666...the Devils Moving Average

[axeman]

"1. The entire globe is covered with billions of people reporting supernatural phenomenon."

Majority does not equal truth.
The majority believed in zeus at one point, and yet you
dont believe in zeus. Point 1 is therefore irrelevant.

"2. The beginning of the universe explodes from a First Cause singularity in 9+ space dimensions with a very real possibility of 2+ time dimensions as well."

Are you claiming this is a hypothesis, theory or fact?


"3. Explosions do not lead to order, yet this one settles into a universe that is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life."

An assertion you have not proven. You ASSUME explosions
cant lead to order, but that is exactly what we have seen.


"4. The solar system is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life."

Is it? Weren't you the one claiming that life was impossible
under these conditions? Which is it then?
I propose we have no idea if it is or isnt tuned for life since
we are completely unaware of all the variables involved, and
therefore are not capable of calculating probabilities.
We just dont know.

"5. Life’s origin baffles science because it appears so suddenly w/o any plausible natural explanation. "

No plausible natural explanation? So here you reject evolution
which is the cornerstone of all modern biological sciences,
as plausible, again? You reject the body of evidence which
would probably take you more than your lifetime to digest?


" Many prominent scientists are so shocked that they become open to the idea of deistic, theistic or pantheistic involvement."

Many? What percentage do you consider many?
What IS the percentage? Back up your claim of "many".


"Now explain to me again why you need to insult people who follow the above series of events to a different conclusion than you do? "

Thats a loaded question.
I dont need to insult anyone, and dont consider using analogies
or pointing out that I think something is mythology as insulting.
Now if I responded like longshot, and explicity ran around
calling your a moron, and idiot, etc, then I would concede this point.

I do NOT draw any conclusion based on the above, so you
cannot claim that I draw a different conclusion.

If people are drawing conclusions soley based on the above
comments, which I just identified a bunch of holes in, then
I would consider their conclusions very suspect.

peace

axeman

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Okay, I'm still not getting my point across. Let me put it a different way.

Suppose just for a minute that deism/theism/pantheism is true. Then we would expect to see the following events:

1. The beginning of the universe explodes from a First Cause singularity in 9+ space dimensions with a very real possibility of 2+ time dimensions as well.
2. Explosions do not lead to order, yet this one settles into a universe that is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life.
3. The solar system is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life.
4. Life’s origin baffles science because it appears so suddenly w/o any plausible natural explanation. Many prominent scientists are so shocked that they become open to the idea of deistic, theistic or pantheistic involvement.
5. The entire globe is covered with billions of people reporting supernatural phenomenon. (theistic only)

What do you actually find on the globe?

1. The beginning of the universe explodes from a First Cause singularity in 9+ space dimensions with a very real possibility of 2+ time dimensions as well.
2. Explosions do not lead to order, yet this one settles into a universe that is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life.
3. The solar system is HIGHLY tuned for advanced life.
4. Life’s origin baffles science because it appears so suddenly w/o any plausible natural explanation. Many prominent scientists are so shocked that they become open to the idea of deistic, theistic or pantheistic involvement.
5. The entire globe is covered with billions of people reporting supernatural phenomenon. (theistic only)

Now according to your logic, since the deistic/theistic/pantheistic model matches the observable universe, all deists/theists/pantheists are silly, myth believers (but in an affectionate, sort of non-insulting way of course).

It's all making perfect sense...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from LongShot:


I do sense a complete and utter vacuum in the space between your auricles.

Oh, and I forgot. We're all brainless as well. Sorry I left that out!

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

You asked for proof in spite of the fact that I have said repeatedly I cannot "prove" God. I can only look at the deistic/theistic/pantheistic model and say that it matches in many key ways. Here is another example:

Let's look at the first life on this earth. It clearly had to have the following at a bare minimum:

1. The ability to reproduce (or it would have died out).

2. The ability to digest (absorb food) or it would have starved.

3. The ability to protect (against invaders/toxins) or it would have died out.

4. The ability to metabolize (convert digested material to energy) or it would have died out.

5. The ability to eliminate or it would have died from self-inflicted toxins.

6. A cell wall/boundary/membrane or it would have died out.

7. Information content and storage or it would have died out.

This is what is called "irreducible complexity". The first life on this planet must have had at least these seven systems simultaneously in order to survive. Most importantly, you cannot remove any one of them w/o destroying the organism's survival so the first cell had to have had all seven.

Yet each of these seven is VERY complex. Even the molecules in a cell are best thought of as a machine. Am I really supposed to believe that all 7 of these occurred simultaneously when Morowitz and virtually all other origin of life researchers have given up on #7 alone?

Is it unreasonable to propose the theory that this could not happen w/o intelligent oversight? Is there any reason, in light of these kind of discoveries, to surmise that the First Cause may actually have intelligence and may not just be a cosmic "blob"? Why does a First cause have to be unintelligent?

 

[LongShot]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You asked for proof in spite of the fact that I have said repeatedly I cannot "prove" God. I can only look at the deistic/theistic/pantheistic model and say that it matches in many key ways. Here is another example:

Let's look at the first life on this earth. It clearly had to have the following at a bare minimum:

1. The ability to reproduce (or it would have died out).

2. The ability to digest (absorb food) or it would have starved.

3. The ability to protect (against invaders/toxins) or it would have died out.

4. The ability to metabolize (convert digested material to energy) or it would have died out.

5. The ability to eliminate or it would have died from self-inflicted toxins.

6. A cell wall/boundary/membrane or it would have died out.

7. Information content and storage or it would have died out.

This is what is called "irreducible complexity". The first life on this planet must have had at least these seven systems simultaneously in order to survive. Most importantly, you cannot remove any one of them w/o destroying the organism's survival so the first cell had to have had all seven.

Yet each of these seven is VERY complex. Even the molecules in a cell are best thought of as a machine. Am I really supposed to believe that all 7 of these occurred simultaneously when Morowitz and virtually all other origin of life researchers have given up on #7 alone?

Is it unreasonable to propose the theory that this could not happen w/o intelligent oversight? Is there any reason, in light of these kind of discoveries, to surmise that the First Cause may actually have intelligence and may not just be a cosmic "blob"? Why does a First cause have to be unintelligent?

Demonize your sofa. It will lend forth more peanuts between the cushions.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



"I am a fool. Only Longshot and Axe are right. They have a complete understaniding of the universe. Polanyi is a unicorn-believer. Hoyle is a unicorn-believer. Grasse is a myth-believer. Only Longshot and Axe are right. Only LOngshot and Axe are right."

almost...

longshot, fpc, axeman, stu, and gg are right.

 

[stu]

Quote from Doubter:

Quote from stu:

dark... a charming and inspiring piece of biblical enlightenment, perhaps one theists would choose as particularly suitable for a nation's children at the breakfast table

Interesting and enlightening dodge. Why don't you instead cite the scientific and superior human logic to refute that statement.

Can you not make a distinction between a joke and a dodge…. in the similar way which it appears you cannot make a distinction between implausible and God.??

 

[stu]

Quote from darkhorse:Hmmm, I think we are just talking past each other now.

Why…because I attempt to show your viewpoint as dissembled ???

If God exists then anthropocentric arguments regarding the morality of God are flawed because man cannot be the center of a universe created and sustained by a higher being.

No Go darkhorse. On the grounds of the argument you make by your proposal, IF God exists then God - in the same way as you would have the morality of God as anthropocentric - is also anthropocentric. You never get past that.

IF God IS outside anthropocentrism, then how can you ever establish that by the same rules YOU set in order to question morality of God? Do you simply ignore your own rule which you apply to morality of God argument?

You can’t..

Because if you try, you make an anthropocentric argument for doing so.

This is just the same self defeating contradiction I mentioned earlier, although now it is also circular. It appears you can go nowhere with it. It destroys itself.

If (by your own rules) you cannot start the debate without defining God outside of anthropocentrism then God is anything at all…… including immoral.

hey stu, suggestion for you:

i will read any three books of your choosing, and you read three of my choosing. in six months we both post our critiques on ET to compare and contrast. some standards will have to be set to ensure the books are read thoroughly and the critiques are of sufficient rigor and detail.

you up for it?

But To what end . I go away for a while?

There is nothing new here. This stuff has been going on since the dawn of time. The only thing different as far as I am aware is the weakness of the God case is more widely known of these days. I only expect it to continue on that course.

Why not use all the stuff you read and have read, to demonstrate the errors in my thinking?

Why not keep to the issues you have raised.?? If we are talking past each other, show me how and why. Let me respond.
Test for some or any validity . No need for a six month vacation!

ps: perhaps a good book for the theist to start at might be Puff the Magic Dragon

 

[stu]

Quote from shoeshineboy

Hey, I was actually minding my own business working on some trading, relaxing and you had to go and give me a small text book!

I have a new keyboard……..the novelty will wear off

It’s not a paper but a book. I have it listed in several independent sources. Here is one where the page number, etc. is cited:

Morowitz, Harold J., Energy Flow in Biology (Academic Press, New York, 1968), p. 99.

Now, don’t ask me to scan in the page: I don’t own the book!

PAGE 99 eh?? Well now fancy that. I thought so !!

So this now becomes the semi-religion of the creationist. The same religion that said the earth was flat and the engine that drove the catholics’ spanish inquisition .brainwave method of thinking !.

But they all inevitably end up using the same ridiculous tricks of the trade from self imposed mindsets, which sooner or later are exposed for the codswallop they always were.

You appear to be displaying a bogus posture here shoshine. I don’t think you are interested in discussing these issues, but rather prefer to state a categorical desire for maintaining a ‘science does not know’… and then what…. you want to say there could just as well be a God at least on equal grounds to science??
Well if that is what you want it doesn’t go anywhere. There is no equal ground. Science obviously holds mountain loads more evidential understanding than any god ever has.

And again… You do not address the specifics, you just rely on “well I don’t own the book”….yet that does not inhibit you from putting forward a graffiti of unsubstantiated big number assertions around the place as ‘scientific’ fact

Like you don’t own the Bible when your Genesis argument is destroyed??
Last time I heard you were ‘off to do some checking up’ on it . This checking up it seems was nothing more than a switch to another round of misrepresentations manifesting themselves as ‘quotable scientific facts’.

Let me step it out here so I make my self clear

1. Coppedge paraphrased Horold Morowitz's Energy Flow in Biology at page 99.

2. Coppedge (in his own book) sets his own qualification to Morowitz's facts by saying ”under equilibrium” conditions , the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be........1 chance in 10^000000000000 ."(whatever daft number he uses as big as can be)

3.He asserts that his 1 chance in '10^000000000000' is the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" which is then needed to make a living cell.

4. Now look again at the the reason for Coppedge's own qualification: these are not and never were the odds of first life forming,... but they are pointless and ridiculous numbers about the odds of enough energy being available - for any life to grow at all - in an environment which has reached an effective state of equilibrium ( ie: ”under equilibrium”)

5.Planet Earth has never existed in "an effective state of equilibrium" !! (2nd law of thermodynamics and all that) .

It is so blindingly obvious that with no energy from the sun and no (geothermal ) energy from the earth ( a state of equilibrium) , there would no energy for the life, which is seen all around, to work. Just who the hell needs to produce a stupid set of figures for that…. Unless it is meant to deceive !!

Coppedge piggy backs Harold Morowitz's work, and then sets his own qualifications to Morowitz.s work, and then states Morowitz's work proves the ridiculous numbers Coppedge invents and attaches to Morowitz's work.

Copedge has now played his little game, had his fun fuelling the fire for the creationists and ID community., as witnessed for all to see with the likes of shoeshineboy posting this nonsense as scientific proof that science is wrong and therefore it doesn’t have a clue.

Since 1979, articles based on the premise that life arose through chance random reactions over billions of years are not accepted in any reputable journal.

READ YOUR POST “…..the premise that life arose through chance random reactions…………. are not accepted in any reputable journal”

No, exactly , because the only ones making that assertion are the creationists. !!
There appears to be NO chance random reaction. Chance random reaction is the creationists invention. To them DNA/RNA looks TO THEM like it is random to the tune of 1^10000 shit silly number.

Science is saying it doesn’t look like it is necessarily random.
A picture of selectivity within genome /DNA is forming .
It is looking not to be random, but the knowledge is yet inconclusive.

So the creationist contorts that into…. DNA must be chance random reaction because Science hasn’t proved it is not therefore, by creating(ironic that) some ridiculous bogus number , this proves by “Reputable Scientific Methods” it can’t be random therefore Goddidit.. Shit me shoeshine..that is a soooooo crap way of looking at stuff dude.

He also shattered the myth of the RNA experiments (which Stu cited) in a 1995 essay called Re-creating the RNA World. He said: "In vitro RNA selection does not demonstrate that complex ribozymes could have arisen naturally in prebiotic soup, because the in vitro experimental conditions are wholly unrealistic."

Again, how much evidence do I have to present that the Origin of Life world is reeling?

For fu…..goodness sakes , Try friggin’ READING what you post
I do not see any sense to continuously jump from one of your pseudo scientific quotations and "proofs" to the next before you have even answered the first ones.

Just what are you trying to do here ? throw as much of Coppedges work around the place to show what?... and Who’s ridiculous numbers are next… Yockey’s or Foster’s ??

No it seems Kenyon will do for you ……
These are all crap examples that you raise….. but just one more time then , but if you don’t want to discuss sensibly… then you must remain in your splendid oblivion of non actuality

In vitro is….. an artificial environment outside the living organism.

Now in vitro becomes another qualification which your ‘Kenyon quote’ uses as reason for misrepresentation and assumption to equal fact !

Who says the environment was ever artificial (whatever that would be in this context) to RNA selection when life began on Earth?? To apply ‘in vitro’ to RNA is ridiculous.

This is the killer truism of truisms……… your quotation ……..

‘He said: "In vitro RNA selection does not demonstrate that complex ribozymes could have arisen naturally in prebiotic soup, because the in vitro experimental conditions are wholly unrealistic." ‘

He says by your quote…..

1. In vitro does not demonstrate ribozymes naturally occurring in prebiotic soup
2. BECAUSE the in vitro experimental conditions are wholly unrealistic

Do you really not see the nonsensical irrelevance of using such quotes??

If you cannot …… may it be concluded that the following then holds true ??…
3. camel shite does not demonstrate ribozymes naturally occurring in prebiotic soup
4. BECAUSE the camel shite experimental conditions are wholly unrealistic


At one stage shoeshineboy I thought you were wanting to have a sensible discussion. The more of this you plaster about, the less it looks that you do.
Desperately clutching at broken straws will not help your purpose, whatever it may be.

 

[stu]

Shoeshineboy,

May I make a suggestion. to you

There is little point in running into the party room, shitting in the punch bowl and running off, other than to make yourself look like a.....well let's just say......... party pooper.

Slapping down one duff "fact" after the next is a bit like watching msfe or whatever his name was., fly posting his internet cut and paste jobs.....and look where that got him

If you genuinely want to debate this stuff then why not pick the issue, deal with the issue , check what your quote actually says, avoid postulating multiple unassociated assertion as fact,

Then these 2nd hand pseudo scientific "facts" can be discussed properly and your associated conclusions tested for what they might be........ (probably the same crap which is landing in the punch, but.............
you never know !).

Now look...... it's only a suggestion...right?.... so don't start pissing on the carpet as well, OK??