meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,
meester_bond
meester_bond

The Reliability of the Bible Saga Part 19

So at this point the debate had essentially switched between myself and Scott to myself and Robert to its final stages of Me vs Methyl, a.k.a. Josh. Methyl basically ignored my previous comment that was also directed at him, so I'll just allow this comment of mine to basically illustrate what the guy had been doing:

Me:

You cannot, Methyl Uno, assume properties such as omnipotence or omniscience in a creator, without actual positive evidence for them, anymore than you can assume the creator itself.

Nothing you have said has added anything cogent to your argument as demonstrated by your OP. You may as well have kept it to that one post for all the good anything else you’ve posted has done for your arguments.

Harp all you want about the complexities, unknowns, or difficulties, real or imagined, with abiogenesis theory. It does not matter. Every argument of this sort you apply against abiogenesis bounces back to you and applies with even greater force to the idea of a creator.

If a process such as abiogenesis is too complex and difficult to arise spontaneously, then a creator entity intelligent enough to direct it is even more complex and difficult to arise spontaneously. If said creator entity can be viewed as not subject to the requirement of having to arise spontaneously, then neither does the original process itself either.

Even if you can demonstrate that abiogenesis by all currently envisioned means are impossible, that does not provide you any viable argument in support of a creator of any kind. The explanation does not default to god in the event that abiogenesis or evolution or relativity or what have you turns out wrong. Any number of alternative explanatory frameworks as yet unimagined still remain as hypothetical possibilities.

You cannot logic or rhetoric your way out of the circle. It can only be broken with POSITIVE EVIDENCE.

We have POSITIVE EVIDENCE for portions of abiogenesis theory. That gives us the impetus to pursue those theories further, and look for more positive evidence.

There is NO positive evidence for creator theory, and thus we do not pursue it. If you wish for creator theory (theories, actually) to be considered, then you must provide the POSITIVE EVIDENCE to get the ball rolling.

It does not necessitate complete evidence or absolute proof. Just a small piece of real, POSITIVE EVIDENCE that a creator does exist. But you do not have even that.

Look, we humans do not yet have the nanotechnology by which we can grab atoms with little machines and assemble molecules brick by intentional brick.

“Synthetic” chemistry means creating a certain set of starting conditions, tossing in the ingredients, and letting the laws of chemistry proceed as they would.

We humans also do not yet possess the capability of altering or suspending those natural laws of chemistry.

And that means that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we can do with synthetic chemistry can occur naturally, if the those crude starting conditions that we set up should arise naturally, somewhere in the universe. Indeed, MUST occur.

If I use a bulldozer to dig a hole, in order to study how a ball might roll down its slope, that does not mean that balls would not roll down slopes without intelligent intervention.

Also, that you think that the bioenergetics of lipid membranes have nothing to do with abiogenesis is telling.

You are trying to argue against the possibility of a process occurring about which you KNOW NOTHING. Think about that for a moment.

If someone came to you wishing to discuss the moral teachings of Jesus Christ without having ever read the bible, or any of the testaments or any of the apocrypha, who went on to demonstrate that he was not even aware of Christ having been crucified, and insisted on continuing the conversation even after said deficiencies in his theological knowledge had been pointed out to him, what would you think of him?

That is how you appear to us on abiogenesis, Methyl.

Please look up “directed panspermia”.

Do you think that it is silly?

Understand that creator god theory is nothing more than the most extreme and unlikely example of directed panspermia.

Also, citation needed on the claim that Christ was crucified. Otherwise, the argument is so laughable that we can say that he was, in the same manner that one can say that Harry Potter was scarred as an infant, within the context of a discussion of the literary works of J. K. Rowling.


Methyl acts like a worse version of Daniel Wood here, being highly condescending and "wanting debate" yet clearly having absolutely no interest whatsoever in debating:

Methyl:

If you want to converse over the data, of which all supports Intelligent Design; Jon Davros Milne, you may. However, note that if you accept to involve yourself in such conversation; you must be willing to accept truth, when it is presented. I will not waste my time, or yours, by "harping on" about the science, if you're unable to discern truth for fear of the implications onto which your atheism will fall.

I'm off to work now and so, I give you the time to contemplate your involvement in such a conversation, if indeed you wish to have one.


Cheers.

Me:

Methyl Uno, it is exactly as I have written in every single comment I have made in this thread as well as pretty much everything that I said about Intelligent Design in the other thread which is now chronicled at http://meester-bond.livejournal.com . My positions are easily findable.


After he refused to read the comments or this LJ, I then talked about his OP claiming Evolution was a dead theory:

Not to mention, if the scientific theory of Evolution was really as "dead" as you claim it is, Methyl, then it would be mainstream news, and whoever would've managed to have replaced evolution with an alternative valid scientific theory would be first in line for a Nobel Prize. These sorts of occurrences pretty much ALWAYS would be hitting the really major news outlets that matter, and yet funnily enough, Creationism/ID supporters are still seen in science as extreme fringe groups comparable to 9/11 truthers and moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists.


Methyl:

How would one, go about claiming a reward in proving something that is not real, as unreal? Furthermore, you really need grasp the reality of the word 'theory' that is situated prior to the word 'evolution'.


...Yes, he really IS that fucking delusional.

Me:

How would one, go about claiming a reward in proving something that is not real, as unreal? Furthermore, you really need grasp the reality of the word 'theory' that is situated prior to the word 'evolution'.


Sorry, Methyl, but that statement is flat out not true. The vast VAST majority of the scientific consensus is that evolution is absolutely the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. Modern day biology would not make sense without the theory. And don't give me that "Evolution is only a theory" crap again, by the way. The scientific definition of "theory" is considerably different to the common layman definition of "theory". To quote Kevin Padian in his Kitzmiller v Dover testimony:

"A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time.


Take a good read also of http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Evolution_is_only_a_theory , which also explains the difference very well. To summarise: Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."


I also recounted the familiar tale of what happened at the Florida State Board of Education, as well as also bringing up how vaccines are tied to evolution, and re-posting what I had previously said to Scott in Parts 8 and 9 of my original reply to him about Intelligent Design. After doing this, I moved on to talk about this:

Methyl wants to argue that *H. Sapiens* had to have been Designed, on the grounds that ‘life can only spring from life’? Fine. If that premise is valid, *the Designer of* H. sapiens *MUST itself, have been a living thing*. Because if you grant that the Designer *wasn’t* a living thing, *you’ve just negated the life-only-springs-from-life premise which is your justification for invoking a Designer in the first place*. And since the life-only-springs-from-life premise requires that the Designer *must* have been a living thing, it equally requires that *the Designer, itself, MUST necessarily have been Designed by SOME OTHER Designer*. And this Designer-designer, in turn, *must necessarily* have been Designed by a Designer^3… who, in turn, *must necessarily* have been Designed by a Designer^4…

In short: The life-only-springs-from-life premise, *if* said premise is actually valid, *ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES* an infinite regress of Designers designing Designers designing Designers designing yada yada yada, worlds without end, amen.

One way out is to declare that the Designer of humankind is, in fact, *not* a living thing—but if you go that route, kiss your life-only-springs-from-life premise goodbye. Another escape route is to declare that your Designer doesn’t *need* to have sprung from any other life; but this response, like the previous one, just plain old *destroys* the life-only-springs-from-life premise you’re touting as your justification for invoking a Designer.

And you think it’s *rejecting* the life-only-springs-from-life premise that requires a “faith commitment”?

Here's an analogy for you: Take two 52-card decks. Thoroughly shuffle them together, and deal out all the cards in the thoroughly shuffled double-deck, face up. You’ll get a sequence of 104 cards, right? As it happens, that card-sequence you just dealt out is one of (104! 1.03*10^166 different card-sequences, which means the *particular* card-sequence you got is, therefore a 1/(1.03*10^166) longshot. But ID-pushers assure us that anything whose probability is less than 1/(10^150) is so improbable that it cannot have arisen by chance, and *that* means any such stupendously-improbable whatzit must, therefore, *be considered a product of Design*!

This is, of course, rubbish. It’s also a prime example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Yes, the particular double-deck card-sequence you dealt out is, indeed, a 1/(1.03*10^166) longshot, and so *what*? As improbable as that card-sequence may be, it *happened*. You *did* deal that card-sequence out. And any line of ‘reasoning’ which ends with “therefore, your card-sequence must have been the product of Design” is utter garbage.

Similarly, regardless of how improbable the specific sequernce of events which led up to *Homo sapiens* may be, that sequence of events *happened*. And the mere fact that said sequence of events *did* happen, is no more evidence of a Designer’s intervention with respect to *H. Sapiens*, than the mere fact that you dealt out a specific card-sequence is evidence of a Designer’s intervention with respect to that card-sequence.

Finally, here's some resources on fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html


I'll also add these other links I mentioned in the same post:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Teach_the_controversy
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_Affair

Anyhow, Methyl was naturally close minded and trollish towards the evidence...

Methyl:

Would you like to add anything else to the list of:
One Wiki page and twelve talkorigin pages, prior to engaging the data? I'm only asking because you have not really shown anything supporting your claims yet. You see, on review of your posts, the only real link that you need of posted, was the one regarding the Lenski experiment. Why, you ask? Because, Lenski, supplied the only data correlating to the subject of whether or not evolution took place, and to put it short; it never did.

What part of, variation within a species, do you not understand, exactly?

Here you have it:
The goal is to show evolution (keep this in mind).

Lenski, bred E.coli into 50,000 Generations. Of those 50,000 generations, Lenski, showed, beyond all doubt, evolution never takes place. At no point did a new feature for mechanized benefit, emerge. At no point did the E.coli evolve into a new species, kingdom or class.
At no point did any evolution take place and this leaves us with a question as to why you cited him? Lenskis' work shows one clear fact that was repeatable throughout each new generation; the bacteria de-evolved. Meaning, you have absolutely zero evidence for your nonsense delusion.

Would you like to take another run up?

P.S
As shown: evolution is only a theory. A theory yet to be demonstrated as plausible.

Cheers


Me:

Would you like to add anything else to the list of:
One Wiki page and twelve talkorigin pages, prior to engaging the data? I'm only asking because you have not really shown anything supporting your claims yet. You see, on review of your posts, the only real link that you need of posted, was the one regarding the Lenski experiment. Why, you ask? Because, Lenski, supplied the only data correlating to the subject of whether or not evolution took place, and to put it short; it never did.


Excuse me? Yes I have shown stuff that supports my position. My links all provide very clear evidence for my position, and TalkOrigins especially is held in far greater esteem by the mainstream scientific community than pretty much any of your quote-mined or otherwise flat out nonsense sources COMBINED. And you and I must be reading the Lenski experiment, because you're flat out delusional in this regard.

What part of, variation within a species, do you not understand, exactly?


I've already explained precisely what a species is and how there has been observed changes under laboratory conditions. Which part of that didn't you understand?

Lenski, bred E.coli into 50,000 Generations. Of those 50,000 generations, Lenski, showed, beyond all doubt, evolution never takes place. At no point did a new feature for mechanized benefit, emerge. At no point did the E.coli evolve into a new species, kingdom or class.
At no point did any evolution take place and this leaves us with a question as to why you cited him? Lenskis' work shows one clear fact that was repeatable throughout each new generation; the bacteria de-evolved. Meaning, you have absolutely zero evidence for your nonsense delusion.


Utter horsecrap and a shameful shameful lie. The organism is doing something it couldn't do before, and the organism is now better able to survive in its new environment — where its preferred food, glucose, was limited — so "degenerative events" would seem to be unlikely.

The beneficial mutation is that his organisms had acquired the ability to metabolize citrate - or more correctly an ability to transport it through the cell wall prior to metabolizing it. This was an entirely new ability for this species - an increase in complexity provided by a beneficial mutation. This beneficial trait was then fixed in the population by natural selection.

It is also important to notice that before acquiring this ability the bacteria acquired a previous potentiating mutation which, although it was not clearly beneficial at the time, subsequently allowed the descendants of that potentiated group the ability to process citrate after a further mutation. Furthermore frozen descendants of that group, and only the frozen descendants of that group, retained the ability to re-evolve that favorable trait.

His group did not use genetic engineering to modify the organism (to design it), it was produced entirely by the evolutionary process.

It is another beautiful example of evolution in action and a fascinating example of potentiating mutations. Although evolution has been demonstrated many times in the past the circumstances surrounding this particular experiment gave it a higher profile.

You are completely full of it, good sir.


In light of what's happened recently, tune in for the final part where we see the punch line to the kind of person Methyl turned out to be, and how it completely solidified my victory in this debate.
Tags: reliability bible
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 0 comments