|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2006 : 23:21:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
You do not remember your college astronomy prof correctly, or he was wrong. Stars cannot synthesize heavier elements than Iron in their core. It's the supernova that produces all heavier elements.
That means that relatively common elements (to us) like Nickel, Copper, Zink, Selenium, and Tin, are produced by supernovas. |
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. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 00:37:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
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.
You do not remember your college astronomy prof correctly, or he was wrong. Stars cannot synthesize heavier elements than Iron in their core. It's the supernova that produces all heavier elements.
That means that relatively common elements (to us) like Nickel, Copper, Zink, Selenium, and Tin, are produced by supernovas.
Okay, it has been a few years... I also remember him saying the "ingredients necessary for life" can all form this way--maybe with the help of a supernova.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 00:44:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Right, as opposed to fake scientists.
Yes, there are unfortunately some people that claim to be scientists but they don't do any science. A few of them have been mentioned here by others.
Real scientist have no problem with unanswered questions. Searching for answers is what they do for a living. When there are no more questions to answer in a field of science, that field will be dead. quote:
quote:
With these questions we have left evolutionary biology and moved on into fields like chemistry and geology, which I don't really think that Dawkins is into (but other scientists are).
But yet Dawkins feels he knows enough about them to conclude that, statistically speaking at least, there is no god?
Yes. Because of the principle of parsimony or Ockham's razor.
Dawkins might not be a chemist an earth scientist or a cosmologist, but his ideas and suggestions are open for people of those fields to examine. Do you now of any scientific objections from those fields? If so lets hear them.quote:
He has yet to even explain the existence of the primordial soup, where life may have arose, for Pete's sake.
What is it that you need to have explained about it? Why do you need this explanation to come from Richard Dawkins? quote:
quote:
You can also note that we are going towards less and less complex structures as we move backwards in time.
Introducing a super-complex designer entity at the beginning is not logical.
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?
As other have pointed out Dawkins is not from Harward. I'm sure that as an evolutionary biologist professor Dawkins know a lot of those fields as well as of abiogenesis
Why would you claim that he lacks knowledge?
Dawkins talks and writes of what is probable and reasonable and avoids "definitive claims". For those you have to go to the Intelligent Design creationists and other creationists. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 00:46:39 [Permalink]
|
RE: "When there are no more questions to answer in a field of science, that field will be dead."
There will always be the question of Why there aren't any questions left? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Jumbo
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 03:49:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You do not remember your college astronomy prof correctly, or he was wrong. Stars cannot synthesize heavier elements than Iron in their core. It's the supernova that produces all heavier elements.
That means that relatively common elements (to us) like Nickel, Copper, Zink, Selenium, and Tin, are produced by supernovas.
Thats not quite the case. Elements higher than Iron could be synthesised in a star its just that it doesnt happen all that much as the fusion reaction above that point takes in energy rather than emitting it which leads to the star not sustaining such a reaction long. You are right in that virtually all of the higher elements are generated from supernovae.
Its interesting that science always tries to uncover where each step in the chain came from even when this inquiry spans several disciplines. The primoridal soup gets well into the field of chemistry then where that came from rapidly becomes astronomy which in turn becomes cosmology etc. The theological argument doesnt bother it decides certain things are forever out of reach ,or simply doesnt bother to ask the questions in the first place, and claims 'god did it' to many mysteries without inquiry. It rarely bothers presenting anything other than critiscism of actual theories rather than providing support for its own hypothesis.
|
The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be lighted |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 08:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
From The God Delusion...
"The origin of life is a flourishing, if speculative, subject for research. The expertise required for it is chemistry and it is not mine. ...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!"
The words I bolded above, can you please explain its appearance in the quote? I don't have access to the book. |
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. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 11:14:37 [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?
quote:
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.
But yet you, with the same lack of infinite knowledge, can proclaim with certainty, based on odds, that God does not exist? All while you have no clue where the warm little pond came from?
quote:
Are you suggesting that the investigation into how life on Earth happened should not be pursued? Otherwise, what's your gripe?
I am suggesting that one should not acknowledge that they have finite knowledge, and in the next breath make a truth claim based on odds.
quote:
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…
What evidence?
quote:
Show me some evidence for God, how about?
I was asking questions on Doctor Dawkins. Why does everyone, by default, ask me to prove the existence of God when I ask these questions?
Bill: Dawkins says this, what do you say?
Skeptic: Prove God Bill.
|
"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 11/22/2006 11:28:23 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 11:16:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
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.
Your silly little rant has been noted. I ask questions about high priest Dawkins and you fly off the handle in a rant against God. Do you all do this? You actually prove yourself to be the little man here with your elementary grade school playground bully tactics. Your rage is dually noted. Chill out dude. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 11:18:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(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.
quote:
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
I see your point, Dave. I should have been more specific and said, a spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance, by chemicals that may, or may not, have held an eternal existence?
|
"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 11/22/2006 11:36:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 11:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I see your point, Dave. I should have been more specific and said, a spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance, by chemicals that may, or may not, have held an eternal existence?
No, no chemicals have "held" any sort of "eternal existence."
But even so, how do you intend to debunk "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 11:58:46 [Permalink]
|
Bill said:
quote:
But yet you, with the same lack of infinite knowledge, can proclaim with certainty, based on odds, that God does not exist? All while you have no clue where the warm little pond came from?
What does how life on this planet originated from have to do with god's existence? Unless your god is the god of creationism, and your god cannot exist unless creationism is true...
The default position I/we take is that there is no evidence for the existence of god. As soon as someone (maybe you?) provides some evidence, then I/we can re-examine our position.
But if we assume (for argument's sake) that god does exist, life still could have originated any number of ways other than what some mystics wrote several thousand years ago.
We still evolved from a common ancestor, and god could have created the system to allow this to happen.
But this is not theory, as it is not falsifiable. It is religion or philosophy, and has no place in a scientific discussion.
Your strawman is that abiogenesis is the "proof" that there is no god, and you attack abiogenesis. If you can show enough "holes" in abiogenesis, then "god did it."
Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain how life started on this planet. That is all. It is in its infancy as a research topic.
The fact that life evolved on this planet does not have any impact on the exiestence of a god(s).
The lack of any proof of the existence does.
Exactly how life evolved is what is being researched.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 11/22/2006 12:03:03 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 13:03:56 [Permalink]
|
I have an objection to the use of the terms Random, and Chance when referring to the emergence of Life.
It's not religion, but a reasonable hypothesis.
The chemical reactions that eventually lead to life wasn't purely random, but follows logical steps of increasing chemical complexity.
While the direction and speed of any single atom or molecule is random, they are but a microscopic part of a huge system.
Let's examine an example:
We have a container. Within the container there are a few billion gas molecules. Any single molecule at any given point in time is travelling in a random direction. Regardless of the molecule's direction, it also independently has a speed that is random but representing an instance in a bell curve.
If you take the vector of the molecule's momentum, and add it with another molecule's momentum, the two molecule's total momentum might be higher or it might be significantly lower because they cancel themselves out.
However, if we extend the measurement to more molecules, even the entire system, the sum of all the molecules momentum will be zero, especially over a period of time.
Statistically there will be as many molecules travelling right, as there are travelling left.
If you examine a space in the container with a volume only a percent of the original size, there will still be so many molecules adding to the sum that the net result will be zero. The density throughout the container will be constant.
That was the point of this?
It was to show that even though individual entities behave randomly, the net result of a large system is everything but random.
Let's go back to the "Primordial soup (on planet Earth)". Bill do you understand what we and scientists mean when we use that term? Its immediate origin? Your seemingly semi-rhetorical questions about it makes me believe that you don't, but I'd like you to either confirm or infirm (refute?) my suspicion.
Chemical reactions are not purely random. There are strict physical laws that govern how atoms may react and interact with each other. That makes the formation of molecules not-random.
If you take a glass of water from a spring, river, or the sea, and disregard impurities like salt and minerals and other pollutions, what you have in the glass is not only H2O.
You will also have a small amount of HO- and H3O+. The net mass will equal out to H2O when we view the glass as the large system.
If you burn methane in air, you don't get just water and carbon dioxide. The energy from the reaction will cause other molecules to form too. The chemical reactions can go both ways. If you have carbon oxide and water and apply energy, you get Carbonic Acid.
An electrical arc through air can combine Nitrogen and Oxygen into Nitrous Oxide. Add a water molecule, and you can get Nitric Acid...
If you blend other chemicals into the mix, like water, Methane, Hydrogen gas and Ammonia too, they don't just break down to its simplest combinations... Add a little energy, perhaps from some ionising UV light, or some electricity from a static discharge, and a more complex molecule will be able to form, more than just Carbonic acid or Nitric acid.
This is what the Urey-Miller experiment was partly about. It showed that from simple chemical molecules that was present on Earth after its formation could produce amino acids.
And most laymen recognise "amino acids" as something crucial for life, or at least intimately connected to living.
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution can produce adenine, which is one of the nucleotides that makes up DNA.
Because there are billions of billions of molecules just in the head of a pin, or the smallest drop of liquid you can see, we don't have to rely of random, pure chance, for complex molecules to form. The laws of nature says they can. And since they can, it will only be a matter of time before it happens. Given enough time, it will be inevitable. Once a very large molecule gets the chemical combination that allows it to self-replicate, copies of it will produce even more copies (as long as there are raw materials present).
It does not require religious belief to understand that. Only basic education in sciences like chemistry and physics. The beauty of it is: all the components are already here for us, knowledge of the basic building blocks of chemistry and how they can combine, and physics - the laws on how energy interacts with matter. Many random events in a huge system becomes a clear and significant statistical outfall, even if the probability is low on a molecular level.
There is no need to involve or invoke any supernatural entity.
Even if we don't have any specifics, that's what abiogenesis scientists are working on, it should be obvious that a naturalistic abiogenesis is highly plausible.
(Edited to add the word 'gas' and some bolding for clarification.) |
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/22/2006 13:16:00 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 13:19:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your silly little rant has been noted. I ask questions about high priest Dawkins and you fly off the handle in a rant against God. Do you all do this? You actually prove yourself to be the little man here with your elementary grade school playground bully tactics. Your rage is dually noted. Chill out dude.
All of this was in response to this:
quote:
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds?
written by YOU. YOU wrote about the god hypothesis and a reply was given as to why it is dismissed.
I'm not sure if you were addressing me or GeeMack, but I see no evidence of rage (I can only speak for myself when I say that there was definitely no rage). So, I'll have to echo your own sentiment - chill out, dude. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 15:41:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Your silly little rant has been noted. I ask questions about high priest Dawkins and you fly off the handle in a rant against God. Do you all do this? You actually prove yourself to be the little man here with your elementary grade school playground bully tactics. Your rage is dually noted. Chill out dude.
I was pointing out how you get a greater opportunity to demonstrate that your fantasy being was responsible for the origin of life than one might get if they proposed muliticomplexialdimensions or sdfh34yohdflhga as being the cause of the origin of life. If you think my commentary was a rant against your god, you're a lot less capable of effective reading comprehension and/or a lot more insecure about your silly superstition than you had previously let on.
There is evidence that chance chemical interactions and known principals of physics offer legitimate possibilities as the cause of the beginning of life. Your failure to understand this, even after the many times it has been explained, is apparently due to some willful ignorance on your part. On the flip side, there is no evidence to show that your bogeyman even exists except in your imagination, yet you seem to believe he/she/it was the creator of life. When you can bring some evidence to the table to support that notion, it will have some merit. Until then, it's a fantasy, a dream, a delusion. That's just the way it is, Bill, and the sooner you understand that the sooner you'll actually be able to make some intellectual headway on the issue.
Oh, and Bill, your reference to Dawkins as a high priest is just another blatant example of your misrepresentation (attempting to make a straw man) of the issue. Nobody here has said anything to that effect. Of course you realize that continuing to misrepresent the comments of people here and the concepts of abiogenesis, however warm and fuzzy you might feel about it, makes you a liar. Doesn't your sky daddy have something to say about that being a sin or something?
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 16:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Bill. Thanks to your insightful questioning I have finally seen the light. No more just-so stories about physics, chemistry, evidence, logic, and crap like that for me. No, your explanation makes so much more sense.
The Great Googly-Woogly just poofed the Earth into existence 6000 years ago. So what if he made day and night before the sun and the moon. So what if he made plants before the sun. Photosythesis is just another just-so story. He works in mysterious ways, right?
He made a man out of dirt, complete with reproductive organs, but nobody to use them with! What a sense of humor the big guy has! After he got a laugh out of that little joke, he made a woman from the man's rib! He could have made the woman out of the dirt, just like the man, but practicing surgery was so much more fun. Then the dumb bitch eats the wrong apple! All those bananas and she has to go eat the apple. Fer chrissakes, what was she thinking? And for that, the Great Googly-Woogly was pissed at everybody for thousands of years. At one point he killed all but eight of them with a really big flood. And just to fuck with those who would come after, he left absolutely no evidence that the flood ever happened.
The the GG-W messed around with his chosen people for a while, getting one of them to believe he should kill his own kid, turning one of them into salt, fun stuff like that. All the while ignoring great masses of the population, like the Chinese. But hey, fuck them, they weren't chosen.
Then one day he decides to visit, but in the disguise of being his son, and having a virgin give birth to him! Cool trick. Then he gets the crap beat out of himself and has himself killed to make up for the apple affair. Sure it's completely nonsensical and convoluted as all hell, but hey, it's his universe, he can do whatever he wants.
And the best part is, all you have to do is believe this story and you get to spend eternity in the universe's best hangout! And those who don't believe? That's right, fuck 'em. Unimaginable torture for eternity! Serves them right.
Yes Bill, this is so much more believable than "science". Thank you so much! |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
