meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,

The Reliability of the Bible Saga: Part 14

Just to add something of mine I forgot to include since Scott also mentioned Paley's Watch:


Oh and with regards to Paley's Watch, do you know why we know a watch had a watch-maker, or a painting had a painter? It's because, we recognize that a painting had a painter not because it's complex, not because it's ordered, we recognize this from experience, all evidence points to this thing having being designed. We recognize design by contrasting it with what is naturally occurring, and that's why you can hold up a painting and a tree side by side and you would say "Oh, the painting is obviously the creation of an intelligent mind," because we have no examples of painting coming into existence on their own, we have no examples of paintings being able to reproduce. All evidence... we have millions of examples of paintings created by thinking minds, so all of the evidence points to this, the contrast though is that trees do naturally reproduce as do people and living things, we have a good understanding of how planets form out of accretion disks from suns, those things are naturally occurring, that contrast between naturally occurring and created is something that ... is how we determine whether or not something was designed, and what you're doing is kind of like, you're mentioned Paley's watchmaker analogy where you find a watch and it's intricate workings supposedly lead one to deduce that it was designed, but in reality what you have is a watch lying on a field of watches in a universe of watches, because you believe that everything is designed, so there is no point of contrast for you.

Design is contrasted against naturally occurring, order itself is not necessarily a product of design, as sand dunes in the desert look very orderly, but they're not designed, they don't give ... not everything gives the impression of design, and those things which do give the impression of design aren't necessarily designed.

People have, for a very long time, described things as appearing to be designed because the way people learn in general is to make analogies to things that they already know, so when we say how the eye works we tend to describe it in terms of things that we know how they already work, like a camera, but that doesn't mean that the eye is a literal camera.

Now the first response I got that actually touched the topic was indeed from Scott, albeit again only addressing a tiny portion of what I wrote, namely about the reliability of the authors who Scott referenced, this was the only relevant section in a post that was otherwise filled with the same old "petulance!" and "childishness!" and "tantrums!" accusation bullshit:

Scott Rachui:

Aha! The Genetic Fallacy rears its head again. What Dr. Tipler said can't be trusted because he wrote another book that Jon isn't fond of.

Let me first say this, demand that we accept your sources and you ridicule ours. There hypocrisy is stunning. It's logically fallacious reasoning (and let's be honest...virtually everything you say is logically fallacious reasoning) and all it does is make you look foolish.

But even granting the argument for a moment...are you aware that the scientific information I draw on from Barrow & Tipler came out BEFORE Tipler turned to Christianity? Sure he's written a couple of recent books on Christianity and Physics. But when he wrote The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, he was not a Christian. In fact, he was shocked to find that the evidence for God was so good that it LED HIM to Christianity.

Here is a direct quote from him on this (from his book that you already referenced):

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

I very quickly pointed out his "Argument from Authority" fallacy again as well as his views being in a fringe minority in science considering that NAS puts the number of religious scientists at only 7%, and then got a response from Robert Webb:

Robert Webb:

Now then lets' deal with a couple of Jon's assertions about which he has no clue, the vid he links to is absurd and isnt Jack Szostak's research, the vid is a bunch of demonstrably false pseudo-intellectual babble. It presents pure speculation as face. It states the prebiotic atmosphere had 'many simple fatty acids', 'hundreds of nucleotides only one of which is needed to self-polymerize' and 'we know that early life must have been very simple.'

At 5:02 the vid claims the prebiotic environment had hundreds of nucleotides and that it only takes one to 'self polymerize'. Completely false. The current research of which Jon is ignorant yet on which he hypocritically challenged Rachiu's knowledge, is from Sutherland, Powner and Gerland which failed to show even nucleotide precursors can form from a natural process starting with natural ingredients, they started with chemicals not found in nature, right handed ribose isomers and purified cyanoacetylene, and then at many crucial steps intelligently intervened to purify results, remove lethal byproducts and add phosphate buffers. And at the same point in th vid saying this stated that it only takes one nucleotide to polymerize which is an oxymoron as polymerization is when at least two nucleotides are joined by a phosphodiester bond:

"Polymerization of Nucleotides (Phosphodiester Bonds)

Nucleotides are joined together similarly to other biological molecules, by a condensation reaction that releases a small, stable molecule. Unlike proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids, however, the molecule that is released is not water but pyrophosphate (two phosphate groups bound together). When pyrophosphate is cleaved by the addition of water, a great deal of free energy is released, ensuring that the reverse process (hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bond to give free nucleotides) is very unlikely to occur.

1. The 5' group of a nucleotide triphosphate is held close to the free 3' hydroxyl group of a nucleotide chain.

2. The 3' hydroxyl group forms a bond to the phosphorus atom of the free nucleotide closest to the 5' oxygen atom. Meanwhile, the bond between the first phosphorus atom and the oxygen atom linking it to the next phosphate group breaks.

3. A new phosphodiester bond now joins the two nucleotides. A pyrophosphate group has been liberated.

4. The pyrophosphate group is hydrolyzed (split by the addition of water), releasing a great deal of energy and driving the reaction forward to completion."

At 3:10 in the vid it incorrectly states we know that early life must have been much simpler which is bluster, there is no evidence of simpler life, the simplest cell we know is incredibly complex and there is zero evidence that life ever was anything simpler. This is an ad hoc/post hoc invention and a tacit acknowledgement that life is too complex to ever have evolved so therefore because of the a priori belief in neo-Darwinian evolution there was simpler life, question begging and circular reasoning.

At 3:50 the vid incorrectly states the prebiotic atmosphere contained many simple fatty acids. Again, this is an unproven speculation.

So, there is no evidence of many simple fatty acids, no evidence of any nucleotides and no evidence that life ever was any simpler. Jon didnt know this yet presented this bluster as an argument because he doesnt know how debates are won, he doesn't know the scientific method requiring hypotheses to bested, doesn't know logic requiring assertions to be backed with evidence and to be tested and verified, doesnt know debate uses this logic and borrows from the scientific method to test assertions just like a scientific hypothesis so he failed to apply critical thinking to this vid, didnt have the knowledge to test it yet threw it up in a post as evidence of his claims.

Another dishonest claim of Jon's is taking credentialed scholars and attempting to avoid their credentials and in a circular reasoning fallacy stating that because they support Christianity they are not scholars but apologists. How absurd and dishonest can you get? That is a priori reasoning starting from his conclusion that Christianity is invalid therefore there cannot be true scientists who support Christianity therefore we can ignore any scientist who supports Christianity they must be just apologists when Scott Rachui correctly pointed out their credentials so Jon's desperate plea for negative attention went this way:

"What I rely on is the work done by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". You're welcome to pick that book up and read it, but here is a summary statement I put together from the book that explains this:

Frank Tipler is a professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and John Barrow is a professor of Astronomy at Sussex. They are both well-respected scientists and are not writing as Christians, but as scientists.

So let me get this straight: these guys are totally not Christian apologetics, and yet Frank J. Tipler wrote a book called The Physics of Christianity. Would you like to revise your claim?"

Then Jon because of his ignorance of logic and debate contradicts himself asserting an abiogenesis of the gaps argument acknowleding science doesnt know or have evidence that it occured yet claims Scott is asserting a god of the gaps not understanding the argument which is that from direct observation of complexity we know from inductive inference, he logic used in the scientific method that the complex, specified, meaningfully functional, 3-D, multilayered, computational, communicative, epigenetic, digital metainformation can only be preceded by intelligence and the research to date such as Sutherland et al's experiment requiring intelligent intervention confirms this.

And Jon exposes his ignorance and likely false claim he used to be a Christian referring to entropy as a response to Scott's correct statement God is the God of order. Any Christian educated on science knows that the Bible says the universe is subject to decay (Genesis, Romans 8, Hebrews 1) and correlates decay as corruption/sin so the sin Adam and Eve brought into the world started the entropy causing the move towards disorder in the universe. So it is likely Jon blustered saying he was a Christian and now asserts his knowledge of science but doesnt know the basics of science from the Christian perspective.

I'm still working on a full response to Robert, but the response to Scott can be seen in Part 15...
Tags: reliability bible
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic