The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Squeedily Spooch · 04-11-2014 2:53am

JC is all chuckles daily that "nobody" can refute Dembski's claims, someone manages it, then:

Coincidence? Or aliens?

J C · 04-11-2014 9:17pm

I now wish to respond to oldrnwisr's very substantive response to my posting.

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your 'tour de force' presentation of the latest cutting edge research being undertaken into possible pre-cursors to life.

Secondly, I would also like to compliment you on presenting your evidence in a courteous and civil manner.

Thirdly, because your post is quite extensive and covers comments on both ID and the latest research on abiogenesis, I propose to divide your comments into two posts in my reply.
My first post deals with your ID comments and my second post deals with your abiogenesis comments.

Part 1. ID Comments

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
This link indicates that there are approximately 10^80 fundamental particles in the Universe, with some estimates going as high a 10^85.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

oldrnwisr
You see this is one of the indicators that Dembski is not a reputable scientist. His concept of a UPB is supposed to be a safe overestimate. Yet he uses a figure which is off by as much as 5 orders of magnitude. That's a pretty big oversight.

The figure given in the link (to the Physics of the Universe website) confirms that the figure is 10^80 ... with some other estimates up to 5 orders of magnitude greater. Dr Dembski isn't responsible for this ... it is conventional science itself that has this uncertainty on this estimate.
In any event it has no practical effect on the UPB figure of 10^150, as Dr Dembski has rounded the figure off by adding on 9 orders of magnitude to put the figure beyond doubt.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
OK, so we agree on the Universal Probability Bound being at maximum 10^150.
... and Dr Dembski reached this figure, by calculation using the same scientific method and facts, as you did.

oldrnwisr
No, we don't agree. What I said was that Dembski's figure for the UPB is a reasonable estimate. That's all. There is still a lot of room either way, the figure of 10^150 is by no means a rigid maximum.

OK, so we agree that 10^150 is a reasonable estimate for the Universal Probability Bound.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Secondly, only Dembski's actual conclusion is reasonable. His premise has no solid scientific basis. There is no good reason to support his three factors as relevant or correct for calculating a UPB. Even Dembski himself has retracted the original equation for the UPB. Since 2005, Dembski now claims that the UPB is defined as the inverse of the product of :
An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history (as outlined in my last post). This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10^120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10^90 bits

The (variable) rank complexity of the event under consideration (A quantity which Dembski has never further defined making it completely arbitrary and thus useless).

That is the ratio of the event under consideration to the UPB, not the UPB itself which remains as a reasonable estimate of 10^150.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
One final note: You know when you really get down to it intelligent design isn't all that hard to understand and tear apart. It is, at its core, based on two principles: reassurance and doubt. These may seem like contradictory principles but only because one is involved in the conception of ID and the other in its propagation.
The first principle is reassurance. The concept of ID is quite simple, it provides a reassurance mechanism by explaining all the detailed natural processes above with one all sweeping cause an intelligent designer.

It proves that the Complex Specified Functional information found in all living cells could not have been produced by the simple deterministic physical and chemical processes ... but by the appliance of intelligence .
I fully accept that ‘natural’ processes are extensive and offer
adequate explanations for many aspects of living organisms.
However, there are features to life which the interaction of NS and mutatgenesis cannot explain, such as the evidence for design in nature, and the emergence of genetic information and conscious life.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Moreover this designer has created order, creating animals within distinct kinds. The thing is, we all know, that the overwhelming majority of ID supporters fall into an easily identifiable category, conservative Christians. Moreover, we also know that these people overwhelmingly tend also to be politically conservative. Now, here's where it gets interesting. In 2003 a group of researchers conducted a meta-analysis on 88 studies of political conservatism involving over 22,000 people. The analysis found that:

"A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). "

Pretty much everything on that list are things that ID offers in spades, reassurance about death (afterlife), order, uncertainty. For ID supporters and creationists, tackling the surface flaws of ID are not going to have impact because the story is so comforting. To really impact ID we have to undermine its foundation as we have done above.

ID offers objective proof of the intelligent design of life. The intelligent designer could be a long-dead Alien, for all we know ... or a Deist God who created it all and lets it run on with no interest whatsoever in the component parts, including Humans.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
The second principle above is doubt. In 1969, a now infamous and yet anonymous tobacco company executive penned a memo which has become titled "Manufacturing doubt". In it he says:

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing the controversy."

Doubt is the product sold by the ID movement. Through their "Wedge" strategy and their "Teach the Controversy" strategy they attempt to sow doubt and create a space for ID to compete with evolution because it cannot compete on facts alone.

The doubt was sown in reverse ... Evolutionism sowed doubts in the minds of people over 100 years ago that a Divine cause wasn't required to explain the observed specified complexity of life ... and the relatively basic phenomenon of NS acting on genetic diversity was conscripted to the cause and it has now become a secular religion that is attempting to become the established religion of every state on Earth.
There truly has never been so much built on so little.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Doubt is also JC's product. He never, despite his attestations to the contrary, responds to an opposing viewpoint in any meaningful way. He simply posts an answer which deals with every point but only superficially so, enough that it might sow doubt in the mind of a third party reading this thread.
Doubt is why I post and will continue to post against JC's rubbish. As MrP so excellently pointed out:

ID doesn't cast doubt on the mechanisms you have cited as precursors of life as we know it ... ID proves that only an intelligence of inordinate power could have the necessary overview and creative capacity to overcome the multiple UPB levels of non-functional combinatorial space observed between the specific functional biomolecules that are integrated into the closely co-ordinated systems observed in life.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Finally (really this time), I would like to thank everyone for their supportive messages after my last post but shoutouts in particular to lazygal and MrPudding. Thanks guys.

I'd also like to thank you as well.

J C · 04-11-2014 9:19pm

Part 2 Abiogenesis Comments

wrote:

oldrnwisr
OK, I think we're going to have to take a step back a bit here because it's clear from the passage above that you clearly don't understand what it is that is under discussion (particularly from your out of place reference to mutagenesis). So what I am going to do is go through step-by-step the mechanism by which genetic material can be formed from plausibe prebiotic compounds. I will, at each step, support my points (as usual) with reference to solid peer-reviewed science.

To begin I am going to briefly outline the steps in the sequence before going into more detail. The sequence that I am proposing is as follows:

1. A primordial earth with abundant hydrothermal activity, containing the following simple organic compounds: cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and also any inorganic phosphate.
2. The formation of activated ribonucleotides through a stepwise process to be detailed below.
3. Montmorillonite clay forms around an air bubble to create a semi-permeable cell wall.
4. Protected from the environment , ribonucleotides undergo polymerisation to form oligomers.
5. At the same time, the montmorillonite bubble acts as a catalyst by promoting the formation of a cell membrane from fatty acids.
6. As the clay cell floats about, shear and thermal stresses cause the clay to fracture releasing the protobiont into the surrounding ocean.
5. The presence of thermal vents on earth leads these protobionts to reproduce through a mechanism similar to the polymerase chain reaction.
6. Voila! Life

Only one problem with the above series it that life has never been observed to emerge from it ... so it isn't solid peer-reviewed scientific evidence for the emergence of life, whatever else it may be.
Indeed, it shows that even using the applied intelligence of Humanity and the resources of modern science, life has never been created ... nor have we even come anywhere next, nigh or near to creating it.
... so something that has never been created by Human ingenuity is proposed to have emerged from the interaction of clay bubbles with thermal vents!!!
... I think not.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Step 1 - Formation of activated ribonucleotides

This step should be the easiest for you to follow because it only involves basic chemistry. The process progresses as follows:

1. Cyanamide and glycolaldehyde form a peptide bond to produce 2-amino-oxazole.
2. 2-amino-oxazole combines with glyceraldehyde to form a pentose amino-oxazoline.
3. Pentose amino-oxazolines combine with cyanoacetylene to form anhydroarabinonucleoside.
4. Anhydroarabinonucleoside undergoes (in the presence of an inorganic phosphate) phosphorylation to become B-ribocytidine-
2',3'-cyclic phosphate (an activated ribonucleotide).

Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

I accept that some ribonucleotides can be spontaneously formed ... but this is analogous to arguing that sand can be formed spontaneously from silica and then claiming that this accounts for the specified complexity of the intelligent design on a microchip wafer.

For example, during DNA synthesis, DNA polymerases must select against ribonucleotides, which are present in much higher concentrations than deoxyribonucleotides. Without this selectivity, DNA replication couldn't accurately retain an organism's genome.
Equally, while deoxyribonucleotide monomers are relatively simple chemical compounds that polymerize to form DNA ... it is the specific order of the nucleotides within a DNA molecule that stores the information (not the nucleotides themselves) ... and that specific order isn't chemically constrained or pre-ordained ...
... and without intelligent design it would be impossible to produce the functional specified bio-molecular systems in life, every one of which have non-functional combinatorial spaces that are many multiples of the UPB.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Step 2 - Vesicle formation[/U]

The next step is the formation a montmorillonite bubble to act as a temporary cell wall. In 2011 a team from Harvard, Princeton and Brandeis universities showed experimentally that a stable, semi-permeable vesicle can form from natural montmorillonite clay around air bubbles present in the ocean.

Semi-permeable vesicles composed of natural clay

This is an important development for three reasons:

1. The montmorillonite vesicle provides a stable compartment protecting anything in the interior from external reactions.
2. Montmorillonite catalyses the polymerisation of ribonucleotides to form RNA.
3. Montmorillonite catalyses the formation of fatty-acid vesicles leading to the development of a more stable and long-lasting cell wall inside the clay wall.

With regard to the first point, the study above shows the stability of the montmorillonite cells.

Once again, I accept that clay bubbles can be spontaneously formed ... and can act as some kind of vesicle ... but this is analogous to arguing that sand can be formed spontaneously from silica and that this accounts for the specified complexity of the intelligent design on a microchip wafer.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
As for the second point, it has been demonstrated experimentally:

Oligomerization of ribonucleotides on montmorillonite: reaction of the 5'-phosphorimidazolide of adenosine

that montmorillonite catalyses the formation of oligomers from the activated ribonucleotides which we have already demonstrated above. These oligomers can reach as much as 50-mer lengths

One-Step, Regioselective Synthesis of up to 50-mers of RNA Oligomers by Montmorillonite Catalysis

These ribonucleotides can permeate the vesicle but once formed are trapped within the protocell membrane.

This is confusing raw organic chemistry ... and its limited determinism ... with the distinctly un-limited and indeterminism found in DNA and specified information of life that is stored within it.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
As for the third point, it has also been shown experimentally that montmorillonite catalyses the formation of fatty-acid vesicles.

Mineral Surface Directed Membrane Assembly

Once fatty-acid vesicle is produced the growth of the vesicle is autocatalytic which has also been demonstrated experimentally:

Autopoietic Self-Reproduction of Fatty Acid Vesicles

Once this self-sustaining reaction has begun (sustained by the attraction of nearby lipids), the growing fatty acid vesicle begins to exert an outward pressure on the montmorillonite shell. From basic materials science we know that montmorillonite being a ceramic material has good strength when in compression (hence protection from external forces) but weak in tension. As a result the growing vesicle shatters the montmorillonite shell and the resulting protobiont is free to float in the primordial ocean. So now we have a protobiont consisting of a fatty acid membrane which is permeable to monomers and small molecules but impermeable to the oligomer now trapped within.

... with significant effort and the appliance of intelligent design this has been experimentally demonstrated.
... and all we still have is a semi-permeable membrane and little else.

I'm not being critical ... this is cutting edge abiogenesis research ... but the results are, to say the least, underwhelming ... when we compare these simple structures with the inordinate specified complexity in so-called 'simple' living cells.
This isn't a reflection of the quality of the research (which is the best that is Humanly possible) ... it is indicative of the fact that life didn't come about in these ways.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
The next step in the process is the growth of the oligomer to form RNA and other more complex biological polymers.

The basic reaction sequence that is followed is similar to that used in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. We have above a mechanism for a reaction by which the oligomer inside the protobiont can form larger and more complex structures. However, what we are currently missing is something to kickstart this reaction. This is where the conditions of the early earth. Given what we know from basic geology, physics and geography, it is likely that the early Earth was populated with a vast number of hydrothermal vents.
Firstly, it has been shown that the protobionts described above are thermally stable at temperatures of up to 100 degrees:
Thermostability of model protocell membranes

At these elevated tempeatures the strands of polymer begin to denature while being trapped inside the vesicle while the vesicle itself expands allowing more monomers to cross into the cell whereby the current carries the cell away to a lower temperature where the nucleotides acquired at high temperature can bond to the denatured polymer backbone allowing for growth of the RNA. It can also lead to copying of the RNA. This is an important development. As the RNA inside the vesicle grows/copies it increases the osmotic pressure inside the cell. This causes the vesicle to attract nearby lipids at an even greater rate thus creating a larger cell. As these membranes grow they develop a tubular branched shape which can be divided by external forces such as shear stresses from thermal differentials in the ocean. Here's a nice little graphic to demonstrate what I mean.

As the authors note in the paper above:

"The strands of encapsulated double-stranded DNA can be separated by denaturation at high temperature while being retained within vesicles, implying that strand separation in primitive protocells could have been mediated by thermal fluctuations without the loss of genetic material from the protocell. At elevated temperatures, complex charged molecules such as nucleotides cross fatty-acid-based membranes very rapidly, suggesting that high temperature excursions may have facilitated nutrient uptake before the evolution of advanced membrane transporters. The thermostability of these membranes is consistent with the spontaneous replication of encapsulated nucleic acids by the alternation of template-copying chemistry at low temperature with strand-separation and nutrient uptake at high temperature. "

So now we have a cell containing RNA which is capable of growth and reproduction using only basic chemistry and relying only on thermodynamics and physical forces. We have a primitive living organism.

You don't actually. You have a series of separate intelligently designed experiments ... a lot of speculation and no actual 'primitive living organism' at the end of the process.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it there for now. Tomorrow I'll continue with the increase in complexity and the introduction of DNA as well as addressing the rest of your points. However, as we can see from above we have already gotten from a simple non-living primordial earth to a primitive cell capable of growth and reproduction with no need for chance or design.

Chance can't do it ... and neither can any non-intelligently directed process.
Here is a short video by Dr David Berlinski that addresses the serious real world evidential issues with Abiogensesis and Darwinian Theory.

Squeedily Spooch · 05-11-2014 12:35am

Good read destroying Dembki's claims here too :https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf

MrPudding · 05-11-2014 6:48am

JC proving, yet again, that his grasp of science is, for an alleged scientist, surprisingly weak. You two posts are not an effective be rebuttal to oldrnwiser's. They are, in fact, an offence to the effort he put in. Knit sure where you got you fancy science education, but it can't be that great if it left you feeling that you response was adequate.

MrP

PopePalpatine · 05-11-2014 10:43am

I wanted to bang my head off a wall when I saw that stupid "intelligently designed experiments" bull**** come up.

robindch · 05-11-2014 10:51am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

bull**** come up.

No need for that kind of language, please.

irish coldplayer · 05-11-2014 11:55am

David Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter ( right wing nutjob) on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. lol

Berlinski appeared in the 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one!

JC how can anyone take you seriously when you quote nutjobs like theses guys.

PopePalpatine · 05-11-2014 12:17pm

Ah yes, isn't that the same Ann Coulter who is beloved by the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens, and has also defended that group?

Vivisectus · 05-11-2014 1:10pm

You don't actually. You have a series of separate intelligently designed experiments ... a lot of speculation and no actual 'primitive living organism' at the end of the process.

This is essentially goalpost moving. Your original statement was that it is impossible for anything functional to occur in the way proposed by science, since this would just be too improbable. When a plausible way in which this could happen is presented, you then move the goalpost and say "But you have not created life in that way yet".

Fair enough up to a degree, but in that case is it up to you to show us an intelligent designer before we even entertain your idea: you are saying that in order for an idea to be plausible, we should first produce it in experimental circumstances. We are then entitled to hold your arguments to the same standards: at the end of all of your arguments we have a lot of speculation, and no designer anyone can detect.

MrPudding · 05-11-2014 1:46pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah yes, isn't that the same Ann Coulter who is beloved by the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens, and has also defended that group?

Having Ann Coulter on your side is a sign that you need to stop, look closely at your life and and see if you can work out where it all went wrong.

MrP

gaynorvader · 05-11-2014 3:03pm

Just wanted to make a quick note.

J C wrote: »

Part 2 Abiogenesis Comments

Only one problem with the above series it that life has never been observed to emerge from it ... so it isn't solid peer-reviewed scientific evidence for the emergence of life, whatever else it may be.
Indeed, it shows that even using the applied intelligence of Humanity and the resources of modern science, life has never been created ... nor have we even come anywhere next, nigh or near to creating it.
... so something that has never been created by Human ingenuity is proposed to have emerged from the interaction of clay bubbles with thermal vents!!!
... I think not.

By this logic sheep were not created by a god as we have successfully cloned them. Though, you'd probably claim that that doesn't count as it's copying, then I'd mention genetically modified crops, but that would be shot down because it's built on existing life, at which point I'd have to ask, what would constitute human created life?
Just because we have not reached the scientific achievement to recreate something, does not mean that thing did not exist. We cannot, for instance, create a sun, yet we can be fairly certain the sun exists. Science is more than simply looking at things, it is using what we know to build up models of predictability. We can use these models to figure out how things we can't directly observe.

Vivisectus · 05-11-2014 4:58pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

Just wanted to make a quick note.

By this logic sheep were not created by a god as we have successfully cloned them. Though, you'd probably claim that that doesn't count as it's copying, then I'd mention genetically modified crops, but that would be shot down because it's built on existing life, at which point I'd have to ask, what would constitute human created life?
Just because we have not reached the scientific achievement to recreate something, does not mean that thing did not exist. We cannot, for instance, create a sun, yet we can be fairly certain the sun exists. Science is more than simply looking at things, it is using what we know to build up models of predictability. We can use these models to figure out how things we can't directly observe.

I would go one further and object that the amount of acts of creation observed is also zero, so if we hold ID to the same standard, we cannot accept it.

J C · 05-11-2014 8:09pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

David Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter ( right wing nutjob) on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. lol

Berlinski appeared in the 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one!

JC how can anyone take you seriously when you quote nutjobs like theses guys.

Dr David Berlinski was born in the United States in 1942 to German-born Jewish refugees who had immigrated to New York City after escaping from France where the Vichy government was collaborating with the Germans.
Other family members weren't as lucky and died in the Holocaust - so he should know what the critical ingredients in Nazism were, including their manic and perverted commitment to the theory of evolution.
I think his point is fair and balanced ... that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one".
Indeed Prof Dawkins has said something similar ... that a Darwinian Society would be a thoroughly nasty one.

Dr Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the most prominent ID research establishment in America). Although a Jew by birth, he is theologically an Agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life ... so he is certainly not a 'nutjob' as you so outrageously name-called him.

As an Agnostic the A & A would be his home forum on the Boards.ie ... he is actually one of you guys ... so do you think all Agnostics are 'nutjobs' ... or just Agnostics that don't 'buy' the theory of evolution?

Please be nice ... you can make your point without resorting to such deeply prejudicial unfounded remarks about eminent intelligent people.:)

Delirium · 05-11-2014 8:55pm

what has the Nazis got to do with the validity of evolution? I thought you do science, JC?

J C · 05-11-2014 9:13pm

SW wrote: »

what has the Nazis got to do with the validity of evolution? I thought you do science, JC?

Nothing actually, the Nazis were wrong about most things, including evolution ... but in and of themselves they have nothing to do with the scientific validity or otherwise of evolution.

... the Nazi aspect was introduced by irish coldplayer in an attempt to smear David Berlinski as a 'nutjob'.

J C · 05-11-2014 9:20pm

My answers in blue below

gaynorvader wrote: »

Just wanted to make a quick note.

By this logic sheep were not created by a god as we have successfully cloned them. Though, you'd probably claim that that doesn't count as it's copying, Yes

then I'd mention genetically modified crops, but that would be shot down because it's built on existing life, Yes

at which point I'd have to ask, what would constitute human created life?
I'd settle for any life being created by Humans as proof that at least it is possible for Human Intelligence to do so.
Just because we have not reached the scientific achievement to recreate something, does not mean that thing did not exist. Nobody is arguing that life doesn't exist ... it clearly does exist ... the question is how it came into existence.

We cannot, for instance, create a sun, yet we can be fairly certain the sun exists. Science is more than simply looking at things, it is using what we know to build up models of predictability. We can use these models to figure out how things we can't directly observe.True ... and it's precisely the ability of science to reach conclusions based on indirect evidence that the research into ID (and much of the rest of science) is based on.

Pherekydes · 05-11-2014 9:21pm

J C wrote: »

the Nazi aspect was introduced by irish coldplayer in an attempt to smear David Berlinski as a 'nutjob'.

Hmmm, I thought Berlinski brought the Nazis up himself, first?

J C · 05-11-2014 11:01pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hmmm, I thought Berlinski brought the Nazis up himself, first?

In a balanced and fair manner.

Squeedily Spooch · 05-11-2014 11:23pm

Ann Coulter is a nutjob, she's basically a professional troll

J C · 05-11-2014 11:32pm

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ann Coulter is a nutjob, she's basically a professional troll

I know nothing about the lady ... but I suspect she doesn't support Evolution, to get that reaction from you guys.:)

Pherekydes · 05-11-2014 11:38pm

J C wrote: »

I know nothing about the lady ... but I suspect she doesn't support Evolution, to get that reaction from you guys.:)

You mean she doesn't understand evolution. Probably. Ergo, she is thick.

PopePalpatine · 06-11-2014 12:00am

If there were a Southern Baptist Christian ISIS, Coulter would sign up immediately. She is a bigoted scumbag.

J C · 06-11-2014 12:28am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If there were a Southern Baptist Christian ISIS, Coulter would sign up immediately. She is a bigoted scumbag.

I know nothing about the lady.
... but I do know about Prof Dean Kenyon Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, who was one of the leading proponents of biochemical evolution ... and who became a Creationist as a result of a powerful counter argument presented to him by a student.

Doctor Jimbob · 06-11-2014 1:14am

J C wrote: »

I know nothing about the lady.
... but I do know about Prof Dean Kenyon Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, who was one of the leading proponents of biochemical evolution ... and who became a Creationist as a result of a powerful counter argument presented to him by a student.

The only thing that proves is that your claims of people being shunned by the scientific community purely for being creationists are nonsense.

With that in mind, perhaps you can share your own qualifications now?

Delirium · 06-11-2014 9:39am

J C wrote: »

I know nothing about the lady.
... but I do know about Prof Dean Kenyon Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, who was one of the leading proponents of biochemical evolution ... and who became a Creationist as a result of a powerful counter argument presented to him by a student.

So? That doesn't invalidate evolution. He has been a creationist since the 70s and is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. The same institute that has your "go to" scientists as members, such as Behe and Dembski.

A scientist rejecting current evidence in favour of theology because science hadn't answered all questions in the 1970s seems a bit silly to me.

Brian Shanahan · 06-11-2014 11:03am

SW wrote: »

So? That doesn't invalidate evolution. He has been a creationist since the 70s and is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. The same institute that has your "go to" scientists as members, such as Behe and Dembski.

A scientist rejecting current evidence in favour of theology because science hadn't answered all questions in the 1970s seems a bit silly to me.

He's also the idiot that coined the phrase "cdesign proponentsists", a perfect illustration of the scientific rigour and intellectual level of creatardism.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

06-11-2014 11:11am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He's also the idiot that coined the phrase "cdesign proponentsists", a perfect illustration of the scientific rigour and intellectual level of creatardism.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSaINzdgBLA

gaynorvader · 06-11-2014 12:51pm

J C wrote: »

My answers in blue below
Just wanted to make a quick note.

By this logic sheep were not created by a god as we have successfully cloned them. Though, you'd probably claim that that doesn't count as it's copying, Yes

then I'd mention genetically modified crops, but that would be shot down because it's built on existing life, Yes

at which point I'd have to ask, what would constitute human created life?
I'd settle for any life being created by Humans as proof that at least it is possible for Human Intelligence to do so.
Just because we have not reached the scientific achievement to recreate something, does not mean that thing did not exist. Nobody is arguing that life doesn't exist ... it clearly does exist ... the question is how it came into existence.

We cannot, for instance, create a sun, yet we can be fairly certain the sun exists. Science is more than simply looking at things, it is using what we know to build up models of predictability. We can use these models to figure out how things we can't directly observe.True ... and it's precisely the ability of science to reach conclusions based on indirect evidence that the research into ID (and much of the rest of science) is based on.

Thank you for your responses.

Any life created by humans? With no qualifiers? Then cloning a sheep is a life created by humans. Hell, giving birth is life created by humans with that vague a requirement.

I was talking about the clay bubbles becoming life when I was referring to not being directly able to observe a thing, not life itself.

How does research into ID work? Can it be used to usefully predict anything yet or is it still just an hypothesis?

Vivisectus · 06-11-2014 2:19pm

What does your religious view have to do with being a right wing nutjob?

They sure tend to be religious, but it is certainly not required. Most of the more unhinged kind of libertarians are atheists, for example.

and this

Other family members weren't as lucky and died in the Holocaust - so he should know what the critical ingredients in Nazism were, including their manic and perverted commitment to the theory of evolution.

Is purest nonsense. You must employ some sort of ghost writer in your scientific career, because you would never, ever survive even the most benign kind of peer review when you commit whoppers of fallacies like these.

First off, having relatives die in a conflict does not make you an expert on the ideological beliefs of either side of that conflict. That is a completely nonsensical statement.

Secondly, trying to apply evolution to nation states is ridiculous, but that did not stop the nazies from doing it. Using Protestantism to justify white supremacy is also idiotic, but that does not seem to be slowing down the KluKlux clan any.

So would I be justified in saying that Christianity is a necessary condition for white supremacy?