"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

[shmogie]

Thus illustrating the folly of thinking "If I don't see it, it must not exist".


You've only named one creationist book. You also said you read the scientific journals relevant to origins research. So again....which ones?


So you really do believe there are two fundamental types of chemistry.....non-random and random. Where in the world did you get such an idea?


Are you moving the goalposts here? Remember, this started with you claiming that there was not one single bit of evidence for abiogenesis. But now you're demanding something else entirely, i.e., a full-blown explanation for an entire A-Z scenario.

See, in the world of those who don't think in black/white terms, there is quite a bit of grey area between "zero evidence" and "fully explained". Specific to origins, we have a handful of hypotheses, each with their own set of supporting evidences. But no one is claiming that we have it all figured out and it's settled science. That's why it's still an active area of research. If we had it figured out, there wouldn't be any more to do.
Yep, if there is no known chemicals, no known process, no known environment, and everything came together to create the first organism accidentally by chance you nor anyone else knows what laws of chemistry or anything else applied. I don't have to account to what I have read, I frankly, no a whole lot more about abiogenesis than you. There is no evidence, other than pure speculation that it occurred. I was giving you the opportunity to dazzle me with the evidence that you claim exists. I am demanding nothing, I know you can't produce it, you dodged the issue admirably. Produce the hypotheses, you are right, there are a few, but the evidence you allege exists to support them, not there.
So do you understand? Yes, there is evidence for a natural origin of life, but no we haven't figured it completely out either.

Oh yes I understand, but you don't. There is only speculation not one piece of evidence that supports abiogenesis. There is no evidence to show how the process worked, no evidence to show what and how the alleged first organism functioned, no fossil remains, no observation, no reproduction of the process, nada. I am not sure who we is in your statement, but you are correct, you nor anyone else has figured it out completely, partially, or at all. Prove me wrong, if you can. BTW, I went back and looked at the thread that I didn't see before, went through the whole thing, it confirmed what I said above

 

[shmogie]

A leading skeptical scientist has reported that seven shots were fired at his workplace during the weekend’s Earth Day and March for Science events — likely as a threat and warning.

Dr Roy Spencer, meteorologist and noted climate skeptic at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, reports at his website that the shots were aimed at the office of his colleague and fellow sceptic, Dr John Christy:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

Shots Fired at Climate Skeptic's Office During March for Science - Breitbart

Typical of the madness brought in first politically by the liberals. No one can have a dissenting opinion, free speech must be quashed, by violence if required.Faculty members at major universities are bullied if they don't knuckle down to the "right " views. Orwell's 1984 is about here

 

[Revoltingest]

My understanding is it was to bring awareness to science being under attack, particularly in the US.

Did you become more aware of it?
I didn't.
But I did get a new issue of Smithsonian.

 

[shmogie]

OK, but I can't find any prominent scientists that don't believe that evolution by natural selection isn't real. I did look. But, if you can't back up your claim, that's fine. Try to be respectful too. No reason to get snippity.

Here are some, as I said I would provide. There are many more; 7 Nobel prize winners

Dr. Brian Josephson, physics 1973 Dr. Richard Smalley,, chemistry 1996
Abus Salam, physics 1979 Sir John Eccles, physiology 1963 Ernst Boris Chain, Medicine 1945 Wolfgang Pauli, physics 1945 G. Marconi,inventor of radio, physics 1909
Dr. Charles Townes, Physics 1953

Nobel prize runnerups

Sir Fred Hoyle Astronomer, mathematician Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI Extremely notable Dr. Werner Von Braun Max Planc One of the most famous and influential physicists ever

 

[Revoltingest]

Here are some, as I said I would provide. There are many more; 7 Nobel prize winners

Dr. Brian Josephson, physics 1973 Dr. Richard Smalley,, chemistry 1996
Abus Salam, physics 1979 Sir John Eccles, physiology 1963 Ernst Boris Chain, Medicine 1945 Wolfgang Pauli, physics 1945 G. Marconi,inventor of radio, physics 1909
Dr. Charles Townes, Physics 1953

Nobel prize runnerups

Sir Fred Hoyle Astronomer, mathematician Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI Extremely notable Dr. Werner Von Braun Max Planc One of the most famous and influential physicists ever

The citation of Wolfgang Pauli caught my eye.
He's famous for criticizing that which cannot be disproven, ie, "nicht einmal falsch".
With no testable alternative to evolution, it struck me as odd that he'd deny the
theory's cromulence. Could he believe there is no scientific model for what we
observe in the geological & fossil record? That is most unlikely for him.
So I googled.
Lo!
The only criticism of evolution by Pauli I could find was actually of the researchers'
lack of probablistic analysis. This isn't to deny evolution....just an old problem in
biology, ie, that biologists were weak on mathematical analysis. (I knew a physicist
who found work addressing this shortcoming.) But biologists these days are much
more capable with probabilistic systems.

Are the other citations similar in this way?
(I'm too lazy to look into more than one.)

Ref (from the anti-evolution Discovery Institute).....
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win/

 

[shmogie]

The citation of Wolfgang Pauli caught my eye.
He's famous for criticizing that which cannot be disproven, ie, "nicht einmal falsch".
With no testable alternative to evolution, it struck me as odd that he'd deny the
theory's cromulence. Could he believe there is no scientific model for what we
observe in the geological & fossil record? That is most unlikely for him.
So I googled.
Lo!
The only criticism of evolution by Pauli I could find was actually of the researchers'
lack of probablistic analysis. This isn't to deny evolution....just an old problem in
biology, ie, that biologists were weak on mathematical analysis. (I knew a physicist
who found work addressing this shortcoming.) But biologists these days are much
more capable with probabilistic systems.

Are the other citations similar in this way?
(I'm too lazy to look into more than one.)

Ref (from the anti-evolution Discovery Institute).....
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win/

No, and actually your characterization of Paul isn't complete, I will give you some quotations. This isn't just about macro evolution, but also intelligent design of the universe, and abiogenesis. I'll get them up for you today

 

[Revoltingest]

No, and actually your characterization of Paul isn't complete...

By choosing a major anti-evolution pro-ID source, I'd expect they
would've chosen the strongest quote to support their position.
Do uou think were lax?

....I will give you some quotations. This isn't just about macro evolution, but also intelligent design of the universe, and abiogenesis. I'll get them up for you today

Abiogenesis is an intriguing proposal, but it's entirely separate from evolution in its mechanism.

 

[jonathan180iq]

 

[shmogie]

By choosing a major anti-evolution pro-ID source, I'd expect they
would've chosen the strongest quote to support their position.
Do uou think were lax?

Abiogenesis is an intriguing proposal, but it's entirely separate from evolution in its mechanism.

By choosing a major anti-evolution pro-ID source, I'd expect they
would've chosen the strongest quote to support their position.
Do uou think were lax?

Abiogenesis is an intriguing proposal, but it's entirely separate from evolution in its mechanism.

I haven't given the name of my source, aren't you presuming a little ? If I can figure out how to copy and paste to you about four pages re his work, numerous quotations showing his views on the matter at hand and some of his writing on it, would you feel better about this devious believer in ID trying to scam you ? Yes, I know macro evolutionists make every effort to quarantine abiogenesis, because it is such a bizarre and unexplainable idea, however, this has always seemed illogical to me. It's like an intense discussion on a baseball game inning by inning, play by play, but totally refusing to discuss the fact that the game began with a first pitch.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't given the name of my source, aren't you presuming a little ?

I wasn't addressing your upcoming sources.

If I can figure out how to copy and paste to you about four pages re his work, numerous quotations showing his views on the matter at hand and some of his writing on it, would you feel better about this devious believer in ID trying to scam you ?

I don't think anyone is trying to deceive me.
There are just different inferences & opinions.

Yes, I know macro evolutionists make every effort to quarantine abiogenesis, because it is such a bizarre and unexplainable idea....

It's explainable in concept.
It just isn't experimentally verified, nor are the potential mechanisms found....yet.
But possible elements of it are being explored....
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

.....however, this has always seemed illogical to me. It's like an intense discussion on a baseball game inning by inning, play by play, but totally refusing to discuss the fact that the game began with a first pitch.

One must recognize that abiogenesis & evolution are different phenomena,
their relationship notwithstanding. Evolution is far more familiar & understood.
Abiogenesis is merely an interesting proposition.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is a question on some data records due to questionable adjustments after the fact, but it does not change the fact that the IPCC approved temperature data records show actual global temperatures falling short of predicted, with the deviation increasing in time.

Then it means that humans are not the predominate cause of global warming!

Um.......walk me through your logic path that starts with "One IPCC model slightly overestimated the amount of warming" and ends with "Therefore human activities are not the primary cause of the current warming trend".

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh yes I understand, but you don't. There is only speculation not one piece of evidence that supports abiogenesis. There is no evidence to show how the process worked, no evidence to show what and how the alleged first organism functioned, no fossil remains, no observation, no reproduction of the process, nada. I am not sure who we is in your statement, but you are correct, you nor anyone else has figured it out completely, partially, or at all. Prove me wrong, if you can. BTW, I went back and looked at the thread that I didn't see before, went through the whole thing, it confirmed what I said above

You keep avoiding a couple of questions. Earlier you claimed that you stay up to date on abiogenesis research by reading the relevant scientific journals, but since I asked you to name those journals you've refused to say. Is that because you were lying and you don't read such journals? Also you claimed to have read books on the "pro side" of abiogenesis, but again since I asked you to name one you've refused to say. Is that because you were lying and you haven't read such books?

Also, you put forth this notion of two fundamentally different types of chemistry, one random, one non-random. Again, where did you get such an idea?

And as far as your assertion that there is zero data behind any of the proposed abiogenesis scenarios, that is demonstrably false. Sayak's thread I linked to earlier provides good descriptions and citations to some of that data. You simply saying "Nuh uh" is not not a compelling rebuttal.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did you become more aware of it?
I didn't.
But I did get a new issue of Smithsonian.

No, but that's because it's already an area I'm active in. Of course the same isn't true for everyone. Shoot, even if it only energizes the participants I think it's worthwhile.

 

[shmogie]

You keep avoiding a couple of questions. Earlier you claimed that you stay up to date on abiogenesis research by reading the relevant scientific journals, but since I asked you to name those journals you've refused to say. Is that because you were lying and you don't read such journals? Also you claimed to have read books on the "pro side" of abiogenesis, but again since I asked you to name one you've refused to say. Is that because you were lying and you haven't read such books?

Also, you put forth this notion of two fundamentally different types of chemistry, one random, one non-random. Again, where did you get such an idea?

And as far as your assertion that there is zero data behind any of the proposed abiogenesis scenarios, that is demonstrably false. Sayak's thread I linked to earlier provides good descriptions and citations to some of that data. You simply saying "Nuh uh" is not not a compelling rebuttal.

LOL, what makes you think I have to give you any information about what I have read ? You are not my interrogator, nor my teacher, if my position is wrong, prove it. You continue to have many birds on your antenna re chemistry, let me use an analogy to get through, if you still don't grasp it, your problem. A chemistry lab at UC San Francisco, late saturday night. an earthquake. Chemical storage shelf knocked over. gooey mass on floor as a result. Mass a product of random processes ?? Now, if you say the gooey mas wasn't the result of random processes, then you are saying it was the result of specific, planned processes determining chemicals involved,amounts, time in mixture, etc. Is that what you are saying ? Data and evidence are not the same. I read the entire thread. Was the process explained ? no. Were the constituent chemicals identified ? no. Was the resultant alleged organism detailed ? no. Was the primordial soup identified by chemical components, depth, temperature, etc, ? No. Was the environment of the earth at the time of the creation of this alleged organism explained and identified ? no. Was the time for the alleged process stated ? No. I can go on and on. Until you can answer these questions, and many more, abiogenesis is just the fairy tale I said it was. Unless, of course, YOU can answer these questions. What it all comes down to is that you and your fellow thinkers really see life as all the evidence required for believing in this absurdity, because in spite of your protestations of objectivity, you refuse to look at other possibilities. You say that my statements are demonstrably false, well them, demonstrate them as false. Should be real easy based upon what YOU have said.

 

[Jose Fly]

LOL, what makes you think I have to give you any information about what I have read ?

That you were so quick and eager to name the creationist book that you read, but are now doing everything you can to avoid naming anything else is a good indication that you were lying. It's plain to see that you don't stay up to date on abiogenesis research by reading the relevant scientific journals, nor have you read a book on it from the "pro side".

A chemistry lab at UC San Francisco, late saturday night. an earthquake. Chemical storage shelf knocked over. gooey mass on floor as a result. Mass a product of random processes ?? Now, if you say the gooey mas wasn't the result of random processes, then you are saying it was the result of specific, planned processes determining chemicals involved,amounts, time in mixture, etc. Is that what you are saying ?

Oh brother.

This is quite simple. The knocking over of the storage shelf is not chemistry. Do you understand that? The subsequent reactions between the reagents that takes place on the floor is chemistry, and is entirely non-random. All chemistry is non-random. Atoms and molecules react, combine, etc., based on their physical properties, and not by "blind chance".

That you were operating under this extremely ignorant misconception about the fundamentals of chemistry is further evidence that you were indeed lying when you claimed to stay up on origins research by reading the relevant scientific journals. It's quite obvious that even if you tried, you wouldn't understand much of it.

Data and evidence are not the same. I read the entire thread. Was the process explained ? no. Were the constituent chemicals identified ? no. Was the resultant alleged organism detailed ? no. Was the primordial soup identified by chemical components, depth, temperature, etc, ? No. Was the environment of the earth at the time of the creation of this alleged organism explained and identified ? no. Was the time for the alleged process stated ? No. I can go on and on. Until you can answer these questions, and many more, abiogenesis is just the fairy tale I said it was. Unless, of course, YOU can answer these questions. What it all comes down to is that you and your fellow thinkers really see life as all the evidence required for believing in this absurdity, because in spite of your protestations of objectivity, you refuse to look at other possibilities. You say that my statements are demonstrably false, well them, demonstrate them as false. Should be real easy based upon what YOU have said.

This type of black/white thinking, where scientists either know everything about origins or they know nothing, seems to be a common trait among creationists such as yourself. As I explained earlier, fortunately science doesn't operate under such simplistic terms.

In Sayak's thread, he posted several general descriptions of the hypotheses, the supporting experimental evidence, and the unknowns. Everyone can see them HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. For you to claim that you've read those posts an didn't see any description of processes, constituent chemicals, or conditions shows that again you're lying. You either didn't read them and lied when you said you did, or you read them and are lying now when you say they don't contain the items listed above.

One has to wonder......if you're allegedly on the side of your God in this whole thing, why do you have to resort to lying so often?

 

[leibowde84]

Wasn't trying to be snippity, I have been down this road way too many times. You were looking for the wrong thing. I believe evolution by natural selection is real. What hasn't been proven is that this process began with simple organisms that ultimately resulted in the huge variety of life we see today. Micro, vs. macro. I will get some names for you. Of course, no evolutionist wants to discuss abiogenesis, they all avoid it like the plague, even though their process is a result of it. The last statement doesn't require a response.

Why do you doubt that all life came from one source lifeform then evolved through speciation from there? To me, it makes the most sense. So, even without evidence, I would accept it as being the most likely scenario. But, I assume you disagree.

 

[leibowde84]

But, the information was very simple at first, as the first life-form was most likely bacteria. It evolved to be far more complicated through mutation and natural selection. And, the amino acids don't "contain" information. They literally are the information. So, they could certainly come about naturally. There is no need for the information to "come from somewhere" as you contend.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Um.......walk me through your logic path that starts with "One IPCC model slightly overestimated the amount of warming" and ends with "Therefore human activities are not the primary cause of the current warming trend".

I didn't say "one model", that's your words, I said "IPCC approved temperature data records show actual global temperatures falling short of predicted, with the deviation increasing in time."

The logic is this, warming occurs due to a combination of natural and man made contributions that cause it, each model uses different variables of the contributing factors. If the models are overestimating consistently in time, then one or other of the contributions is being overestimated. Since CO2 contributions is a known quantity, and have been increasing linearly over time, then one can expect an ever increasing trend given natural variability remaining on average over the longer period reasonably steady. So if the actual temperature records are falling below the model projections, then logically the actual amount of warming the human produced CO2 is less than that the models attribute to it.

Here...not one model, but one hundred and two models...haha

Climate models versus climate reality

 

[shmogie]

But, the information was very simple at first, as the first life-form was most likely bacteria. It evolved to be far more complicated through mutation and natural selection. And, the amino acids don't "contain" information. They literally are the information. So, they could certainly come about naturally. There is no need for the information to "come from somewhere" as you contend.

You think not ? The amino acids must exist in regulated, complicated chains in the right order. Lets look at your bacteria scenario. Bacteria are extremely complicated creatures. They operate and exist with DNA, DNA literally encoded properly with large amounts of specific information needed, in the right order, to instruct the bacteria in every phase of it's existence, every function, from maintaining cell walls to reproduction to everything in between. Peptides and amino acids, properly sequenced, act as the interface between the DNA and the cell operation, they read the code, and convert it into commands, from the DNA, it is literally the "hardware" that runs the DNA software. All of this must exist before that first organism existed, or it would die before it could function. So, you are proposing that the mass of DNA information, requiring long long chains of DNA,each in the absolute proper order each bit containing a portion of the operating instructions for a creature not yet in existence, formed, before the operating system in the organism did, in the code that would be read by the organism properly for it to exist, happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism, encoded it properly, for the organism to exist when it was created by these very same chance processes. You dismiss all this, by saying "they certainly could come about naturally". Really, really ? Well of course there is a need for the information to come from somewhere. What you are suggesting is much, much more complicated than having an unlimited number of all the letters of the alphabet in a continuously supplied drum, and by pulling them out randomly, you would eventually begin a series that would ultimately form a perfect copy of war and peace from the first letter to the last. there is your information, then, by purely random processes, a method to instruct a randomly formed printing press to print the book ,your, organism. Now, since you tell me it happened, please tell me how. We haven't even addressed how to get the required bits of information to adhere to one another in a completely unknown environment, provided the bits could form, and provided they got the information required on each bit, from somewhere. Literally and truly impossible. Or at least in the range of the odds against being so high, like one chance in 10 to the 900 th power, to be impossible. All nonsense, a dream, literally, an impossible dream. No one, not any scientist on the face of the earth can explain how all of these things occured

 

[shmogie]

Why do you doubt that all life came from one source lifeform then evolved through speciation from there? To me, it makes the most sense. So, even without evidence, I would accept it as being the most likely scenario. But, I assume you disagree.

Yes, I would disagree, first, because that first life form could not have been created by natural processes, and second because the macro evolution theory shows way too many flaws to account for the huge variety of life that exists, and third, because philosophically you must accept that nothing, from the universe to a single cell has any true meaning, purpose or value