Being an atheist.

[Converse02]

You answered incorrectly, and I am not looking for a credible reply from you.. it is what we call a rhetorical q... why is it so unusual to ask you a q based on beliefs that you have shared? are your beliefs above scrutiny?

1. You say I have answered incorrectly the TNRs question, but failed to explain why.
2. My beliefs are not above scrutiny. Evolution is not merely a belief, it is a belief reinforced by science and empirical evidence. You can scrutinize it, but empirical evidence will reveal it to be a fact.

empirical evidence is derived from experiment and observation rather than theory and that is the actual definition.. if it were empirical it would be astonishingly reproducible it is that simple.. throwing random terms out doesn't sweeten the deal I assure you..

I did not say empirical evidence is derived from theory. Empirical evidence supports a theory, and the theory of evolution, like the germ and atomic theory, has plenty of it.

You haven't read or skimmed it at best..

This tends to the logical fallacy of subjectivism. How do you know I haven't read it or just skimmed it. I was able to debunked it.
1.The paper is on abiogenesis, not evolution. It doesn't disprove evolution.
2.The paper is on "Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth." His probability is NOT ZERO. Given how large the universe is (or even larger, near infinite multiverse is you follow modern physics), he PROVES that abiogenesis is possible.
3. No evolutionist is saying the first primitive cell was created by being randomly assembled. We are saying it was assembled by Darwinian evolution, which includes non-random natural selection. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of evolution.

but maybe visited Dawkin to see what he thought of it, as I have read this testimony before from another atheist..

1. This tends to the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." Just because Dawkins said it, it doesn't mean it is wrong. You are shooting the messenger, not the message.
2. Just because you saw the argument before, doesn't me I got it from a Dawkins site. This is another logical fallacy.

in fact it does deal with the probability of speciation

Oh please. Look at the title of the article.

i.e life on earth, which was given quite an exponential increase to accomadate all possibilities,

Accommodate all possibilities on Earth. Earth is not the only planet in the universe (or multiverse, if you follow modern physics. If, by chance, life did not arise on Earth, it may have arisen somewhere else in the cosmos, by chance. We were clearly one of the lucky ones.

plus using the smallest components possible less than that of known viruses...need a surrogate to foster their function

Our current theory of abiogenesis is that life arose from a self-replicating molecule, which is even has smaller components than a virus. A self-replicating molecule like RNA does not need a surrogate.

would I like to try again? I don't know, I do bore quickly when people don't meet me on a level!
cheers

Sure.

 

[Converse02]

just to clarify, RNA doesn't self-replicate. I meant the RNA world hypothesis, but that is really to long to explain.

 

[جوري]

1. You say I have answered incorrectly the TNRs question, but failed to explain why.

I have in fact explained why in each subsequent post.. if you'll bother scroll!

2. My beliefs are not above scrutiny. Evolution is not merely a belief, it is a belief reinforced by science and empirical evidence. You can scrutinize it, but empirical evidence will reveal it to be a fact.

Again, empirical evidence means that it is derived from experiment and observation rather than theory.. don't be redundant and wonder where one failed to explain why!

I did not say empirical evidence is derived from theory. Empirical evidence supports a theory, and the theory of evolution, like the germ and atomic theory, has plenty of it.

And I said the theory of evolution denotes a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.. to have empirical evidence is to make it reproducible, especially if you have the technology to do so!

This tends to the logical fallacy of subjectivism. How do you know I haven't read it or just skimmed it. I was able to debunked it.

simple.. in order to debunk something you have to give a point by point counter rebuttal, not merely state this is about abiogenesis!

1.The paper is on abiogenesis, not evolution. It doesn't disprove evolution.
2.The paper is on "Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth." His probability is NOT ZERO. Given how large the universe is (or even larger, near infinite multiverse is you follow modern physics), he PROVES that abiogenesis is possible.

The paper speaks of the impossibility of evolution occurring as conjectured given the exact same variables used to enforce the theory!

3. No evolutionist is saying the first primitive cell was created by being randomly assembled. We are saying it was assembled by Darwinian evolution, which includes non-random natural selection. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of evolution.

Yes again and again, you speak of non-random but fail to give verifiable account of such incidents.. in fact I have gone ahead and given you the majority of known mutations to make your google search easier, and you have failed to provide one example.. the hlf example you have given was os sickle cell trait and we have all seen how well that went down!

1. This tends to the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." Just because Dawkins said it, it doesn't mean it is wrong. You are shooting the messenger, not the message.
2. Just because you saw the argument before, doesn't me I got it from a Dawkins site. This is another logical fallacy.

Indeed but you have failed to stand by your argument with something of substance, again merely saying so, doesn't make it so.. further, when one expresses how well-educated they are in a particular field, it is best to teach other and demonstrate it in a scholarly fashion.. don't you think?

Oh please. Look at the title of the article.


Accommodate all possibilities on Earth. Earth is not the only planet in the universe (or multiverse, if you follow modern physics. If, by chance, life did not arise on Earth, it may have arisen somewhere else in the cosmos, by chance. We were clearly one of the lucky ones.

That is a nonsequitur and has no relevance whatsoever to what preceded it-- we are discussing laws on earth because that is where we are.. there is no point discussing possibilities on unexplored places is there? From what preface would you draw conclusions?

Our current theory of abiogenesis is that life arose from a self-replicating molecule, which is even has smaller components than a virus. A self-replicating molecule like RNA does not need a surrogate.

Really? to replicate DNA or its RNA will need a host, it is an extremely intricate and complicated process in fact all accounted for in Dr. Mullan's paper .. here is a little short vid to inform you of exactly how the process takes place

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml0OqAUzEXU&feature=related[/media]


if you know differently, then by all means I invite you to demonstrate it to us!

cheers

 

[جوري]

just to clarify, RNA doesn't self-replicate. I meant the RNA world hypothesis, but that is really to long to explain.

lol.. glad you came to that realization!.. I am interested in that explanation.. I'd like it to be synthesized, with the same fidelity that I exhibit when demonstrating why something is possible or impossible as well flawed!

cheers

 

[JimMorrison]

I am Athéist and i am a spiritual person.

 

[Azy]

Don't be so afraid.. you are after all as smart as you are educated!

Thank you very much

That is a general statement and isn't focused on anything in specific...

You just need to substitute 'evolution' for 'it' in that sentence.

in fact it does deal with the probability of speciation

Talking about the probability of speciation is as useful as talking about the probability of humans developing motorised transport. I don't know if you recall our discussion with MustafaMc in which he notes that he is aware of speciation in his own field of work, within a ~50 year timescale.

it is an extremely intricate and complicated process in fact all accounted for in Dr. Mullan's paper

Dr Mullan's paper is posted frequently in these discussions and while his mathematical calculations may be sound they have no bearing on the discussion itself since they are addressing an imagined argument.

Whether I know how life came about, Converse02 knows, anyone knows, or anyone will ever know is irrelevant. Random assembly is not in the running as a plausible hypothesis so disproving it has no bearing on whether abiogenesis occurred or is likely to occur.

(In which journal is his article published? PCID, which has published a few dozen papers by a small handful of authors on thinly veiled intelligent design topics... and you talk down to me about reliable sources :rollseyes )

 

[Gator]

Dr Mullan's paper is posted frequently in these discussions and while his mathematical calculations may be sound they have no bearing on the discussion itself since they are addressing an imagined argument.

Just for atheists. Thx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaAdXdkiifM&feature=user

 

[جوري]

Thank you very much

I am glad you can recognize sarcasm when it comes to contact with you =)

You just need to substitute 'evolution' for 'it' in that sentence.
Talking about the probability of speciation is as useful as talking about the probability of humans developing motorised transport. I don't know if you recall our discussion with MustafaMc in which he notes that he is aware of speciation in his own field of work, within a ~50 year timescale.

MustafaMC's speciation in his cotton breeding requires that he has a direct influence on such an occurrence.. It isn't a spontaneous event!
as for probability, well how else would you propose one broach the topic? by strong leaps of faith?

Dr Mullan's paper is posted frequently in these discussions and while his mathematical calculations may be sound they have no bearing on the discussion itself since they are addressing an imagined argument.

Indeed, that is what evolution is, an imagined argument! one saw bones and decided that was of his distant relative but faled to determine how experimentally!

Whether I know how life came about, Converse02 knows, anyone knows, or anyone will ever know is irrelevant. Random assembly is not in the running as a plausible hypothesis so disproving it has no bearing on whether abiogenesis occurred or is likely to occur.

You have decided it isn't a plausible hypothesis? It is as plausible as any hypothesis out there, it isn't given as much time because there are many resistant zealot verrucas who can't stand any holes punched to their belief system no matter how flawed. In fact at least Dr. Mullan's work yields to mathematics, and is exhaustive to all variables not a mere long stretch of the imagination, or using random terminology like 'mutations' but can't reconcile how with their actual given function!

(In which journal is his article published? PCID, which has published a few dozen papers by a small handful of authors on thinly veiled intelligent design topics... and you talk down to me about reliable sources :rollseyes )

I don't think you'd recognize intelligent if it stared you in the eye.. this is coming from the fellow who is willing to go so far to prove a moot point about a mutation completely unabashed, he would rather make up his own pathophysiology of a known disease process!
stop insinuating yourself like waldo in a topic, merely to save face or your kin, without a sliver of background or understanding of the material discussed!
I must have told you at least ten times, How I hate to have my time wasted!

cheers

 

[جوري]

Just for atheists. Thx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaAdXdkiifM&feature=user

That is very funny indeed.. even funnier still, if that dust bunny germinated, developed some sentience and knocked that moron down with a mallet...
But I can enjoy a chuckle from a half-wit with a webcam and plenty of free time to upload it all just the same..
Thanks

 

[Converse02]

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

Skye, I am interested, why do you think the scientific community of the world supports evolution and not your version of events? For that matter, what is you version of events?

 

[جوري]

Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Qur’ân and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

Skye, I am interested, why do you think the scientific community of the world supports evolution and not your version of events? For that matter, what is you version of events?

Your first paragraph sums it best actually.. to me, to be a scientist is to be driven purely by the love of science, to have discipline, to cherish the refinement of it as the last of the noble professions. Those who share their vast wealth of knowledge in supporting the advancement of the individual, community and mankind only deserve respect, and it is accompanied by great humility to understand limitations, and be driven by ethics.. and still concede the lack of absolution while maintaining the capability of having an abstract thought.

Those of us who understand the scientific method.. come across what is known as the Null Hypothesis --the first thing to do when given a claim is to write the claim mathematically (if possible), and decide whether the given claim is the null or alternative hypothesis. If the given claim contains equality, or a statement of no change from the given or accepted condition, then it is the null hypothesis, otherwise, if it represents change, it is the alternative hypothesis..

when using the scientific method, we never accept the null hypothesis, we either reject it or fail to reject it.. and that alone in the vernacular defines for one, that nothing is 100% absolute.

I don't know how many scientists you've come across? But to be a scientist doesn't denote you accept things at face value or because a percentage of it believes this or that to be true.. , prior I have given an analogy of Dr. Sampson's hypothesis:

for simplicity sake, let's take Dr. John Sampson's theory of retrograde menstruation as a cause of endometriosis, seems plausible for all intensive purposes, that blood traveling backwards carrying in its midst endometrial cells, can implant itself in the vicinity, and this endometrial like tissue acts very much like the linning of the uterus, responding to hormones and may shed from where it shouldn't cause various other nuisances to millions of women-- well how does this theory reconcile for women who have retrograde menses but never develop endometriosis? or how does it reconcile it for women who develop endometriosis in the lung or the nose or the liver, far away from uterine blood? Someone else sits down and challenges the theory, states no it is spread via lymphatics, another says it is iatrogenic due to doctor error, no it is environmental, no cells can naturally morph into others as a result of hormone therapy, no it is auto-immune in origin, no it favors only hispanic women because of genetics.. Do we actually know? we can theorize, and the theories appear very plausible and by folks who have earned their place in the scientific community, but we don't peddle theories as facts and then impugn those who theorize differently...You'd be interested to know that today the theory most people accept is Dr. Sampson's, but the question marks are left in the areas that his theory fails to address!

I hope that above example paints things for you in simpler terms..
whether evolution happened as described and many concede the that one of the names of God 'Al'baree' denotes the evolver or whether each specie is its own with no change in morphology across the millenniums.. to me God is the driving force behind it, no matter how it went down..

Lastly , science will not desist simply because a member opposes one of its theories.. science is ever correcting and very expansive. I doubt not believing in autogenesis or evolution or (*stealth viruses/possible? extrapolating creatively ) will be the death of it... I am open minded!

cheers.......

 

[Azy]

MustafaMC's speciation in his cotton breeding requires that he has a direct influence on such an occurrence.. It isn't a spontaneous event!

No, we're talking about alien plants that were introduced to an area and naturally created a hybrid with the local species to create a new species which is reproductively isolated from it's 'parent' species.

You have decided it isn't a plausible hypothesis? It is as plausible as any hypothesis out there, it isn't given as much time because there are many resistant zealot verrucas who can't stand any holes punched to their belief system no matter how flawed.

It isn't given any time because everyone agrees with Mullan!

Random assembly of millions of atoms to form a cell is so unlikely as to be practically impossible and for this reason it is not considered a plausible hypothesis for abiogenesis. All he's done is tell everyone what they already knew.
The problem is that folk such as yourself confuse his rebuttal of random assembly with a rebuttal of abiogenesis as a whole, because it suits your purposes to do so.

I must have told you at least ten times, How I hate to have my time wasted!

Makes it worth coming back each time

 

[جوري]

No, we're talking about alien plants that were introduced to an area and naturally created a hybrid with the local species to create a new species which is reproductively isolated from it's 'parent' species.

'were introduced' is the operative word!

It isn't given any time because everyone agrees with Mullan!

I have no idea what you are trying to articulate here!

Random assembly of millions of atoms to form a cell is so unlikely as to be practically impossible and for this reason it is not considered a plausible hypothesis for abiogenesis. All he's done is tell everyone what they already knew.

more gibberish?

The problem is that folk such as yourself confuse his rebuttal of random assembly with a rebuttal of abiogenesis as a whole, because it suits your purposes to do so.
Makes it worth coming back each time

I wouldn't be too concerned with folk such as myself.. when there is folk such as yourself to keep the rest of us boisterously entertained with mindless drivel!

cheers

 

[Azy]

'were introduced' is the operative word!

I'm guessing that when you read the sentence you chose to mentally insert 'by humans'. Not a necessary condition.

I have no idea what you are trying to articulate here!

Then you probably shouldn't continue.

Whenever your argument is dead you suddenly lose any skills of comprehension and blame your opponent.

 

[جوري]

I'm guessing that when you read the sentence you chose to mentally insert 'by humans'. Not a necessary condition.
Then you probably shouldn't continue.

I am guessing you should get Mustafamc to describe the process for you yet again.. I know intellectual enemas have a way of just going through you!

Whenever your argument is dead you suddenly lose any skills of comprehension and blame your opponent.

lol.. this is coming from the guy who makes up rules in genetics, biochemistry and pathophysiology at whim.. and has the nerve to construct such a bombastic request, before his ignorance of basic science is even erased from memory!

But thank you (yet again) for adverting your psychological deficiencies in public..

cheers

 

[Azy]

I am guessing you should get Mustafamc to describe the process for you yet again.. I know intellectual enemas have a way of just going through you!

We're not talking only of his work, and the example I provided was not one that was produced by his work but experienced because he was in that line of work, nothing more. There are many other examples.

lol.. this is coming from the guy who makes up rules in genetics, biochemistry and pathophysiology at whim.. and has the nerve to construct such a bombastic request, before his ignorance of basic science is even erased from memory!

Then please explain to me how disproving one hypothesis (random assembly) eliminates all the other possible hypotheses in the field of abiogenesis.

 

[جوري]

We're not talking only of his work, and the example I provided was not one that was produced by his work but experienced because he was in that line of work, nothing more. There are many other examples.

I could have sworn a little while ago, you only mentioned his name? Now bringing him on board is enough initiative for you to in a perfunctory fashion, deny us life altering details?

Then please explain to me how disproving one hypothesis (random assembly) eliminates all the other possible hypotheses in the field of abiogenesis.

I have never claimed that one hypothesis is a nullifier of another!-- if you'll scroll back a few posts you'll see, I clearely stated one hypothesis is as good as another! and should be measured against its own contents and individual merits especially where no reproducible statistical data can be used for ratification.. and if you scroll back some more you might actually learn something about the null hypothesis and using the scientific method before loaning any theory absolution!

cheers

 

[Azy]

I could have sworn a little while ago, you only mentioned his name? Now bringing him on board is enough initiative for you to in a perfunctory fashion, deny us life altering details?

If you'd like I'll make a list, but you have access to all that information yourself, so if you can't wait until tomorrow you could always put your mouse to good use. I may be brief but that is a combination of being busy and it's after midnight.

I have never claimed that one hypothesis is a nullifier of another!-- if you'll scroll back a few posts you'll see, I clearely stated one hypothesis is as good as another!

This paper has been dragged out in every ID discussions for the last 6 years. Bringing it up now doesn't make any difference, even if it was once a realistic alternative hypothesis that time is long gone.
You did mention speciation with regard to this paper, and as I said before, arguing the odds against it after we've seen it occur isn't very useful.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why can't we all simply admit what we do not know?
I think that'd let research move more freely and open our minds to new ideas.

 

[Muezzin]

Why can't we all simply admit what we do not know?
I think that'd let research move more freely and open our minds to new ideas.

Quit being so sensible. You wanna bust the internet, guy?