and cosmology" to explain these things to laymen. You somehow failed to spend the 0.26 seconds it takes Google to tell you these things. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 16:40:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill scott:
So what odds does the Harvard Doctor put on abiogenesis vs. the god hypothesis and how did he come to this conclusion?
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist. All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Where is any evidence that God exists? Faith? So there really isn't any empirical and falsifiable evidence for God?
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that.
quote:
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist.
Do these chemicals have an eternal existence, or was there a point in time when they began to exist?
quote:
All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Is that so? Did all these BB have an eternal existence, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
quote:
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that.
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds? This is not science and Dawkins shows his preconceived bias thinking by making the definitive claim that life HAS arose by chance when he has no authority to do so. “Odds” is all he is basing this on, not science. And his “odds” on top of it.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 16:48:22 [Permalink]
|
Well, Bill's MO hasn't changed much.
Instead of providing any proof for his "theory", he would rather attempt to poke holes in others. Especially when there isn't even a theory, just speculation.
Without any evidence for a creator (or "First Cause" as Bill is not so subtly suggesting), other explanations are being pursued. Is there any hard data yet? No. Is anyone saying that this is THE WAY(tm) that it happened? No.
But Bill likes his straw men...
Bill, provide your proof for a "first cause". We would not want to dismiss/accept your hypothesis without adequate examination. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 11/21/2006 16:50:18 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 16:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill scott:
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds?
Ummmmm no. Based on some actual evidence… Show me some evidence for God, how about?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 16:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
For information about Richard Dawkins, I refer you to his web page
Oh sure, but where did that page come from?
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
(which actually points you to another Oxford webpage, but that's ok). Turns out that Dawkins is English, which explains his manner of speech; also, he is an Oxford scientist (not Harvard, which you seemed to assume).
So it's just self referential eternal URL's now is it? How is that more probable than the eternal webmaster?
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
His science background means that he's most likely in possession of a sufficient "knowledge of chemistry, geology and cosmology" to explain these things to laymen.
Aha! So you admit that Dr Dawkins isn't a qualified web designer. Where does he get off making comments about one thing without having exhaustive explanations for every possible process which may have contributed in some way to having arrived at those conclusions?
[reality]Actually, My wife just bought me "The God Delusion" for my birthday. I'm really looking forward to it. Now I just need time to read it.[/reality]
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 17:05:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds?
No, abiogenesis is not an empirical fact - the empirical facts are that molecules exist today and that living things consist of molecules. In order for life as we know it to have started, molecules must have existed. Given that there is no evidence of supernatural events, we explain the emergence of life from those molecules through natural abiogenesis (highly simplified).
The god hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence that there is a god. The muliticomplexialdimensional hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence of muliticomplexialdimensions. The sdfh34yohdflhga hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence of sdfh34yohdflhga. (Or rather than being rejected, they are never considered in the first place) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 20:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Well, Bill's MO hasn't changed much.
Instead of providing any proof for his "theory", he would rather attempt to poke holes in others. Especially when there isn't even a theory, just speculation.
Without any evidence for a creator (or "First Cause" as Bill is not so subtly suggesting), other explanations are being pursued. Is there any hard data yet? No. Is anyone saying that this is THE WAY(tm) that it happened? No.
But Bill likes his straw men...
Bill, provide your proof for a "first cause". We would not want to dismiss/accept your hypothesis without adequate examination.
quote:
Well, Bill's MO hasn't changed much.
Nothing new has been offered.
quote:
Instead of providing any proof for his "theory",
Provide proof for my theory? So, now in order to debunk abiogenesis I will need to prove the existence of a creator as well? So I guess that would mean that you have to empirically prove abiogenesis, while disproving a creator exists, which I have been told is imposable.
quote:
he would rather attempt to poke holes in others.
Dawkins claims that, "spontaneous chances created life, once", and you don't expect someone to examine that claim and not come away with some questions, do you?
quote:
Especially when there isn't even a theory, just speculation.
But yet Dawkins admits that,
quote:
“the origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine”
and then makes the truth claim that chance has created life,
quote:
". ...it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening [by chance] is, and always was, exceedingly low--although it did happen once!"
but yet can't back this up.
quote:
Without any evidence for a creator (or "First Cause" as Bill is not so subtly suggesting),
So where did the warm little pond originate from?
quote:
other explanations are being pursued.
Like What?
quote:
Is there any hard data yet? No. Is anyone saying that this is THE WAY(tm) that it |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 11/21/2006 20:13:44 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 21:15:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill scott:
Dawkins claims that, "spontaneous chances created life, once", and you don't expect someone to examine that claim and not come away with some questions, do you?
But Bill, you don't have any questions that are relevant to the science involved in the investigation. All of your questions about first cause are not answerable in a scientific context. Even if they figure it out, you will still say, “God did it”. And no one will be able to prove you are wrong since that's a null hypothesis.
Are you suggesting that the investigation into how life on Earth happened should not be pursued? Otherwise, what's your gripe?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 21:21:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds? This is not science and Dawkins shows his preconceived bias thinking by making the definitive claim that life HAS arose by chance when he has no authority to do so. "Odds" is all he is basing this on, not science. And his "odds" on top of it.
If it weren't for your seemingly desperate effort to maintain a dependence on your bogeyman, and your apparent inability to be an independent, autonomous human being, you'd actually be hilarious, Bill. But you're not. You're just pathetic. Your continued effort to misrepresent the general, scientifically accepted concept of abiogenesis (build a straw man) will never increase the likelihood that your bogeyman waved its mighty hand and poofed life into existence. And it won't reduce what is currently accepted by science as the probability that life came about by a chance combination of chemistry, naturally occurring stimuli, and scientifically testable principles of physics. What it will do, as it has so many times in the past, is demonstrate your willful ignorance and provide evidence that you're simply incapable of understanding science.
Now what would give some weight to your magical being fantasy is some evidence of its existence and/or its participation in the creation of life. And so far you've been unable to provide any.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks...
The god hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence that there is a god. The muliticomplexialdimensional hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence of muliticomplexialdimensions. The sdfh34yohdflhga hypothesis is rejected because there is no evidence of sdfh34yohdflhga. (Or rather than being rejected, they are never considered in the first place)
Actually, when it comes to postulating a starting point for life, in many cases Bill's god is probably given some consideration in the first place, because of religion's place in our culture. But in very short order, when it is again acknowledged that there is no evidence to support the existence of such a being, then it is rejected right along with muliticomplexialdimensions and sdfh34yohdflhga. So there you go, Bill. Your magical bogeyman actually gets a leg up on muliticomplexialdimensions and sdfh34yohdflhga, without a shred more evidence of its existence. You've been given a handicap, a head start. Take advantage of it, little man. The scientific community might just be willing to hear you out. All you have to do to keep their attention is bring on some evidence, any evidence that your mythical invisible being might have been responsible for the creation of life.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 21:24:02 [Permalink]
|
(No log-in required link to the story in the OP.)quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So, now in order to debunk abiogenesis...
How do you intend to "debunk abiogenesis?" All it consists of now is a bunch of plausible possibilities. To "debunk" any of the competing hypotheses, you'll have to show that they are exceedingly unlikely.quote:
and then makes the truth claim that chance has created life,quote:
". ...it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening [by chance] is, and always was, exceedingly low--although it did happen once!"
but yet can't back this up.
Thanks to ergo, we have a missing referent. Based on what I know of Dawkins, the "it" in "although it did happen once" probably refers to abiogenesis all by itself, and not "abiogenesis by random chance." We won't know unless/until someone fills in the elision that ergo stuck in there (I haven't read the book).
But even the Book of Genesis claims that abiogenesis occured - over the course of a few days, due to the actions of God. And current cosmological evidence points to a time when the conditions for life did not exist (everything too hot), but now life undoubtedly exists. So no matter which view you take, YEC, OEC, theistic evolution or fully scientific (just listing the popular ones), abiogenesis is a part of the story, period. The only argument is over how it occured, not whether it occured. To boldly try to "debunk abiogenesis" is therefore to claim that the Bible is false. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 21:59:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill scott:
So what odds does the Harvard Doctor put on abiogenesis vs. the god hypothesis and how did he come to this conclusion?
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist. All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Where is any evidence that God exists? Faith? So there really isn't any empirical and falsifiable evidence for God?
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that.
Exactly. And starting with hydrogen and enough heat (like what is present in and/or around a star), all the elements up through gold (if I remember my college astronomy prof) can occur on their own, so to speak. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 22:03:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill scott:
So what odds does the Harvard Doctor put on abiogenesis vs. the god hypothesis and how did he come to this conclusion?
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist. All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Where is any evidence that God exists? Faith? So there really isn't any empirical and falsifiable evidence for God?
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that.
quote:
Well Bill, look at it this way. We know that chemicals exist.
Do these chemicals have an eternal existence, or was there a point in time when they began to exist?
quote:
All the building blocks of life actually exist on our planet and did so 4 billion years ago.
Is that so? Did all these BB have an eternal existence, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
quote:
That fact alone gives abiogeneses the better odds. You don't have to be an expert in every area of science to see that.
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds? This is not science and Dawkins shows his preconceived bias thinking by making the definitive claim that life HAS arose by chance when he has no authority to do so. “Odds” is all he is basing this on, not science. And his “odds” on top of it.
I haven't finished his book yet, but so far he hasn't "trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact." |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2006 : 22:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill scott:
Dawkins claims that, "spontaneous chances created life, once", and you don't expect someone to examine that claim and not come away with some questions, do you?
But Bill, you don't have any questions that are relevant to the science involved in the investigation. All of your questions about first cause are not answerable in a scientific context. Even if they figure it out, you will still say, “God did it”. And no one will be able to prove you are wrong since that's a null hypothesis.
Are you suggesting that the investigation into how life on Earth happened should not be pursued? Otherwise, what's your gripe?
And besides, Bill, the potential evidence for the "spontaneous chances created life, once" hypothesis are not only in front of your nose--they are your nose. There is no evidence for the god hypothesis--potential or otherwise. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
