So this conflict reignited via Robert posting in a different thread the following:
the argument from ignorance is the neo-Darwinists domain. Even though abiogenesis and the necessary constant upward progression of complex specified sequencing of 3-D multi-layered, meanginful-useful morphology producing, epigenetic, morphology producing, communicative, computational, meta-information, of several types that would have to be added to the genome constantly lacks any mechanisms that the burden of proof requires be shown and which the scientific method of inductive inference from observation only has been shown to arise from superior intelligence, the neo-Darwnists use blind faith that evolution did it.
If you're thinking that argument looks familiar, you're absolutely right. This is the same baloney he came out with last time, as I deligtfully pointed out. His response was "interesting" to say the least.
Robert, we debunked this before. And you ran away from my explanation.
I didnt see your responses Jon, so will get to them. But the fundamental problem that you didnt and cannot address is your vid was a joke and flat out wrong asserting absurd speculations with no evidence as factual reality in spite of contradictory evidence. It assumed w/o justification a prebiotic atmosphere, a prebiotic atmosphere with, many fatty acids, a prebiotic atmosphere with many fatty acids and hundreds of nucleotides. None of which are remotely factual and the Sutherland, Powner and Gerland experiment showed this, it started with artificial, unnatural synthetic ingredients putting them through an artificial, unnatual synthetic process with intelligent intervention at many crucial steps to purify results, remove lethal by products and add phosphate buffers. I posted the evidence from Powner himself admitting this so it isnt arguable. You are an attention seeker Jon, I have seen it on other pages and will demonstrate this shortly when I have time to get to it.
Robert at this point also engaged in a whole bunch of fallacious Arguments from Authority and quote mining, which again I called him out on...
Robert, your sources deal with both abiogenesis and evolution and conflates the two. The burden of proof is not on the mechanism of abiogenesis since we haven't come up with with a front-runner yet. Nobody is claiming we have. As for evolution, it is accepted, therefore the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion that it is false. Copy pasta slabs of quotes don't make the argument. Also:Since function is arbitrarily attached to words by an outside source of information as previously described, a gradual change in the letters of the words themselves is not going to result in a gradual evolution of their meaning or function beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity.
Sorry, what? This happens all the time. It's observable.Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, says that, "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."3
Well, this is with good reason. The required calculations are impossible, since they involve solving for the behavior of very complex systems that do not have closed-form solutions. Plus, I wouldn't put your eggs in the Michael Behe basket. You still haven't truly refuted Kitzmiller v Dover, as I explained last time: (See the Scott Rachui Saga, Part 12 where I pointed out exactly what the deal with Dover was)
At this point we now bring Methyl Uno into the discussion, who is in reality Josh Shelley, but will be called by his FB user title for convenience. He is perhaps even more brainless and indoctrinated into creationist and anti-evolutionist thinking than Robert, and even has a laughable book out for release, much like the previously mentioned Mike Pincher, although unlike Mike, Methyl's book DOES have reviews and they are all ONE STAR. I'm not kidding, the book really IS that terrible. In any case, when talking to Methyl, I repeated some stuff about how until proven otherwise, his book of holiness couldn't be considered real. Naturally Robert took neither that nor the above reply at all well:
Ok Jon, your attention seeking is over and you have now branched into blustering, lying and twisting which will now be exposed. First recant, delete or edit this mockery it isnt allowed on this page and so alerting Justin, Charles, Diane, Dan, Nate (the mods of the group), "2) Your babble is a book of mythology/fiction." This is just the dumbest thing I have read in years showing you are so desperate for attention, even negative attention you will say anything to attempt to draw it.
Next, this is the dumbest, most idiotic thing I have read in years: "1) Your imaginary deity doesn’t exist. Evidence must be shown to make it a scientific necessity, and conclusive scientific evidence used. Philosophical necessity won’t count for squat." Apparently you are in ignorance of the universal negative fallacy. And then claiming the only truths are scientific is absurd exposing your vast ignorance and attention seeking. Apparently you need a lesson on Hume, Comte positivism, logical positivism and its death with Popper putting the last nail in the coffin. Hume himself acknowledged that historical testimony is the vast majority of valid evidence. Positivism and logical positivism saying the only truths are empirically verified died a slow death starting at the end of the nineteenth century and buried in the mid-twentieth century after Popper clarified that nothing can actually be empirically verified, and that to be truly scientific a statement/hypothesis must be able to be contradicted by a possible or conceivable observation. So much for your God must be scientifically proven idea. And so historical evidence is just as valid. Further, science relies upon inductive inference assigning a probability and does not therefore prove anything. It is not absolute so it is absurd to claim the only truths are scientific and God must be proven with conclusive scientific evidence. Because of Poppers critiques of falsifiability instead of verificationism, science is philosophically based so you have no clue what you are talking about saying, "Philosophical necessity wont count for squat." Science is based upon philosophical necessity, w/o that, there is no science genius.
And the previous was the dumbest thing I have read in years, until seconds later I read this:"All your arguments against abiogenesis based on likelihood and logic are irrelevant, because they all also apply equally to God. If abiogenesis is too comples to occur spontaneously then God is even moreso. If it can be allowed that God is eternal and needs no cause or explanation, then neither does abiogenesis."
Saying if abiogenesis is too complex to occur naturally then God is even moreso limited is just inexcusably idiotic Jon. Complete non-sequitur and bizarrely irrational. You just lost any credibility as even rabid atheists and anti-theists can see the stupidity in this. The super-natural creator is subject to and limited by the natural laws of His creation. Right. Do you realize how many logical fallacies you just employed? Strawman, non-sequitur, limiting omnipotence.
1) Your whole premise rests on a several logical fallacies such as making the creator subject to and limited by His creation, limiting omnipotence; limiting omnipotence and reducing it to your level of ignorance; attempting to make your finite ignorance the standard raising your finitude to omnipotence/omniscience.
2) Then the logical fallacy of strawmanning this issue. In order for the unbeliever to rationally approach these issues, they logically are obligated to treat them as hypotheticals and analyze them for what they claim to be. You cannot change definitions and insert your a priori biases as you have. You must take the Biblical accts with the definitions as they are and analyze them for what they claim to be, not change God into a caricature of what you want to mock in willful ignorance and bias as you have. God by definition is omnipotent, beyond, separate from and not subject to His creation. A painter is not limited to and subject to his painting but by your assertion they are.
Next, you keep making assertions and then throwing up links instead of properly quoting the section of the article you think supports you. And the reason you do this is because you are lying about what your link says apparently hoping no one will call you on your bluff. Didnt work. So in the future learn how to make an argument which means to state your claim/assertion and then quote the evidence that you think supports your assertion here for all to read, couple that with logic for a valid/successful conclusion. So making an assertion then copying a link isnt an argument or even evidence. A link is merely so the evidence you quote can be located verified. So do not try this tactic of falsely asserting and then posting a link hoping you wont get, again.
Now then, as for your false assertions. First, your vid stated hundreds of nucleotides in the alleged NATURAL PREBIOTIC ENVIRONMENT, which is obviously false and inarguable. The best you have done is falsely assert a few others. Read your own article genius, TNA is synthetic having nothing to do with the alleged natural prebiotic environment:"Molecular evolution provides a powerful approach for investigating the functional properties of nucleic acids 6,7. Until now, this method has been limited to DNA and RNA or close structural analogues thereof (for a review see ref. , because these were the only
polymers with enzymes that could transcribe, reverse-transcribe and
amplify genetic information 8. Extending this approach to artiﬁcial
genetic systems like TNA..."
And this article has next to nothing to do with abiogenesis, it speaks of bioenergetics proposing cell membranes become less leaky so your bluster here is exposed as false,"As far as abiogenesis is concerned, I recommend this article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar
ticle/pii/S0092867412014389 , for the latest on the research hypothesis I think is most promising:"
This has nothing to do with the universal genetic code forming naturally genius.
Finally the last thing I will expose before making one more comment to you as space constraints of comments prevent me from finishing is this is just baloney you copied from Fiona who got it wrong as I proved, these are nucleosides, not nucleotides which you blustered about here in ignorance.
Wow, what a lot of bluster, signifying absolutely nothing from your end… I don’t suppose you realised in amidst that train wreck, that your arguments don’t actually work the way you suppose they do? All you are in effect saying is “my opinion is there is a god”, for which you can adduce no evidence at all, and assemble a disastrous farrago of faulty reasoning in support of your non-argument. Any rational person would take a look at that and say, “no”. 2/10 for effort.
And I'm sorry, but we are explaining the world to someone who is flatly delusional. If your deity ISN'T imaginary (as you object to me saying), you will provide evidence for it. Physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush. Otherwise, all you have is you fallacious presupposition that your deity isn’t imaginary.
Likewise, your babble (another term you objected to me using) IS a book of mythology/fiction until you provide the conclusive physical evidence to show it is inerrant and the word of your imaginary deity. But, if you can’t show your deity exists first, and you HAVEN'T done that, nor can you do that with your idiotic and fallacious “god of the ever shrinking gaps” fallacious kindergartener level arguments..
I’m waiting for your evidence, say the coordinates of the eternally burning bush. Until then, blather on, but I won’t bother to read your meaningless blather and bombast. You are too stupid to realize you have already lost the argument, and can’t win it with nothing but attitude, and nothing actually solid.
As Ava so delightfully points out, either demonstrate your pseudo-science is actual science by presenting it in such a way so that it's falsifiable and verifiable and produces consistent results in its favour as well as predictions that are always right so that you'll end up getting a Nobel Prize, or kindly admit that you're wrong.
Oh, and "the Bible is a scientifically accurate document"? Seriously? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific
_errors_in_the_Bible and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Problems_w ith_biblical_inerrancy and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_s cientific_foreknowledge and http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Co nfirms_the_Bible and http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/bible.ht m and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/scien ce/long.html . All of which took me exactly FIVE SECONDS on Google to find. Are you sure you don't want to revise your claim, Mr Webb?
One more thing:Hume himself acknowledged that historical testimony is the vast majority of valid evidence.
Wash your mouth with soap before you try to drag history into your dreck, Robert. Historians don’t just take anyone’s word for it. The most important rule of historical research is that people make crap up all the time, so parallel lines of evidence are the gold standard. Just like in any other science. Trying to elevate your opinion to the level of historical evidence is an insult to anyone who studies it.
Now, the next chapter is clock full of interactions with Methyl, but in the meantime here is a little teaser of his idiocy:
do you always sort Wiki for your information on science? Isn't that a tad.... off the beat?
How do you feel, any of this science, supports your atheism? I'm quite interested.
I could ask you a variant of the same question, Methyl. Do you always look to Christian Biblical presuppositional apologists for your information on science, especially if those apologists aren't even qualified in the areas of science for example that they are disparaging?
Please note, none of the sources that either you nor Robert have brought up have been biologists, or in the rare occasions when you have actually cited biologists as your sources, you have either quote-mined them or misrepresented their views. And don't even get me started on using either Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells as a "credible" source.
This was the point where Robert had blocked me. Taking the opportunity to take one last shot at Robert, as well as also taking advantage of a new creationist to debate, I posted this:
Further Me vs Robert (as well as potentially Methyl):
These are nucleosides, not nucleotides which you blustered about here in ignorance when you claimed this.
No, dear, they are bases. Just like A, T, C, G and U. Link any of those to a sugar and you have a *nucleoside*. Link a phosphate group to that nucleoside and you have a *nucleotide*. Don’t pretend you know what you’re talking about, okay?
Also, I mentioned I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt in addition to A, T, C, G, U. If you really want I, Ψ, X, D, Q, Yt to correspond to nucleosides, then that’s fine by me. In that case, I mentioned those nucleosides in addition to adenosine, thymidine, cytidine, guanidine and uridine. Happy?It assumed w/o justification a prebiotic atmosphere, a prebiotic atmosphere with, many fatty acids, a prebiotic atmosphere with many fatty acids and hundreds of nucleotides.
Don’t say things that are wrong. We know a lot about the prebiotic earth ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1009632
230875 ) because it left its mark everywhere ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F3505155 0 ). Take note, there is both positive evidence here which suggest theories as well as negative evidence which invalidates theories. The papers I reference are inconsistent with every creation story ever proposed by religions.
All concepts must be falsifiable in order to be useful or even considered. The intelligent design concept, for example, is falsifiable. It makes the claim that biology exhibits traits indicative of intelligent agency in their design. Every biological structure to my knowledge can be explained by unguided action, and every structure whose mechanism for origination is well known occurred entirely naturally without intelligent guidance. This is both a positive indication that intelligent design is likely wrong, and an negative indication in the systems we are certain of that intelligent design is falsified. A reasonable person, therefore, cannot support intelligent design without extraordinarily compelling evidence.Science is based upon philosophical necessity, w/o that, there is no science genius
Lulwut? Do you actually work in any scientific field? I know the driving force for scientific genius in the fields my friends work in isn’t philosophical necessity, but a driving need from the public to find answers. Some former high school chums of mine who I still keep in touch with work in nanotechnology and opto-electronics, and the biggest driving force for people like them to find answers is the need for solar power to be cheap and the need to store vast quantities of energy (also, cheap flexible electronics. That would be cool too). We are then constrained by the materials we have access to and the theories and facts which describe systems we do understand and (most importantly) the way the world really works. Nowhere in there are we driven by philosophical babble.
Philosophy did not generate science. Human need generates science. That same human need causes us to generate philosophy and mathematics and many other disciplines.So much for your God must be scientifically proven idea.
An idea is worthless unless it causes action. Ideas that cause action must make claims about the structure and nature of reality (which is firmly within the realm of science). All supernatural claims to date have either been 1) falsified or 2) don’t contain a cause to action. In other words, gods are either crap, worthless or both.And this article has next to nothing to do with abiogenesis, it speaks of bioenergetics proposing cell membranes become less leaky so your bluster here is exposed as false
… really? You’re claiming that the formation of stable lipid bilayers has nothing to do with abiogenesis? I may not a biologist, but the connection here is obvious to me as someone who's actually done the research. Natural formation of separate aqueous environments is a necessary condition for the propagation of those same environments. The structure of those membranes confines the chemical reactions that allow their propagation (which we know occurs abiotically, I know people who have done it personally in a variety of solvents). Really, you should spend some time learning how things work before claiming how they must have come to be.
Oh, and of course the bible is a work of fiction. Just like every other “holy” text of every other religion humans have invented over the ages. You really don’t get to have a text treated as if it were anything other than human-invented, just on your say-so, you know. How seriously would you take someone demanding you treat the koran as the word of god? Tsk tsk.
You think it’s OK to claim the existence of an intelligence not subject to any of the laws of physics, offer no actual evidence for this other than your own opinion, and expect to get taken seriously? Oy.
Of course, if you have any grounds other than unevidenced opinion for believing this intelligence exists, and that it happens to match the contradictory figure described in various different parts of the bible and other xtian texts, please feel free to adduce ‘em. I won’t hold my breath, though.
Oh, and don’t forget Ockham’s razor. There is nothing for which adding goddidit adds to our understanding. Resorting to goddidit for abiogenesis or the big bang is no better – no cleverer, no more useful – than praying to Zeus to go easy on the thunderbolts.
Oh, and:TNA is synthetic
Look, it’s very simple: TNA is a nucleic acid. You said there are only two types of nucleic acids, RNA and DNA. Therefore, you were wrong.having nothing to do with the alleged natural prebiotic environment
Again, it’s very simple: TNA is simpler than RNA. TNA is capable of Darwinian evolution. TNA folds into tertiary structures. Therefore, it is relevant for abiogenesis research.
Join me in the next part where I deal with the tedium that is debating with Methyl Uno. *sigh*.