|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2006 : 15:45:01 [Permalink]
|
B S said:
quote:
Now if your question in reality is, HOW DID GOD DO IT?, then this would be even more evidence of your confusion as you would be asking the finite, who has limited knowledge, to explain and speak for the infinite, who has unlimited knowledge, and this is a logical absurdity.
So, in essence, you admit that humans can't speak for god. Good.
Do you fail to understand that all of your knowledge about god is obtained from humans?
In this sentence you condem your entire worldview to the realm of "logical absurdity". Glad you finally realized it and are able to admit it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 18:33:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill:
Could? Yes. Did? No.
Me:
Literalists are a pain in the ass. Even as theologians debate how Genesis should be interpreted, these guys know. And with the Truth in hand they have set out to debunk any and all evidence that suggests that their interpretation may be incorrect. Scientifically, they put the cart before the horse, which is antithetical to science. Theologically they make their belief in God an either or thing even as many other Christians choose to see the quest for knowledge and workings of God in the very science that people like Bill are threatened by. God must be force fit into the very narrowest literal view. In doing that, they are basically saying that they know the mind of God. And they proudly march out onto that limb, defenders of the faith…
Bill:
Non-sense. I have just stated numerous times that, as a finite entity, it would be impossible for me to know the mind of an infinite God.
God's Word, not Bill's word, declares that death was not introduced into the creation until after the fall while Darwinian evolutionary theory states that death existed for millions and millions of years before man was even on the scene, so therefore death is not a result of man's sin. Obviously, these two view points are diametrically opposed and that the Jedeo-Christian God did not create using evolution as the mechanism but instead created man rather then evolved him.
I see. So you just can't see any other way to interpret Genesis. You can't imagine that God just might have intended the story as a parable. Or that God might have chosen the moment that man was, well…man. It wouldn't occur to you that when Genesis was written down, evolution was so far from any possible human understanding that it wasn't worth mentioning at the time. You read the words and that's that. Simple…
Well Bill, your not alone. Galileo had to face people like you. The flat earth society still exists, though I believe it is as a joke now. And then there are the creationists. Whatever. Your kind has a long history. And in the end, your kind tends to come around.
I'm sorry you lack so much faith in yourself that you think you will loose sight of God if you actually use the equipment that God gave you…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 18:57:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
God's Word, not Bill's word, declares that death was not introduced into the creation until after the fall...
In the afternoon he sat in the compound breaking ore samples with a hammer, the feldspar rich in red oxide of copper and native nuggets in whose organic lobations he purported to read news of the earth's origins, holding an extemporary lecture in geology to a small gathering who nodded and spat. A few would quote him scripture to confound his ordering up of eons out of the ancient chaos and other apostate supposings. The judge smiled.
Books lie, he said.
God don't lie.
No, said the judge. He does not. And these are his words.
He held up a chunk of rock.
He speaks in stones and trees, the bones of things.
--Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, p. 116
Bill, god's words aren't found in the bible. If they exist at all, they must be found in his creation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 02:42:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I mean heck, you guys could not even agree amongst yourselves on the atmospheric issue. Keep his calculations in... No get rid of them... No they are valid.... No they are not... And this was just one of an infinite amount of conditions that you would be assuming on.
The reason some of calculations were off, like the thinning of the atmosphere, is that the good doctor who wrote the piece did not know everything. We cannot assume that someone know everything. Even you can realise that, Bill.
What happened is that you saw Peer Reviev in action. Just like in a real scienctific report. A couple of us noticed a flawed assumption within the writing, then examined it, debated its significance, provided corrections, and integrated it into the report in our forum. The result is a more accurate description of the conditions.
This is the essance of science. |
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 03:42:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I mean heck, you guys could not even agree amongst yourselves on the atmospheric issue. Keep his calculations in... No get rid of them... No they are valid.... No they are not... And this was just one of an infinite amount of conditions that you would be assuming on.
The reason some of calculations were off, like the thinning of the atmosphere, is that the good doctor who wrote the piece did not know everything. We cannot assume that someone know everything. Even you can realise that, Bill.
What happened is that you saw Peer Reviev in action. Just like in a real scienctific report. A couple of us noticed a flawed assumption within the writing, then examined it, debated its significance, provided corrections, and integrated it into the report in our forum. The result is a more accurate description of the conditions.
This is the essance of science.
Indeed.... 
quote:
I mean heck, you guys could not even agree amongst yourselves on the atmospheric issue. Keep his calculations in... No get rid of them... No they are valid.... No they are not... And this was just one of an infinite amount of conditions that you would be assuming on.
As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, science is nothing but questions, some answered, some yet to be answered, and others that will never be answered but that won't stop the asking. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
It must be comforting to be a religious fundamentalist. No questions; only answers. And if some of those answers might seem a little, let us be kind and say: "far out," then all is neatly explained by "God done it; end of story! Further examination is neither required nor desirable."
It has always struck me as a sort of intellectual quadriplegia. The fundie mind lives, breathes, and speaks, but there is no motion.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/26/2006 03:45:16 |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 18:39:24 [Permalink]
|
I have returned from a brief respite from this website to dig my way out from under the pile of school work I had to do.
And now we are back to the Abiogenisis thing. I thought Bill would stop spouting off about this after he refused to post on the thread I started about it. Was all that referenced material and explicit images too much for you?
I haven't finished reading this thread, but I would like to point something out.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
An article on the AAAS's Website throws new light upon the difficult abiogenesis issue, which has been touched upon in these foraMicrobe Gives Clues to Origin of Life
By Betsy Mason
ScienceNOW Daily News
19 May 2006
One of the most vexing questions facing biologists is how life on Earth first emerged.
quote:
Now, research on a methane-producing microbe has led to a novel theory that could breathe new life into the field and help two opposing theories find common ground.
(bill) Where did the methane-producing microbe come from?
quote:
On a simple level, the origin-of-life debate comes down to a question of how the first complex molecules came to be. The so-called heterotrophic hypothesis says that life arose from an organic soup of small molecules that were either brought to Earth by extraterrestrial objects
(bill) Where did the organic soup of small molecules come from? Where did the Earth come from that was the giant bowl for the primordial soup? Where did the extraterrestrial objects come from? Where did outer space come from?
quote:
or were produced through lightning-triggered reactions that combined gasses.
(bill) Where did this lightning and gases come from?
quote:
Life originated when these smaller molecules assembled into larger molecules such as RNA and proteins
(bill) Is Betsy stating this as fact of theory?
quote:
On the other hand, the chemoautotrophic hypothesis posits that iron sulfide reactions released hydrogen, which combined with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form organic compounds. These in turn gave rise to more complex molecules.
(bill) Where did the iron sulfide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide come from?
quote:
While the theory doesn't completely resolve the origin-of-life debate,
(bill) To say the least...
|
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 20:24:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Naturalist: These oranges in the fruit section originated from Brazil.
Bill: Your assumption is that there is no infinite god with infinite powers. The origin from Brazil hypothesis doesn't account for the creation of matter from nothing.
No Hawk. Brazil was not the creator of the fruit that we call orange. Your story only explains where those partical oranges that you are pointing to were grown, as the OJ I drink all comes from Florida oranges. Your story says nothing on the origins of the fruit known as the orange, only that the particular oranges you pointed to were grown in Brazil.
(Where did I ever imply that Brazil created oranges?)
You cannot come to the conclusion that oranges come from Brazil or that your OJ comes from Florida using your own logic. You are here assuming that there is no infinite god with infinite powers. This god can do things that finite minds cannot comprehend. You of all people should know this. But this was not really the point of my post. The point of any scientific theory is to explain only what it set out to explain. Therefore, if it tries to explain abiogenesis, it does not have to explain creation ex nihilo, nuclear fusion or yetis. It only has to explain abiogenesis.
quote:
quote:
And to begin the origin from Brazil story with the existence of Brazil and oranges would also be a fairytale.
Only if your implying that Brazil is the origin of all oranges, and the orange it's very self, which it is not.
No, Brazil would not have to be the origins of all oragnes. How did you come to that conclusion? You may list a set of premises and a conclusion if this helps clarifying things.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 19:21:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Because at the rate man is going the sun will long be burned up by the time they come out with their final abiogenesis report...
What "final" abiogenesis report? There will be no such thing, just like there's never been a "final" physics report or a "final" evolution report. Science constantly requestions old ideas to glean new information.
Besides which, as has been pointed out to you, the article in the OP wasn't an abiogenesis report. It is scientific conjecture, and every scientist reading it would know that.
Of course, you can't be expected to accurately portray information that doesn't fit into your "worldview," simply because to do so would give some other worldview more than zero respect. Instead, you've got to lie and depict what is obviously a "maybe story" as a definitive "just-so story," since to otherwise let it go without comment would be anathema to you, wouldn't it, Bill?
And I note that whenever someone points out your hypocrisy of decrying "just-so" stories while embracing the ultimate "just-so" story of "god did it," you go quiet.quote:
He created reality so directing reality is not a problem, for God.
No, it just means that free will is an illusion, because God is directing and "sustaining" (your word, Bill) everything, including my thoughts and yours.quote:
I agree with the fact that I can not chase down God and put him in a full nelson and call you to come over and look at him to prove his existence. Here we agree. However, I have found the evidence for God, the Judeo-Christian God, to be so overwhelming that it dwarfs any evidence, if there is any, that "no God did it." And that is where we disagree.
No, Bill, you're completely wrong about that. The disagreement is that you insist that your God did everything exactly as is written in the Bible, while some of us would be more than happy to find evidence for an actual god who (for example) created the universe, let it run for a while, and then "tweaked" evolution so that some primate would lead to us. In other words, the disagreement is between your literal interpretation of scripture, and every other possible deity (or lack thereof). It's not god versus no-god, it's Bill's personal idea of god versus every other god concept which has existed or will ever exist.quote:
God's Word, not Bill's word, declares that death was not introduced into the creation until after the fall while Darwinian evolutionary theory states that death existed for millions and millions of years before man was even on the scene, so therefore death is not a result of man's sin. Obviously, these two view points are diametrically opposed and that the Jedeo-Christian God did not create using evolution as the mechanism but instead created man rather then evolved him.
That's not the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, but instead Bill's personal viewpoint. Unless Bill wants to claim that Catholics, Jews and "liberal" Protestants aren't Judeo-Christians. While many may not pray to the same "god" as you do, can you honestly claim that (for example) a Methodist evolutionary biologist is not a Christian? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 20:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. propounded: quote:
What "final" abiogenesis report? There will be no such thing, just like there's never been a "final" physics report or a "final" evolution report. Science constantly requestions old ideas to glean new information.
Exactly!
Bill, not only is science constantly refining, or even revolutionizing, its world-view in light of evidence, this process is built into the social and economic dynamics of the scientific community.
How does a scientist make his or her name? The best way is to tear a new asshole in some other poor scientific schmuck's butt by proving that the schmuck's theory was baloney. Showing up previous errors utterly delights scientists. Disprove an accepted theory, and your career will suddenly go ballistic. Have your accepted theory disproven, and you're dead meat.
Just imagine the rewards that would go to any scientist who could prove, for instance, that Darwin was full of shit! If there were any such proof, some scientist would have scragged old Charles by now, gotten a Nobel, and be living high on the hog, lecturing and publishing books about his triumph.
That's an overriding dynamic of science as a human industry. Scientists could not, and would not, ever be able to conspire to sustain a false theory, because one of them (actually, almost all of them) would break ranks and go for their own personal gold.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 22:26:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Scientists could not, and would not, ever be able to conspire to sustain a false theory, because one of them (actually, almost all of them) would break ranks and go for their own personal gold.
Of course, Bill just finds facts like that to be inconvenient obstacles to be hurdled on his way to Heaven. Of course, if Bill is correct, I think that God is going to have a rather unpleasant surprise in store for him, seeing as how Bill refuses to obey the Commandment against lying about other people, thus breaking Jesus' Commandment about loving your neighbor as Jesus loved everyone (John 15:12).
Or, maybe Bill just has great contempt for himself, per Jesus' Commandment in Matthew 22:39. After all, working the Golden Rule in reverse, Bill treats us as he wishes to be treated: with utter disregard (and disrespect) for facts which don't fit his agenda. Of course, if such is the case, then Bill should hardly be surprised that - in his mind - people have "handwaved" away the "evidence" for the ressurection presented by historians and lawyers. Bill is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill hypocritical fundamentalist, lying for Jesus in spite of Jesus (Luke 6:39-49). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 05:39:41 [Permalink]
|
Why do I do this......? Apart from liking to research (now that computers have made it so easy), I really don't know. Anyhow.... Listen up, Bill, verlch, Compassion, and anyone else who makes silly statements without knowing what the hell they're talking about. Here's an example of a very brief look-around the like of which could make you appear much less like an ass: Oranges did not originate in Brazil nor anywhere else in the Americas. Do you want to know the history of oranges? Then dig this, after which open the link that I have so generously provided: quote:
Citrus fruits as a class are native to southeastern Asia-eastern India, Indo-China, southern China, the Philippines-and in these areas they were first brought under cultivation. The sweet orange had been grown for many centuries in China and had apparently reached an advanced stage of cultivation before it became known to europeans. A somewhat difference but not contrary view is that of Walter T. Swingle who says the genus Citrus is the "culmination of a very long period of progressive evolution that certainly began before Australia was cut off from land connection with New Guinea and Asia, probably more than 20 million years ago. The genus Microcitrus, closely related to Citrus, occurs both in southern New Guinea (1 species) and in northeastern Australia. A related genus, Eremocitrus, originated in Australia. The genus (Citrus) may have originated in the New Guinea-Melanesia region, but its evolution into many different species took place chiefly on the mainland of southeastern Asia. In fact, it is only there that the most highly developed species of Citrus may be considered as indigenous.
Are there any questions concerning the value of research? No? THEN GO AND DO SOME!! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/28/2006 05:49:11 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 12:20:19 [Permalink]
|
OK, this is probably pointless, but could the existence of inert, or apparently inert, bio-structures which retain the capacity to 'come to life' - like prions, viruses, spores, and seeds - be a route to open a mind closed to the possibility of abiogenesis? (I don't mean Bill - I don't hope to get through a Bible-thickened skull... )
None of these was the/a first unit of life - that requires a source of energy (actually, a way to store energy) and a mechanism to make more of itself. Spores and seeds have their metabolic and reproductive machinery, just need the right circumstances to 'come to life' (OK, a misnomer, they were in a state of metabolic suspension not a-biosis). Prions and viruses have some features of life, but have to coopt a host's machinery & energy stores & building blocks to reproduce.
Just wondering whether using the imagery of something known which is apparently inert coming to life might be useful in trying to explain abiogenesis to those who haven't already totally closed their minds to the possibility but have trouble picturing it...if there is anyone like that.  |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 14:40:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zebra
OK, this is probably pointless, but could the existence of inert, or apparently inert, bio-structures which retain the capacity to 'come to life' - like prions, viruses, spores, and seeds - be a route to open a mind closed to the possibility of abiogenesis? (I don't mean Bill - I don't hope to get through a Bible-thickened skull...)
None of these was the/a first unit of life - that requires a source of energy (actually, a way to store energy) and a mechanism to make more of itself. Spores and seeds have their metabolic and reproductive machinery, just need the right circumstances to 'come to life' (OK, a misnomer, they were in a state of metabolic suspension not a-biosis). Prions and viruses have some features of life, but have to coopt a host's machinery & energy stores & building blocks to reproduce.
Just wondering whether using the imagery of something known which is apparently inert coming to life might be useful in trying to explain abiogenesis to those who haven't already totally closed their minds to the possibility but have trouble picturing it...if there is anyone like that.
In fact, I'm pretty sure we can assume a "yes" on that. We have a fairly large community of lurkers inactive users, some of them members who never post, to reach. Much of what I write is aimed in their direction -- I too, realized a long time ago that I'd never let any light into the musty Carlsbad of a fundamentalist mind. It is filled with myth and legend, and there is simply no room for anything else, however strong the factual and theoretical evidence might be. The same is true for the psychic believers, UFO dingbats, and other, wishful dreamers.
But, it's sometimes fun to play tag with them around the boards and "tag" is a good way to pass on your thoughts to our invisible audience. Whether we reach them or not must, of course, remain conjecture because we rarely see them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 16:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
...our invisible audience. Whether we reach them or not must, of course, remain conjecture because we rarely see them.
Hmmm. Now my tag line (below) seems less appropriate...  |
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2006 : 18:53:39 [Permalink]
|
kil (Edit: that should have been "Dave W.") remarked:quote:
And I note that whenever someone points out your hypocrisy of decrying "just-so" stories while embracing the ultimate "just-so" story of "god did it," you go quiet.
Indeed. Fresh from back tarring Bush for using Hitler's "Big Lie" technique, I'd like to impugn the YEC's for employing "doublethink," a concept of mental gymnastics defined in George Orwell's novel, 1984 as:quote:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/28/2006 19:21:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
