"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

Jose Fly said:
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".

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.

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?

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

Oh brother, you are the one who brought up the chemistry connection, I was always using the term random to define circumstances, a perfect straw man you created. As to your ad hominen re lying FU, you still, still. have not posted a shred of evidence, not one shred. I say the thread produced none, correct me instead of being a whiney pseudo intellectual/scientist that has the inherent social skills of a badger

leibowde84 · Apr 25, 2017

shmogie said:
because philosophically you must accept that nothing, from the universe to a single cell has any true meaning, purpose or value

I've heard this a lot, but I have never gotten a good explanation for it. Can you explain why you think this is true? Why would a creator be necessary for anything to have any meaning?

Jose Fly · Apr 25, 2017

ben d said:
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.

So your logic is......"There are many variables that go into predicting the extent of the current warming trend. Some models have overestimated the extent of the current warming trend, therefore the only variable they misrepresented was the contributions of CO2."

If you truly think that makes any sense at all.......well, I guess it explains a lot.

Jose Fly · Apr 25, 2017

shmogie said:
Oh brother, you are the one who brought up the chemistry connection, I was always using the term random to define circumstances, a perfect straw man you created.

Now you're lying again. This is what you wrote in your Post #80:

"In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades."

Shoot, you repeated your ridiculous misconception just a few minutes ago in your Post #119, where you described abiogenesis as:

"...happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism"

So why are you calling it a straw man when you continue to repeat it?

As to your ad hominen re lying FU

Yet you keep lying. At this point it appears to be habitual for you.

you still, still. have not posted a shred of evidence, not one shred. I say the thread produced none, correct me instead of being a whiney pseudo intellectual/scientist that has the inherent social skills of a badger

I did. I linked to Sayak's post where he described the scenarios and supporting experimental evidence (complete with linked citations). But you keep lying by saying none of it exists. Add in your other lies about reading scientific journals and books, and we have a disturbingly consistent picture of you.

Odd behavior to see from someone claiming to be on the side of God.

Ben Dhyan · Apr 25, 2017

Jose Fly said:
So your logic is......"There are many variables that go into predicting the extent of the current warming trend. Some models have overestimated the extent of the current warming trend, therefore the only variable they misrepresented was the contributions of CO2."

If you truly think that makes any sense at all.......well, I guess it explains a lot.

Use your noggin, the models cannot show a trend for warming or cooling from natural causes due to its unpredictability, ie. volcanic eruptions, ocean circulation and oscillations, etc., so natural contribution become a constant in the models. Atmospheric CO2 increasing trend on the other hand is a known quantity, so the climate sensitivity to CO2 calculations used by each model determines the warming trend. It follows logically then that if there is an increasing deviation in time, then the CO2 warming contribution is being overestimated in the models.

If you still not understand this, it is because you are lacking in prerequisite knowledge, and I suggest you do some more study.

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

Jose Fly said:
Now you're lying again. This is what you wrote in your Post #80:

"In this case, chemistry is a total, random, by chance process. This has been the primary model for many decades."
Are you serious ? Of course any chemistry is a by chance process as abiogenesis proposes. Can't you grasp that any chemistry brought about by chance is just that ?, I said NOTHING about Chemical interactions, everything about what brought them about. I am beginning to think senor fly that English isn't your first language
Shoot, you repeated your ridiculous misconception just a few minutes ago in your Post #119, where you described abiogenesis as:

"...happened by blind chance, by chance combinations of chemicals that "knew" all the information about the operation of an organism" Absolutely correct. Chance combinations of chemicals says nothing about how they react to one another , again, the nuances of English escape you. IF the combined chemicals, according to your, fantasy theory didn't have the information to operate an organism, then your fanciful organism couldn't exist, So, if you are arguing your precious chemicals did not contain the required information, then literally and figureatively your theory and your fanciful organism is dead.

So why are you calling it a straw man when you continue to repeat it?
No, it is a straw man that you created because your ability to understand what is written is limited, and the issue has never been about chemical reactions

Yet you keep misunderstanding plain English, perhaps a high school night class would help

I did. I linked to Sayak's post where he described the scenarios and supporting experimental evidence (complete with linked citations). But you keep lying by saying none of it exists. Add in your other lies about reading scientific journals and books, and we have a disturbingly consistent picture of you.

How sad
You linked, and it failed as evidence. WE, interesting, do you now propose to speak for others, or is it that your understanding, once again, of English is scrambled ?
Odd behavior to see from someone claiming to be on the side of God.

As I have read the things you have written, I have become more and more sorry for you. Like the slow kid in third grade, you resort to liar, liar, liar when your comprehension breaks down, It must be difficult to go through life with a handicap of this sort. No matter, your foggy vision of the reality of what you read makes your juvenile behavior understandable, and truly pathetic.

Perhaps you don't post any of the alleged evidence you say exists because you think it is evidence, but just can't take the chance that as in so many other things, you have read it wrong. Truly, you have my sympathy

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

leibowde84 said:
I've heard this a lot, but I have never gotten a good explanation for it. Can you explain why you think this is true? Why would a creator be necessary for anything to have any meaning?

Pretty simple, I think. Anything created by chance, in a blind process, has no more relative meaning than anything else created in the same way, say a rock. We may THINK we have meaning, but in the natural scheme of things we have no value, meaning or purpose, we just are, like the rock, or the black hole at the center of the universe. On the other hand, if we, and everything else was created by an omnipotent being outside of the universe, the act of creation itself means we have an ultimate purpose, and we have meaning in relation to that purpose to the Creator. Finally, if as I believe Christ represented, spoke for, and was the Creator, we are told that each and every human is of ultimate value to the one who created us. Does this help ?

Revoltingest · Apr 25, 2017

Jose Fly said:
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.

I hope they had a good time.

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

shmogie said:
Pretty simple, I think. Anything created by chance, in a blind process, has no more relative meaning than anything else created in the same way, say a rock. We may THINK we have meaning, but in the natural scheme of things we have no value, meaning or purpose, we just are, like the rock, or the black hole at the center of the universe. On the other hand, if we, and everything else was created by an omnipotent being outside of the universe, the act of creation itself means we have an ultimate purpose, and we have meaning in relation to that purpose to the Creator. Finally, if as I believe Christ represented, spoke for, and was the Creator, we are told that each and every human is of ultimate value to the one who created us. Does this help ?

Sorry, at the center of the galaxy

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

Jose Fly said:
So your logic is......"There are many variables that go into predicting the extent of the current warming trend. Some models have overestimated the extent of the current warming trend, therefore the only variable they misrepresented was the contributions of CO2."

If you truly think that makes any sense at all.......well, I guess it explains a lot.

Your understanding of his statement or lack thereof, explains a lot

leibowde84 · Apr 25, 2017

shmogie said:
Pretty simple, I think. Anything created by chance, in a blind process, has no more relative meaning than anything else created in the same way, say a rock. We may THINK we have meaning, but in the natural scheme of things we have no value, meaning or purpose, we just are, like the rock, or the black hole at the center of the universe. On the other hand, if we, and everything else was created by an omnipotent being outside of the universe, the act of creation itself means we have an ultimate purpose, and we have meaning in relation to that purpose to the Creator. Finally, if as I believe Christ represented, spoke for, and was the Creator, we are told that each and every human is of ultimate value to the one who created us. Does this help ?

Don't we have meaning in how we impact the world and leave a lasting effect on those around us?

shmogie · Apr 25, 2017

leibowde84 said:
Don't we have meaning in how we impact the world and leave a lasting effect on those around us?

Yes, but ultimately it is for nought in a random universe. We die, they die and ultimately the universe dies. It all is gone in a relative flash of time in infinite time.

Thumper · Apr 26, 2017

shmogie said:
Pretty simple, I think. Anything created by chance, in a blind process, has no more relative meaning than anything else created in the same way, say a rock. We may THINK we have meaning, but in the natural scheme of things we have no value, meaning or purpose, we just are, like the rock, or the black hole at the center of the universe. On the other hand, if we, and everything else was created by an omnipotent being outside of the universe, the act of creation itself means we have an ultimate purpose, and we have meaning in relation to that purpose to the Creator. Finally, if as I believe Christ represented, spoke for, and was the Creator, we are told that each and every human is of ultimate value to the one who created us. Does this help ?

Wow. You really think you matter to the entire universe.

Yes, atheism is the arrogant belief that the universe was not created just for us. However ...

I have plenty of meaning to my wife & children. And I try to be meaningful to my community.

"You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." ~ James Watson, Nobel Prize as the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule

shmogie · Apr 26, 2017

[QUOTes, atheism is the arrogant belief that the universe was not created just for us. However ...

I have plenty of meaning to my wife & children. And I try to be meaningful to my community.

"You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." ~ James Watson, Nobel Prize as the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule[/QUOTE]
I said nothing about me mattering to the universe, nor that the universe was created "for us". In saying so, I think you posted what you think I said as opposed to what I wrote. I am glad that you find meaning and validation in life ! The point is the meaning you have, you, your family all of us, the entire universe in the natural explanation exists in a relative flash of time in infinite time and ultimately means absolutely nothing. If we are nematodes, grains of sand, humans or an oxygen molecule, it's all the same, 0
..

Guy Threepwood · Apr 26, 2017

Father Heathen said:
Okay. What is "science" to you? How do you define it? Explain the process. Because if every scientist ever has been wrong about science all along, then your answer should be quite interesting.

It's a method, not an authoritative opinion, the whole point of science is NOT having to take anyone's word for it- least of all a politicians' !

Galileo, Lemaitre, Planck, were not wrong, the academic/political consensus was

Global warming is about as far from science as it's possible to get!

Guy Threepwood · Apr 26, 2017

Jeremiahcp said:
"Genesis describes evolution also"

No, it doesn't.

does too

Jeremiahcp · Apr 26, 2017

Guy Threepwood said:
does too

You made the claim, so how about you actually quote it.

Guy Threepwood · Apr 26, 2017

Jeremiahcp said:
You made the claim, so how about you actually quote it.

Genesis describes not only change in the distribution of life on Earth, but the type of change we actually see in the fossil record- distinct and abrupt stages and kinds.

Not the slow, smooth, gradual, incremental transitions as predicted by Darwinism

Jeremiahcp · Apr 26, 2017

Guy Threepwood said:
Genesis describes not only change in the distribution of life on Earth, but the type of change we actually see in the fossil record- distinct and abrupt stages and kinds.

Not the slow, smooth, gradual, incremental transitions as predicted by Darwinism

I don't see the quotes, which I kind of expected.

"March for Science protests ramp up around the globe"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Thank the gods I'm an atheist

Well-Known Member

Mighty Pirate

Mighty Pirate

Well-Known Jerk

Mighty Pirate

Well-Known Jerk