Freethinker Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodHey pal, what do you take us for? Neverdowells who spend their free time discussing religion in a science forum? Duh! Got more important things to do!Hey, if we could stick to discussing ACTUAL science here, and not keep getting Christers that think fallacies prove things, we wouldn't have to spend so much time going over them all the time. (Like updating the FAQ with the links).Just use the last one. Many of the others actually reference it as the source THEY use. Figures, a Freethought Atheist site is the one that promotes rational thought processes the most. Who wouldda guessed? :-)
Freethinker Posted August 16, 2004 Report Posted August 16, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHDok FT, at this point you're nitpicking. he did answer you on several points, you are just unable to accept his answers. OK show us ANY answers, whether I accepted them or not. Show us where he provided support 1) for Abiogenesis fitting into the defintion of religion he provided 2) for exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis 3) for What can't be measured in HUP? 4) for the biblical sections that explain ANY of the established laws of physics that would provide the ability to design and build something. You are incapable of giving up an argument even when you've painted yourself into a corner;So by asking repeatedly for specific answers when none are given *I* am painting MYSELF into a corner? Interesting concept! Bogus but interesting. Your ask for proof, yet you fail to define acceptible guidelines for said proof;What is so complicated about:Originally posted by: FreethinkerPlease show us (how) Abiogenesis fits even the remaining definitions.that needs ADDITIONAL guidelines? HE gave the definitions. HE made the claim that they fit without supporting it. Where do you fail to follow that HE did not provide an answer to the specific question? Or when he posted:Originally posted by: nemoI tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could and verify their numbers. (they) inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.without a single one of the claimed "improbable circumstances for abiogenesis" and I askedOriginally posted by: FreethinkerSuch as?and never got ANY reply, *I* needed to provide additional guidelines? explain your question better than just railing on whatever they say, it's seems childish and is unproductive.So your idea of ME being childish and unproductive is that YOU thought he actually provided an answer when none can be found? Interesting. Perhaps the only way you two can comprehend a direct question is if it is detailed to the nth degree? Let me try to help you two. Nemo, you specifically posted:Originally posted by: nemoI tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could and verify their numbers. (they) inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.But you failed to supply ANY of the "improbable circumstances for abiogenesis" you mention. Could you please provide one, two or more of the "improbable circumstances for abiogenesis" you specifcally claim were "introduce exponentially" at the "most supportive Abiogenesis site" you found? There GAHD, can you follow it now?
GAHD Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 Of course none of the sites explaining abiogenesis would show the "improbable circumstances for abiogenesis", they were written to prove it's absolute certainty. Papers, especially scientific papers are written to convince others that you have uncovered the end all truth. THe flaws are never presented, or are ridiculed when the theory is put in place. now you did say; there is plenty of evidence to support abiogenesis, especially when compared to any alternative. Yet you yourself failed to implicitly indicate this proof, or provide quotes specific to the argument at the time. from the FAQ; 4. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant On the order of proof, abiogenisis has no proof, has the absolute spontanious formation of a cellular structure been observed? I'd relly like to see you find proof of that. I could go farther, but I'll stop so you can concentrate soly on this and so there are less hairs to split.I would venture one of the main problems is the disscection of posts rather than consistent flowing set of paragraphs. Your posts have many self inclusive points thus blunting the overal concepts you try to convey. Rather than making a solid point of your own, you simply say "your idea isn't good enough" and venture no counter proposal. Hippopotamus milk is pink, and I dare you to proove otherwise!
Freethinker Posted August 17, 2004 Report Posted August 17, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHDOf course none of the sites explaining abiogenesis would show the "improbable circumstances for abiogenesis", they were written to prove it's absolute certainty. Papers, especially scientific papers are written to convince others that you have uncovered the end all truth. THe flaws are never presented, or are ridiculed when the theory is put in place. now you did say; there is plenty of evidence to support abiogenesis, especially when compared to any alternative. Yet you yourself failed to implicitly indicate this proof, or provide quotes specific to the argument at the time. Interesting. You are desperately trying to change the subject and make it an attack against me, rather than proving your previous claims as asked. Before you drag us off on some arbitrary tangent, let's get back to where you are trying to get us away from. Specifcally, you attacked me previously for supposedly not accepting amswers that were given to me. Originally posted by: GAHDok FT, at this point you're nitpicking. he did answer you on several points, you are just unable to accept his answers. So I asked you to show us all these answers I had so blatantly ignored!Originally posted by: FreethinkerOK show us ANY answers, whether I accepted them or not. Show us where he provided support 2) for exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesisAnd naturally you would not walk away from a request to prove your claims now would you? So we'll all give you another chance to reply rather than fake it and try to drag the discussion in some other direction. Originally posted by: FreethinkerOK show us ANY answers, whether I accepted them or not. Show us where he provided support 1) for Abiogenesis fitting into the defintion of religion he provided 2) for exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis 3) for What can't be measured in HUP? 4) for the biblical sections that explain ANY of the established laws of physics that would provide the ability to design and build something. Well?
nemo Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Probability vs. Faith This is the clearest definition of why I joined this site. FT, your explanation of probability in the context of historical analysis resulting in logical conclusions as opposed to my previous belief that probability addresses future tense and therefore is not a measurable object was well supported and logical. Your example of radioactive decay was an effective illustration that was well received – based upon this logic; I drop my argument with HUP.
nemo Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Bifurcation Guilty as charged. When looking for the answer to a question such as “what was the origin of life on Earth?” I expect to eventually find one correct / true answer; if this answer is a compilation of multiple theories, it is still one answer. Is this not what we are looking for?
nemo Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Abiogenesis vs. alternatives I have questions about the mathematics involved with abiogenesis because it appears logical. The idea that simple chemicals could react to each other in such a way that would eventually produce bacteria is not out of the realm of possibility. My question was on the level of complexity involved with the mathematics – specifically the process defined within the website I provided a hyperlink to on the first page of this thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/faq/abioprob/abioprob.html). When FT asked what more improbable circumstances this site introduced while explaining abiogenesis, I embedded an image from the previously listed site that depicted the issue I had questions about, and asked for help understanding it. I additionally posted my thoughts and question regarding the potential locations that abiogenesis would have taken place. The response to this was that I was lying because primordial life exists at the bottom of the ocean and that Creationists can’t understand that things change after 1600 years. At this point, I am admittedly confused about the topic of my alleged lies. Am I to understand that the fact that primordial life at the bottom of the ocean indicates that the complete chain of events comprising abiogenesis is alive and well or that it was alive and well before some event in the fifth century? A second response to the image embedded within this thread attempts to find fault with an apparent attempt to refute abiogenesis sight unseen. The actual point of the image, as stated on the website referenced and within my question was that the process of refuting the process on the left involved numerous additional steps depicted in the process on the right. If you are not willing to take the time to understand the question being asked, I don’t see the point in answering. --Edited to correct a formatting error
nemo Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 My knowledge of the Bible I am not a Bible scholar; I do, however, do my homework. The fact that I kept my mouth shut while you reveled in the glory of your own intelligence should be an indication that one of us has studied Socrates, not that you are the unfortunate victim of an inconsistency in your pattern of pushing around people who don’t question you. Do you honestly believe that the mention of violence, taken out of context, indicates the endorsement of the violence under any circumstance? How did you make it through your homeowner’s insurance policy? You claim to have been attacked because I read the verses surrounding your chosen selections, and paraphrased them in my post. Was this supposed to be a secret? You were correct in stating that the Bible does speak about killing women, as does our legal system – in the context that the women in question have been found guilty of a capital crime. Would you read that to say that the United States indiscriminately supports the execution of women without cause? “But I am very well versed on the bible and its history. Much more than most, Christians included.” Well said. The verse you quote: Mathew 5:18 – “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” – reinforces the importance of the transition from Mosaic to Messianic Law. For people who are curious but not nearly as well versed in Scripture as FT, the crucifixion of Jesus signified the release of humanity from the Ten Commandments and introduced salvation through a spiritual rebirth in Christ. Anyone looking for clarification on the verse FT mentioned would also do well to take a look at the verse immediately preceding it – “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Apparently there is still no replacement for actually reading and understanding the material you intend to discuss.
nemo Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Freethinker’s List Abiogenesis as a religion – apparently we’re still looking for proof of ardor and faith. Among Merriam-Webster’s many definitions of faith is: “something that is believed with especially strong conviction”. Using the same source, the definition of ardor is “extreme vigor and energy”. FT’s collection of caps and exclamation marks make this point far better than I ever could. Questions with the theory of abiogenesis – asked once and ignored; asked twice and probably should have been ignored. Measurements and HUP – you’ve made your point and I agree with you. Barrier voltages – The problem with making things up in a forum like this is that the original text is there for everyone to read. I did not bring up barrier voltages; you did (08/10/2004 09:58 PM). You later insinuated that I was trying to prove science through the study of the Bible. The only time I have mentioned Scripture outside of participating in FT’s Bible study was to provide background for my claim that the best method for answering scientific questions might not be whining about the Bible. The insinuations are logical though – asking someone to prove faith generally results in the endless listing and explanation of discussion topics to someone with no intent to learn in the first place. FT, you’ve already demonstrated your unwillingness to read even one verse in front of what you are willing to quote. At this point I’m curious as to whether you are even the source of the verses you are quoting, or if you are just repeating something you stumbled across on a website somewhere – that would explain your inability to provide or understand the context of your posts and your eagerness to change the subject to electronics inside a religion thread. I admitted my ignorance of electronics and will do so again if it will make you feel better. I’ve not seen a hook baited that well outside of “Field and Stream”, but I don’t have the attention span to make up for the lack of available entertainment in Wisconsin. Turnabout – I’m a Christian intentionally looking for alternatives to my beliefs in an attempt to be objective, while using anti-Christian sites as references for questions. You are an atheist more concerned with Christianity than researching your own responses and you’re recommendation Tormod for the FAQ is “just use the last one” – The Atheism Web. Keep talking… I’m predictable – Hi pot, I'm kettle. FT, two words of advice: avoid poker. My opinion of science – you’re right, I don’t like science. That’s why I’m posting on Hypography, repeating questions about abiogenesis and HUP, and asking for alternatives to Biblical beliefs. You might consider removing the straws from your drinks before grasping at them – pool halls generally overcharge for their drinks; no point in spilling them.
Freethinker Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Originally posted by: nemoProbability vs. Faith – based upon this logic; I drop my argument with HUP. Nemo you have gained more admiration in my eyes than most of the posters I have run into in my entire period in cyberspace. Perhaps partially because you now agree with me! :-) But more seriously, beacuse you reviewed information presented and made a rational decision to change your views. IF I didn't already own the Freethinker nic here, you would deserve it. I hope you plan on sticking around and help us all explore new information on various topics!
Freethinker Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Originally posted by: nemoBifurcation Guilty as charged. When looking for the answer to a question such as “what was the origin of life on Earth?” I expect to eventually find one correct / true answer; if this answer is a compilation of multiple theories, it is still one answer. Is this not what we are looking for?Yes we are ultimately looking for the most accurate "correct/ true answer" But pretending there are only two options when there are significantly more is not the correct way to approach it. That is why it is a Fallacy.
Freethinker Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Originally posted by: nemoAbiogenesis vs. alternatives My question was on the level of complexity involved with the mathematics – specifically the process defined within the website I provided a hyperlink to on the first page of this thread (http://www.talkorigins.org/faq/abioprob/abioprob.html). When FT asked what more improbable circumstances this site introduced while explaining abiogenesis, I embedded an image from the previously listed site that depicted the issue I had questions about, and asked for help understanding it.OK, what you ACTUALLY posted wasOriginally posted by: nemoI tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could and verify their numbers. (they) inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.My reply questioned your statement of:inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesisThis would indicate it introduced SIGNIFICANTLY MORE reasons NOT to accept than to accept. So I askedOriginally posted by: FreethinkerSuch as?But you did not showexponentially more improbable circumstancesONE image, which included requirement of Abiogenesis for BOTH explanations does not come close to reolving this statement. The response to this was that I was lying because primordial life exists at the bottom of the oceanThis again is a matter of YOUR not following what YOUR original post was along with not following the specifics of my reponse.1) My comment was that the CLAIM was a lie, as opposed to my stating that YOU were a liar. There IS a difference. A statement can be a lie without the person that repeats it being a LIAR. The person is a LIAR if they KNOW it is a lie and still repeat it.Originally posted by: FreethinkerYet we now know this is a LIE. Submersibles HAVE gone to the deepest depths.. 2)the discussion was NOT about :the potential locations that abiogenesis would have taken place. It was very specifically about:Originally posted by: nemosince abiogenesis was proposed as a potential origin of life on this planet, submersibles have explored black smokers extensively and have found no 'soup'.some claim that in order for abiogenesis to be accept, some primordial soup has to still exist somehwere on earth. THAT IS A LIE! Do you see the differences here? and that Creationists can’t understand that things change after 1600 years.Christian Creationism IS based on a 1600 year old book. To accept a literal biblical creationism requires ignoring all the contradictory facts we have found over those 1600 years. At this point, I am admittedly confused about the topic of my alleged lies. Am I to understand that the fact that primordial life at the bottom of the ocean indicates that the complete chain of events comprising abiogenesis is alive and well or that it was alive and well before some event in the fifth century? I hope this clears it up.A second response to the image embedded within this thread attempts to find fault with an apparent attempt to refute abiogenesis sight unseen.Again. READ WHAT I POSTED. And think about what YOU actually posted. DETAILS. You posted a chart. The chart had two columns. BOTH
Freethinker Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Originally posted by: nemoMy knowledge of the Bible I am not a Bible scholar; I do, however, do my homework.Yet I was the one that had to provide the biblical passages that you were unaware of. Challenging ME to prove that what I stated was in the bible, WAS in the bible. Rather than doing your own homework.The fact that I kept my mouth shut while you reveled in the glory of your own intelligence should be an indication that one of us has studied Socrates, Well since I did, it must be ME? The Socratic Didactic is based on presenting a series of assertions, getting consensus on them, then presenting the foregone conclussion. That is exactly what I do. not that you are the unfortunate victim of an inconsistency in your pattern of pushing around people who don’t question you.Not only consistant, but intentional. I had openly admitted many times to "When in Rome...". Do you honestly believe that the mention of violence, taken out of context, indicates the endorsement of the violence under any circumstance?Show us ANY biblical passage I presented which promotes violence that was "taken out of context".You claim to have been attacked because I read the verses surrounding your chosen selections, and paraphrased them in my post.No, once more you missed the entire discussion, even though you were included. What I responded to, by claiming to be attacked, was because you were trying to change the topic from WHETHER the bible said what it did, to WHY it said what it did. Originally posted by: FreethinkerSuddenly my providing exactly what was asked for is attacked. Not because the passage did not say what I claimed it said, but because of some OUTSIDE reason. The discuss was NEVER *WHY* the bible supports smashing babies heads. It was whether it DID or not.What you responded with had nothing to do with my first statement about the bible promoting smashing babies heads or killing women. Nor with the literal wording of what is ACTUALLY in the bible. I PROVED my original assertion. What you wanted to do is make excuses for WHY it is in there. You need to learn to stay on topic and follow what is ACTUALLY written. Was this supposed to be a secret? You were correct in stating that the Bible does speak about killing women, as does our legal systemRED HERRING ALERT!in the context that the women in question have been found guilty of a capital crime. Would you read that to say that the United States indiscriminately supports the execution of women without cause? Suddenly the bible is OK because some states in the US have Capital Punishment! You need to learn to stay on topic and follow what is ACTUALLY written. The verse you quote: Mathew 5:18 – “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” – reinforces the importance of the transition from Mosaic to Messianic Law.Notice how nemo takes what is ACTUALLY written in the bible and tries to make it say something else? We have seen the same thing in virtually every part of our discussions so far. I say this, you pretend I said that. I prove this, you claim the topic was that. Show us all ANYWHERE in that passage or the surrounding, that the bible's Jesus is stating a TRANSITION from one set of laws to another. ANYWHERE! In fact it says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! Mathew 5:18-21 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
Freethinker Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 Perhaps I spoke too soon about your abilities. Originally posted by: nemoFreethinker’s List Abiogenesis as a religion – apparently we’re still looking for proof of ardor and faith. Among Merriam-Webster’s many definitions of faith is: “something that is believed with especially strong conviction”. Using the same source, the definition of ardor is “extreme vigor and energy”. FT’s collection of caps and exclamation marks make this point far better than I ever could.RED HERRING ALERT! Suddenly the discussion becomes "Why abiogenesis is a religion for Freethinker." In going back thru all the posts on this thread, with the exception of your acknowledging a new understanding of HUP and uncertainty, you have yet to answer ANY question or provide ANY proof. The above is typical of your replies. All you have shown us so far is a complete inability to carry on an intellectually honest discussion. You ignore direct questions and requests for proof. Instead we get any number of empty meaningless fallacies. Originally posted by: nemoIdentifiable Traits of Christianity Thank you.Those traits include passing along lies uncritically, promoting that humans are inherently bad, ignoring facts if they contradict your antiquated superstitions, unable to handle an intellectual discussion by using fallacies and ignoring requests for factual proof instead, disavowing others that call themselves Christians as being Christian, selectively read the bible, changing what you do read in the bible to what you want it to say rather than what it ACTUALLY says, not even having the honesty (or memory?) to admit to what you yourself previously posted... You have consistantly shown yourself to be a Christian. Barrier voltages – The problem with making things up in a forum like this is that the original text is there for everyone to read. I did not bring up barrier voltages; you did (08/10/2004 09:58 PM). You later insinuated that I was trying to prove science through the study of the Bible. As you have not been able to follow anything so far, I don't hold out hope for this one either. Your posts are just like "Intellegent Design". You think that by not using the words bible or Jesus your agenda is hidden. The FACT that I identified your Christian stance from simple (minded) clues you have in your posts shows that agenda. You are attacking Abiogenesis. Now let's see, there are basically two common views held regarding the existence of life, it either came out of nature (Abiogenesis) or was created by some other entity (Creation). Or as a 3rd option, that life has ALWAYS existed. You have stated objection to a natural explaination (Abiogenesis) and have not suggested life being infinite. That leaves an outside agent (Creation). There are many forms of extra-natural Creation. We can narrow the choices down by your own admission. Add to this your original promotion of Abiogenesis as being held by FAITH as if a RELIGION and the brainwashing source jumps right out. So my question is valid. If you are going to claim some form of biblical Creation, you need to show that your refernce source can serve as a source of technical and technically correct information. Or you can show that I am all wet. You can clearly state right now for everyone here that you do not accept the biblical Creation in any way. Let's see if you can actually answer a question without hiding behind fallacies, obfuscations, sophistry, ... Do you reject biblical Creation or any type and accept a completely natural Abiogenesis? Well?The insinuations are logical though – asking someone to prove faith generally results in the endless listing and explanation of discussion topics to someone with no intent to learn in the first place.<
GAHD Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 FT, yourarguments might be a litte easyer to follow if you kept the quotes to the bottom of your posts, referred to in numberical order. the fragmented replies honestly make it difficult for me to understand precisely what you are trying to say.
Freethinker Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Hmmmm, I have intentionally interspersed my replies to follow the specific comments I am replying to. How would batching the quotes together at the bottom help provide the specific reference for my specific reply? I will be happy to modify my style in which ever way is most clear and concise.
IrishEyes Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 FreeT,If you'd be so kind as to clear up the following...??? 08/10/2004 10:09 PM - nemo Abiogenesis fits into the religion category of religion on the basis of the second definition I provided. * A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith As the only alternative to “In the beginning...” (I find it mildly annoying when people confuse evolution with the origin of life) I would think this would be a textbook example of a secular religion, or perhaps an anti-religion? 08/11/2004 12:58 AM - FreeTYou start with the Argument Fallacy of Bifurcation. Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.. You want to claim that either we either accept Abiogenesis or the BIBLICAL Creation has to be true. There are many many other possible explanations. 08/18/2004 01:01 PM - FreeTYes we are ultimately looking for the most accurate "correct/ true answer" But pretending there are only two options when there are significantly more is not the correct way to approach it. That is why it is a Fallacy. 08/18/2004 06:25 PM - FreeTYou are attacking Abiogenesis. Now let's see, there are basically two common views held regarding the existence of life, it either came out of nature (Abiogenesis) or was created by some other entity (Creation). Or as a 3rd option, that life has ALWAYS existed. You have stated objection to a natural explaination (Abiogenesis) and have not suggested life being infinite. That leaves an outside agent (Creation). There are many forms of extra-natural Creation. We can narrow the choices down by your own admission. Add to this your original promotion of Abiogenesis as being held by FAITH as if a RELIGION and the brainwashing source jumps right out. Can you please explain to me which of these is your actual opinion? Do you believe that "either we either accept Abiogenesis or the BIBLICAL Creation has to be true. There are many many other possible explanations" OR "that there are basically two common views held regarding the existence of life...Or as a 3rd option..."??? Either there are MANY MANY views, "signifigantly more" than two, as you first claimed, or there are THREE views, as you later claim. Or are you Bifurcating? Gosh, I just LOVE that word, don't you?? Or is THREE many, many, signifigantly more than two? Help me out here, please!!
Recommended Posts