Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Well, I am doing your job. You should criticize the messenger, too. Hoyle concluded, out of his computation, that life did not originate on earth but in outer space via intellgent design. Aliens, to be precise, since he did not believe in God. And you also realized that this just shifts the problem to the next level.

I did not say speak. I said communicate. By changing the state of semiconductors via optical fibers or wireless communication. You name it. Can spiritual stuff do the same?

Let's make a new kind of die. One that has a face for each of the times a supernatural explanation has been superseded by a naturalistic one and that has a face for each of the times a naturalistic explanation has been superseded by a supernatural one.

Would you still suggest to roll that die?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

As to viuses, is it not true that they need a cell for the purpose of reproduction ? ergo, unless there were self replicating viruses in the past, wouldn't a cell/celled creature have to exist before viruses ? Seems like the poor virus was treated rather roughly by evolution. I am amused at how evolutionists are so concerned and emphatic about the definitions of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's like seeing your neighbor make a quarter disappear, then going to Vegas and seeing a magician make three elephants, three monkeys in the arms of three girls on the elephants disappear. Then the discussion is about "big magic", and "little magic", With no one apparently realizing that both used techniques in common for their tricks, and what they saw couldn't happen, the same element is present, matter disappearing before your eyes in an instant. What Hoyle believed is irrelevant, unless you are proposing that a brilliant scientists cheated on his mathematical model because of his beliefs ? This is a common strain of dialog employed by many evolutionists. Did you notice what you did ? You attacked his beliefs in other area's, then, believing you had impeached his credibility, you made no effort to even look at his mathematics on the issue. He was a world acclaimed mathematician. No matter. When a scientist is a creationist, she is immediately suspect, biased., An evolutionist can posit the most bizarre and ridiculous things, of course with no bias (? ha) and all the little evolutionsts twitter and clap

You think it's amusing that people care about the actual meaning of words and phrases used in science?? No wonder you're all over the place.

 

[shmogie]

Hoyle had beliefs with which I disagree, however, that doesn't impeach his qualifications as a mathematician and objective scientist, Didn't you and I have a discussion about whales being land animals, then returning to the sea ? If not ignore the rest., Having been given the impression that fossilized intermediary species were extant, and well studied, I sought out they and the research publications about them. I found two, the first, Ambucolectus natans, and the second Pichesetus inachus. These were the guys identified initially as intermediary whale species. I couldn't find another, though they may exist. The latter was found in fresh water deposits, not seabeds, and actually appears to be a dog like land creature., The first was proposed to be like a sea lion or maybe an otter that lived near the sea, it has no pelvic girdle, but why does it have hooves ? Hooves are on plains or veldt animals, not seashore animals. No explanations have been put forward., Your die wouldn';t work. There are many, many things that have been refuted by science which I accept in totality. I certainly am not "unscientific". In fact, in my small parthenon of personal heroe's Einstein holds a place ( though I will admit that after courses and books parts of relativity are still beyond me). What I object to in the scientific method applied in cosmology,and abiogenesis is used not to discover ALL possibilities. but rather to identify possibilities within a defined parameter that must never be breached. The efforts to stay within the parameters leads to absurdity and yes, lying Roll your die if you choose, but we will agree much., much more than disagree

 

[shmogie]

You think it's amusing that people care about the actual meaning of words and phrases used in science?? No wonder you're all over the place.

I think it is amusing that you strain out the gnat and swallow the camel. No wonder you are all over the place

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it is amusing that you strain out the gnat and swallow the camel. No wonder you are all over the place

Excuse me for trying to clarify the definition of words so that our conversation actually makes sense and we all know what we're talking about. Whatever was I thinking?

 

[shmogie]

Well, it happens that it is not. Apart from your statements or quotes from scientists that actually make my point, you do not have a lot, I am afraid. Even puntcuated equilibrium entails common origin, as you should have known.



Thanks for noticing. Spel cheker disabled.

Ciao

- viole

What is "a lot" ? How many books or articles constitute " a lot" ? How many biochemists, cosmologists, biologists, geologists and physicians constitute a lot ? Let me know, and I will do my best to give you a reading list of "a lot" of very qualified scientists

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hoyle had beliefs with which I disagree, however, that doesn't impeach his qualifications as a mathematician and objective scientist, Didn't you and I have a discussion about whales being land animals, then returning to the sea ? If not ignore the rest., Having been given the impression that fossilized intermediary species were extant, and well studied, I sought out they and the research publications about them. I found two, the first, Ambucolectus natans, and the second Pichesetus inachus. These were the guys identified initially as intermediary whale species. I couldn't find another, though they may exist. The latter was found in fresh water deposits, not seabeds, and actually appears to be a dog like land creature., The first was proposed to be like a sea lion or maybe an otter that lived near the sea, it has no pelvic girdle, but why does it have hooves ? Hooves are on plains or veldt animals, not seashore animals. No explanations have been put forward., Your die wouldn';t work. There are many, many things that have been refuted by science which I accept in totality. I certainly am not "unscientific". In fact, in my small parthenon of personal heroe's Einstein holds a place ( though I will admit that after courses and books parts of relativity are still beyond me). What I object to in the scientific method applied in cosmology,and abiogenesis is used not to discover ALL possibilities. but rather to identify possibilities within a defined parameter that must never be breached. The efforts to stay within the parameters leads to absurdity and yes, lying Roll your die if you choose, but we will agree much., much more than disagree

It wasn't me, but here is some info:


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales-giants-of-the-deep/whale-evolution

 

[shmogie]

Excuse me for trying to clarify the definition of words so that our conversation actually makes sense and we all know what we're talking about. Whatever was I thinking?

You really think think that the different definitions of the words implies that the popping into life from chemicals a cell, is that much different than a horse popping into life from chemicals? You are confused when I use spontaneous generation instead of abiogenesis ? You don't grasp that the whole issue is ANYTHING popping into life from chemicals ? I will be sure and use the word you understand, so that content, as you understand it, and not definitions are paramount

 

[viole]

What is "a lot" ? How many books or articles constitute " a lot" ? How many biochemists, cosmologists, biologists, geologists and physicians constitute a lot ? Let me know, and I will do my best to give you a reading list of "a lot" of very qualified scientists

Find a list of qualified scientists that oppose evolution and have the name Steve, or a variation thereof. Since Steves are about 1% of the population, at least in America, that should give us a figure of the size of qualified evolution doubters.

Compare it with the number listed in the Project Steve and if you get close than you have "a lot". And evidence of a controversy in science, that goes beyond imagination or wishful thinking.

So, how many Steves, Stephens, Stephanies, etc. have you got up your sleeve?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really think think that the different definitions of the words implies that the popping into life from chemicals a cell, is that much different than a horse popping into life from chemicals? You are confused when I use spontaneous generation instead of abiogenesis ? You don't grasp that the whole issue is ANYTHING popping into life from chemicals ? I will be sure and use the word you understand, so that content, as you understand it, and not definitions are paramount

Yes I do. There is a very big difference between some chemicals and biomolecules coming together (which do so naturally anyway) to form a primitive organism that over vastly long periods of time eventually grew to be much more complex and diverse, versus horses popping up from manure on a daily basis, fully formed and fully grown. I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't see the vast difference between those two things.


And yes, I'm confused when you don't use the proper terminology when you're trying to describe something. So sue me.

 

[shmogie]

Yes I do. There is a very big difference between some chemicals and biomolecules coming together (which do so naturally anyway) to form a primitive organism that over vastly long periods of time eventually grew to be much more complex and diverse, versus horses popping up from manure on a daily basis, fully formed and fully grown. I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't see the vast difference between those two things.


And yes, I'm confused when you don't use the proper terminology when you're trying to describe something. So sue me.

Well, I won't sue you, I doubt you have anything I need or want, and in the main I agree with you re definitions. Biomolecules coming together naturally to form a primitive organism could not have happened in any of the proposed environments of the primordial world. Miller-Urey was touted as "proof" when the few amino acids created came from a totally toxic environment for life. It is proposed that there was no life, then there was. However there are no geologic fossils that are not pretty complicated bacteria, at the least

 

[shmogie]

Find a list of qualified scientists that oppose evolution and have the name Steve, or a variation thereof. Since Steves are about 1% of the population, at least in America, that should give us a figure of the size of qualified evolution doubters.

Compare it with the number listed in the Project Steve and if you get close than you have "a lot". And evidence of a controversy in science, that goes beyond imagination or wishful thinking.

So, how many Steves, Stephens, Stephanies, etc. have you got up your sleeve?

Ciao

- viole

A lot

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I won't sue you, I doubt you have anything I need or want, and in the main I agree with you re definitions. Biomolecules coming together naturally to form a primitive organism could not have happened in any of the proposed environments of the primordial world. Miller-Urey was touted as "proof" when the few amino acids created came from a totally toxic environment for life. It is proposed that there was no life, then there was. However there are no geologic fossils that are not pretty complicated bacteria, at the least

Yes it could have, and the possibility of such has already been demonstrated. You cannot say it is impossible when the possibility of it has been demonstrated. I never said anything was proof and neither did anyone else since science doesn't work that way. I said these experiments show that it's at least a possibility that life can come from nonliving matter in the way previously described. I've already addressed your issues with the Miller-Urey experiments that you're bringing up again here. Repeating your objections again as though that hasn't happened is a waste of time. (These are old claims that have been addressed many times over.)

 

[viole]

A lot

Show it to me. How many Steves, so that we can make an objective comparison?

We already know you cannot use Stephen Jay Gould, obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Yes it could have, and the possibility of such has already been demonstrated. You cannot say it is impossible when the possibility of it has been demonstrated. I never said anything was proof and neither did anyone else since science doesn't work that way. I said these experiments show that it's at least a possibility that life can come from nonliving matter in the way previously described. I've already addressed your issues with the Miller-Urey experiments that you're bringing up again here. Repeating your objections again as though that hasn't happened is a waste of time. (These are old claims that have been addressed many times over.)

Well then, as always, we disagree, the experiments show nothing other than using intelligent design 23 of 2,500 amino acids can be produced from a conglomeration of stuff thought, maybe, to be present in the unknown primordial world. We won't even address the fact that proteins in living organisms are virtually all "left handed" and the proteins produced in the alleged "primordial soup" are not. You have faith brother (sister?) you have faith.

 

[Parsimony]

As to viuses, is it not true that they need a cell for the purpose of reproduction ? ergo, unless there were self replicating viruses in the past, wouldn't a cell/celled creature have to exist before viruses ?

Right.

Seems like the poor virus was treated rather roughly by evolution.

Evolution doesn't "care" what is rough or not.

I am amused at how evolutionists are so concerned and emphatic about the definitions of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's like seeing your neighbor make a quarter disappear, then going to Vegas and seeing a magician make three elephants, three monkeys in the arms of three girls on the elephants disappear. Then the discussion is about "big magic", and "little magic", With no one apparently realizing that both used techniques in common for their tricks, and what they saw couldn't happen, the same element is present, matter disappearing before your eyes in an instant.

The first law of thermodynamics prevents matter from "disappearing before your eyes in an instant", whereas there are no laws of physics that prevent the formation of simple living things from abiotic circumstances. Looks like you still think that an ice sculpture of the White House forming in clouds is just as likely as a snowflake forming there (I mean, you don't seem to think complexity is relevant at all to probability).

What Hoyle believed is irrelevant, unless you are proposing that a brilliant scientists cheated on his mathematical model because of his beliefs ? This is a common strain of dialog employed by many evolutionists. Did you notice what you did ? You attacked his beliefs in other area's, then, believing you had impeached his credibility, you made no effort to even look at his mathematics on the issue.

What mathematics? I haven't seen you post it. If you're going to make the claim, then provide the source.

He was a world acclaimed mathematician.

Math is only as valid as the assumptions underlying it. I've heard of mathematical "proof" that no rocket could ever make it into space because it would have too carry so much propellant that it be too heavy to fly. Too bad the assumption was a single-stage to orbit concept, which is not what actual rockets ended up employing. Faulty premises give faulty results, no matter how correct the math is.

No matter. When a scientist is a creationist, she is immediately suspect, biased.

Hoyle is a creationist?

An evolutionist can posit the most bizarre and ridiculous things, of course with no bias (? ha) and all the little evolutionsts twitter and clap

I'd have to disagree. I've seen an evolutionist with a Ph.D. in genetics posit that humans are pig-chimp hybrids. That's a load of crap.

 

[shmogie]

Right.

Evolution doesn't "care" what is rough or not.

The first law of thermodynamics prevents matter from "disappearing before your eyes in an instant", whereas there are no laws of physics that prevent the formation of simple living things from abiotic circumstances. Looks like you still think that an ice sculpture of the White House forming in clouds is just as likely as a snowflake forming there (I mean, you don't seem to think complexity is relevant at all to probability).

What mathematics? I haven't seen you post it. If you're going to make the claim, then provide the source.

Math is only as valid as the assumptions underlying it. I've heard of mathematical "proof" that no rocket could ever make it into space because it would have too carry so much propellant that it be too heavy to fly. Too bad the assumption was a single-stage to orbit concept, which is not what actual rockets ended up employing. Faulty premises give faulty results, no matter how correct the math is.

Hoyle is a creationist?

I'd have to disagree. I've seen an evolutionist with a Ph.D. in genetics posit that humans are pig-chimp hybrids. That's a load of crap.

The magic principle is the same, they APPEAR, to disappear, everyone knows they can't really. Abiogenisis makes the spontaneous existence of life from chemicals APPEAR to be reasonable. However, it's like saying, though much more difficult, that your snow MIGHT fall into a life size replication of the Pentagon. It hasn't happened ( no proof), it isn't happening, and no one knows HOW it could happen. Faulty premises give faulty results, like abiogenesis. You have faith that all life came from a mixture of chemicals, that could reproduce before it/they died, synthesize food of some kind, stay alive in a relatively hostile environment, with no mechanism for information in the organism to properly program it to carry out the processes of life. Billions and Billions of years, and juuusst the right recipe of rock run off and whatever else makes it happen. Complexity effects probability, the higher the complexity, the less the probability, to impossible. So as ambiogenesis obviously gets more and more difficult to prove/model/create, the odds of it actually happening become less and less, to many, including many well qualified scientists, and prominent atheist scientists saying it is impossible. Place your faith as you choose, but don't pretend that your "faith" is somehow easier to swallow than mine. A very wise man said that faith was the shadow of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, you have your faith.,

 

[shmogie]

The magic principle is the same, they APPEAR, to disappear, everyone knows they can't really. Abiogenisis makes the spontaneous existence of life from chemicals APPEAR to be reasonable. However, it's like saying, though much more difficult, that your snow MIGHT fall into a life size replication of the Pentagon. It hasn't happened ( no proof), it isn't happening, and no one knows HOW it could happen. Faulty premises give faulty results, like abiogenesis. You have faith that all life came from a mixture of chemicals, that could reproduce before it/they died, synthesize food of some kind, stay alive in a relatively hostile environment, with no mechanism for information in the organism to properly program it to carry out the processes of life. Billions and Billions of years, and juuusst the right recipe of rock run off and whatever else makes it happen. Complexity effects probability, the higher the complexity, the less the probability, to impossible. So as ambiogenesis obviously gets more and more difficult to prove/model/create, the odds of it actually happening become less and less, to many, including many well qualified scientists, and prominent atheist scientists saying it is impossible. Place your faith as you choose, but don't pretend that your "faith" is somehow easier to swallow than mine. A very wise man said that faith was the shadow of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, you have your faith.,

Hoyle was not a creationist

 

[Parsimony]

The magic principle is the same, they APPEAR, to disappear, everyone knows they can't really.

False analogy, since no one "knows" that abiogenesis can't happen.

Abiogenisis makes the spontaneous existence of life from chemicals APPEAR to be reasonable. However, it's like saying, though much more difficult, that your snow MIGHT fall into a life size replication of the Pentagon. It hasn't happened ( no proof), it isn't happening, and no one knows HOW it could happen.

A self-replicating ribozyme or peptide would be far less complex than such a snow replica. Also saying "we don't know how it could happen, therefore it didn't" is the argument from incredulity fallacy.

Faulty premises give faulty results, like abiogenesis.

You've yet to demonstrate this.

You have faith that all life came from a mixture of chemicals

Do I? I've already told you I don't think the evidence is conclusive, only suggestive.

that could reproduce before it/they died, synthesize food of some kind, stay alive in a relatively hostile environment,

Those things didn't have to happen all in one step (also "hostile" is relative), and most organisms don't synthesize their own food anyway.

with no mechanism for information in the organism to properly program it to carry out the processes of life.

The first organisms with all of the traits common to extant living things (i.e. "programming") probably would have developed by evolution from the first self-replicating entity like a ribozyme. So natural selection plus mutation would be the mechanism for how they were "programmed".

Billions and Billions of years, and juuusst the right recipe of rock run off and whatever else makes it happen. Complexity effects probability, the higher the complexity, the less the probability

The probability of something happening is highly dependent on the conditions present. At any rate, you've yet to demonstrate that the probability for abiogenesis is too low for it to have actually occurred.

to impossible.

Not that you've demonstrated.

So as ambiogenesis obviously gets more and more difficult to prove/model/create, the odds of it actually happening become less and less,

Not at all, really. The probability of abiogenesis is not affected by our knowledge or lack of knowledge.

to many, including many well qualified scientists, and prominent atheist scientists saying it is impossible.

I'm still waiting for some good arguments from these "well qualified scientists". I haven't seen you post any calculations yet.

Place your faith as you choose, but don't pretend that your "faith" is somehow easier to swallow than mine. A very wise man said that faith was the shadow of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, you have your faith.,

I find the evidence for abiogenesis suggestive, but not conclusive. Therefore, I am able to admit that it may or may not have ever happened. How about you? Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well then, as always, we disagree, the experiments show nothing other than using intelligent design 23 of 2,500 amino acids can be produced from a conglomeration of stuff thought, maybe, to be present in the unknown primordial world.

That’s not nothing. I’m not sure where you’re getting 2500 from. Life requires 20 amino acids.

We won't even address the fact that proteins in living organisms are virtually all "left handed" and the proteins produced in the alleged "primordial soup" are not. You.

You already tried to address that twice now. I gave you the same link both times that directly addresses where you are in error.

have faith brother (sister?) you have faith

I don’t need faith since I’m not claiming I know the answer. I’m pointing out that something you claim is impossible is actually possible. And demonstrably so.