Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
Shmogie, all you seem to do is ignore and evade people and there questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation Science House Bill 3826
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Shmogie, all you seem to do is ignore and evade people and there questions.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
We aren't discussing God, the conversation subject is abiogenesis
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And no one has posted any evidence against the concept and quite a bit of evidence has been posted for it.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No, only in your mind. Your fantasy is no more provable then mine.
Dressing up a pig still leaves a pig. For all the folderol re abiogenesis, it remains a pig
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then please present some concepts that have at least made it through the peer review process that openly supports ID. Your fantasy appears to have no evidence and no research for it. Abiogenesis is an active topic in the peer reviewed journals.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
So research in essential backwaters that bring an understanding of abiogenesis no closer to being understood is de facto evidence that it is understood ? Not hardly
Which hypothesis is the winner because of this flurry of reserach ? Electricity, hot water vents at the bottom of the ocean, inevitability, sub surface clay particles, the DNA world, prebiotic primordial sea/lagoons or any other you would care to name ?
You are trying the old shell game, hide the pea under the shell marked "tons of research", yet, when you lift the shell, the pea has migrated under the shell marked, "no substantive conclusions drawn re the abiogenesis process"
You believe it because you have to, your guise of objectivity is no better than mine.
Nice try though
Jollybear
Hey
I dont care
Jollybear
Hey
I dont care
Timothy Spurlin
Active Member
Why do you dodge and evade? Creationism is what the OP is about. First you have to provide objective evidence that a god exist. So what evidence do you have that a god is real?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is mostly a mashup of different aspects of abiogenesis. They are not separate in the sense of being exclusive.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You exist, there is no evidence that you engage in critical thinking ... quite the opposite. Please list a few of your publications, or stop pretending that you have "done research too."
Shakespeare got to make up words, you are not anywhere near his level. stephen myer (sic) is not to be taken seriously and is far from famious (sic) for anything except his scientific incompetence and predilection for duplicity.No, i meant unrational. As my own person, i have the freedom to make up my own words, thank youen very omuch.
But hey, you dont have to take me serious. Take stephen myer serious and other famious ID proponents.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
"Dave" blogs:
One of the many variations of modern creationism (the folks that claim ‘god did it’ is the right answer) is called “Intelligent Design”. There they attempt to refute evolution via the promotion of scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, and also attempt to make it more palatable by omitting all religious terms from what is essentially a religious claim. Well, if they wish to take a scientific approach, then this becomes quite interesting because this is a measurable claim, all we need to do is to take a look and see if they have published any credible peer-reviewed articles within any recognised scientific journals.
Does this matter? Sadly yes it does, a good percentage of the public do still seriously doubt the reality of evolution as a well-established scientific fact, they have been successfully conned by some supposedly credible claims, so it is indeed appropriate to throw a spotlight upon the intelligent design community and reveal that their aura of credibility is simply an illusion.
Almost two years ago, I went through the list of Peer-reviewed articles posted up by the Discovery Institute, a well-financed US-based group that promotes Intelligent Design. What did I find? … (Oh come on, you can guess) … yes, that’s right, exactly nothing, they did not have anything credible, not one jot.
They have since then revised their list and greatly extended it, so the time is now right for a return visit to this bastion of creationist “peer-reviewed” fodder.
The title remains the same, “PEER-REVIEWED & PEER-EDITED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ANNOTATED)“. My approach will be the same as last time – basically apply an initial filter to remove the junk, then take a look at what remains. But first, there is an observation to be made about some initial commentary they have added. They now make this claim …
Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.
Seriously!! … Origin of Species, published in 1859, was not published in a peer-review journal, so that justifies adding books to their list. Do they not know that the Peer review process has only been a touchstone of the modern scientific method since the middle of the 20th century. No, the bottom line here is simple, books are out, anybody can publish anything (Harry Potter is evidence that Magic is real … right?), if they wish to refute evolution and propose an alternative, then they need to engage with the scientific community with real data, and publish it within a credible and appropriate scientific journal.
The Filter
OK, on to my initial filter:
- There are articles from a Journal called BIO-Complexity : This is not a credible peer-review journal, instead it is a creationist journal issued by the Biologic Institute. They in turn are funded by the Discovery Institute … yes, it is their own pet journal and has exactly zero credibility within the scientific community, we can ignore all that.
- There are also articles from Life : Yet another journal that has no scientific credibility and is treated as something to laugh at, we can ignore that as well.
- The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics : This is a fringe publication of the featherweight Wessex Institute of Technology, in other words it is also not a real scientific journal, but is simply a vanity journal that publishes papers written by its own editors. McIntosh, the author of a listed paper, is on their Editorial Board, and one of their other editors is the young earth creationist Stuart Burgess
- Papers published as part of the proceedings of a conference are not recognised peer-reviewed journals, we can ignore these.
- Chapters within books are not peer-reviewed journals, so they can also be tossed.
- Peer-Edited and Editor-Reviewed articles are not peer-reviewed articles … finding these tossed in to inflate the list really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
- Articles in Philosophy journals … er no, we can ignore these, if you want to make claims regarding biology, you publish in a biology journal, and you also need real data.
- Anything by David Abel, all his papers consist entirely of non-evidentially supported, non-laboratory confirmed, pure fabrication (I let a couple through this filter so that you can see what I’m on about). About 17% of the list is by him and can happily be ignored.
- Least you pause on the thought of a named individual being a filter, it is simply a short-cut to eliminate papers that are long-winded assertions that contain no data at all — no experiments, no measurements, and no observations … nada. Should he write a paper that contains some analysis of actual data, then this filter does not apply.
- So who exactly is this guy? He is David Abel, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life. Science Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr. Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA, at least that is the title on his papers. Wow, sounds impressive … but google that address and you discover it is an ordinary residential house. Yes, the entire foundation is in his garage, and he is the sole representative. Somebody checked him out, this impressive sounding title and organization is a sham and is not real. The claimed title is completely fraudulent.
- But why does he get published? … well because Abel is making an argument, of sorts, and is backing it up with a reasonable amount of scholarship and some fancy sounding mathy stuff. On the surface it looks credible, so you need to read it all several times to work out that the assertions being made are not actually credible. Rarely do you find bull**** so tortuously Byzantine as the stuff churned out by him, which I guess is by intention.
Well, let's take a look at the remains, go to: Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined ... and debunked • Skeptical Science
ecco
Veteran Member
Whether there is a creator or not is completely relevant to the discussion. After all, the title of this thread is:
christian-creationist-ignorance-and-idiocy-still-shining-bright
Believing in the knowledge of people who have spent years getting educated and doing research is not blind faith.
Believing in a creation story that was written at a time when people had no concept of anything outside of their small portion of the world, is blind faith.
The evidence for the structure of the atom was paltry, at best, 100 years ago. The evidence for plate tectonics was non-existent 100 years ago.
What is your point? If it is that knowledge advances and religion is stagnant, OK.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I don';t have to provide anything. I have provided evidence from biogenesis scientists re the alleged process, no supporter of the hypothesis has provided any evidence, just comments telling me I am wrong, a poor defense.
I choose to address the atheist idea, I do not choose to address the believers position.
If you feel it is important to attack the believers position, go for it, you have that right.
ecco
Veteran Member
Please show some evidence that scientists researching abiogenesis are atheists.
ecco
Veteran Member
True believers circa 5000 BCE...
Daddy, what causes those bright lights shooting across the sky when it rains?
Son, those are fiery bolts that the gods throw at each other.
Daddy, what causes the hot rocks to come hurtling out of that big mountain?
Son, that is the gods of the underworld vomiting.
You would have been much happier living back then. Everything was so simple then.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Believing based on the alleged knowledge of others is rather a risky concept.
How much of abiogenesis have you explored ? Are you familiar with any of the popular books written by abiogenesis scientists on their ideas, or have you made any effort to explore the problems they themselves point out in their hypotheses ?
Have you been extremely brave and bold and dared to read anything from a ID/creationist scientist regarding abiogenesis ?
You believe what you are told, OK.
Your response to the lack of any demonstrably workable theory is " with enough time I am told we will understand abiogenesis and prove it right". Strong faith there.
My position regarding ID is exactly the same.
So, what's your beef ?
ecco
Veteran Member
What are "some of the theory’s problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals"?
ecco
Veteran Member
What "scientific debate over design"?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
A very typical response. Sarcasm and derision when you cannot defend your own beliefs.
Change the subject as quickly as possible.
Your ignorance and tactic accomplishes nothing.
Nice try though