Jem, look what he is saying. Page 288 (Origin of Life)
http://books.google.com/books?id=FA...resnum=11&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=FA...resnum=11&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
the preview does not show page 288.
but, I read the article by dr. schapiro in scientific american.
and lots of other concepts.
what I have learned and why it shows Stu to be a fraud.
1. abiogenesis is far from proven
2. miller uray experiment every atheist used to cite has proven to be virtually a non starter for top chemists and researchers into the origin of life.
3. top scientists have therefore moved away from nature made rna by chance model and pretty much be necessity gone to the other hope for abiogensis ---- the metabolism model.
4. de duve quotes make it clear his is not in the rna camp. schapiro said he suggests duve is in the metabolism camp.
5. I saw no quotes that say Duve thinks there is proof of the metabolism forming life concept - just that it needs research... (but this could be wrong as my searches are not perfect.)
6. we also know that duve he has said one possibility is that God caused all this.
7. If you really read some his quotes.... like that golf course quote... you know he thinks it unlikely abiogenesis happened on earth. he therefore cites the idea of alien pan spermia.... which is really code for it didn't happen here an as scientists were are not supposed to invoke God.
9. this is a working thesis on my part...
but what I am pretty sure of is that no one can show life came from non life... yet.
but, I read the article by dr. schapiro in scientific american.
and lots of other concepts.
what I have learned and why it shows Stu to be a fraud.
1. abiogenesis is far from proven
2. miller uray experiment every atheist used to cite has proven to be virtually a non starter for top chemists and researchers into the origin of life.
3. top scientists have therefore moved away from nature made rna by chance model and pretty much be necessity gone to the other hope for abiogensis ---- the metabolism model.
4. de duve quotes make it clear his is not in the rna camp. schapiro said he suggests duve is in the metabolism camp.
5. I saw no quotes that say Duve thinks there is proof of the metabolism forming life concept - just that it needs research... (but this could be wrong as my searches are not perfect.)
6. we also know that duve he has said one possibility is that God caused all this.
7. If you really read some his quotes.... like that golf course quote... you know he thinks it unlikely abiogenesis happened on earth. he therefore cites the idea of alien pan spermia.... which is really code for it didn't happen here an as scientists were are not supposed to invoke God.
9. this is a working thesis on my part...
but what I am pretty sure of is that no one can show life came from non life... yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes you can go there. Click on my link. Then scroll. Look to the top of the page when you scroll. You can see "Front Cover" words. Ok, scroll more and the "Front Cover" words change to "Page iv" scroll more and will change again to "Page v" scroll more and "Page 67" will show. Now you scroll until you go to page 288 from page 67 (Origin of Life)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go slow
Jem, if I can I will copy&paste page 288, but is not letting me do that.
Aaaa, ok I go to the page 288, then I click on "Link" on that page to give you specific page link. Here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FA... duve is atheist&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=FA... duve is atheist&pg=PA288#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ever seen, or heard, or read any documentation of life coming from non life?
Don't feel bad, neither has the author of the article:
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3112468>
You know, the theory that ID is behind every single natural change also fits the model perfectly. Just replace the concept of random chance, and replace it with intelligent design, and the theory still works, the model still works...because the cause of natural changes in biology are not known.
Think about that again. Science can't measure what or how or why things actually arise...and ID doesn't exclude that everything in nature is natural...God can be viewed as a most natural cause. The most natural cause.
Newton's model fits pretty damn well, but goes to pieces if the same model is applied to the Quantum level.
ID or non ID, the processes are exactly the same, the model is exactly the same, and in neither case is there any evidence for ID or non ID.
Just models and guesses that work, and would work equally well with ID.
Of course my ID is different than the Christian ID, and my ID is rejected by most fundamentalist Christians...but I am speaking for my ID only.
This battle is mostly the atheists against the fundamentalist Christians, and I would say that most scientists even if Christian, don't really take the Bible literally the way some people still do.
Don't feel bad, neither has the author of the article:
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3112468>
You know, the theory that ID is behind every single natural change also fits the model perfectly. Just replace the concept of random chance, and replace it with intelligent design, and the theory still works, the model still works...because the cause of natural changes in biology are not known.
Think about that again. Science can't measure what or how or why things actually arise...and ID doesn't exclude that everything in nature is natural...God can be viewed as a most natural cause. The most natural cause.
Newton's model fits pretty damn well, but goes to pieces if the same model is applied to the Quantum level.
ID or non ID, the processes are exactly the same, the model is exactly the same, and in neither case is there any evidence for ID or non ID.
Just models and guesses that work, and would work equally well with ID.
Of course my ID is different than the Christian ID, and my ID is rejected by most fundamentalist Christians...but I am speaking for my ID only.
This battle is mostly the atheists against the fundamentalist Christians, and I would say that most scientists even if Christian, don't really take the Bible literally the way some people still do.
Great example of a fallacy below. Assumes something is not necessary in support of a theory that works just as well with ID as with random chance.
The conclusion statement of:
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3112478>
is nothing but an opinion based on a model that fits what the model was designed to fit.
This is not science, this is just opinion.
When it can't be know if ID or non ID is at work, it is not possible to know whether or not something is necessary.
The fallacy is that a proposed theory then looks to the proposed theory for proof of the theory...that allows someone to opine on the theory.
Completely circular reasoning. It is really no different than the fundamentalists who do the same thing, using the Biblical passages as proof of the Bible.
The atheist agenda is in play, sadly.
Darwin was not an atheist, he was a deist...and he was just a scientist in his work. At best, a scientist might be able to state that the Biblical description is not right if taken literally (and no one even knows if the Bible was designed to be taken literally or figuratively).
Personally, I am not arguing for literalism of the Bible. I don't care, and I don't know.
I do know that ID or non ID have never been proven empirically. Neither the ID I describe or non ID being given the force of underlying causation don't change the model at all.
The only issue at hand really, is God of the Bible taken literally by the majority of ID proponents and as literally as the non ID proponents.
A law of random chance causing changes in species on a macro level? Not a fact in evidence.
Equal chance it is ID.
The conclusion statement of:
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3112478>
is nothing but an opinion based on a model that fits what the model was designed to fit.
This is not science, this is just opinion.
When it can't be know if ID or non ID is at work, it is not possible to know whether or not something is necessary.
The fallacy is that a proposed theory then looks to the proposed theory for proof of the theory...that allows someone to opine on the theory.
Completely circular reasoning. It is really no different than the fundamentalists who do the same thing, using the Biblical passages as proof of the Bible.
The atheist agenda is in play, sadly.
Darwin was not an atheist, he was a deist...and he was just a scientist in his work. At best, a scientist might be able to state that the Biblical description is not right if taken literally (and no one even knows if the Bible was designed to be taken literally or figuratively).
Personally, I am not arguing for literalism of the Bible. I don't care, and I don't know.
I do know that ID or non ID have never been proven empirically. Neither the ID I describe or non ID being given the force of underlying causation don't change the model at all.
The only issue at hand really, is God of the Bible taken literally by the majority of ID proponents and as literally as the non ID proponents.
A law of random chance causing changes in species on a macro level? Not a fact in evidence.
Equal chance it is ID.