Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

I'm more concerned with your statement, "Of course we still haven't really established that religion has no supporting evidence."
Whatever evidence you chose to support religion, is explained by other scientific means. Invoking god/religion, means discarding science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The most intriguing question re Universal Abiogenisis, is how many times did it occur?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry there must be crossed wires somewhere.

This >>>> "Of course we still haven't really established that religion has no supporting evidence." <<<< is NOT my statement.

May be I cut and pasted it from another, and put it into a reply I made, to make comment on it.

I don't support any evidence religion has put forward and I can't see that changing in the future.

Mind you if the sun god does not come up in the morning and the dead start coming out of their graves I might review my position.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Number of times within the Universe, or just here on earth?

 

My mistake....you are forgiven.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Universe:
[I do like the Panspermia hypothesis, and even that possibly may have occurred numerous times.]

 

Long deep sigh. Forgiven. Sighs again.

Humble thanks to the God(s) I don't believe in for your gratuitous mercy.

Oh sinner me.

Humble thanks the God(s) I do believe in (I really really do) for your grateful mercy.

I should never have let that Red man smelling of sulphur and horns on his head adjust my spell checker.

Universe. Many times. Agree.

 

More the case here, BS assertions from 'intellectuals' implying they actually understand the innards of prevailing theory. And should therefore recognize the serious flaws. It's precisely because the likes of Peltzer DO understand the innards and philosophical underpinnings of current theory or rather hypotheses re abiogenesis, that I especially take notice.

Ha ha ha. More poor jest. It's precisely the chief philosophical underpinning for 'scientific atheism', as aggressively promoted and where possible imposed by Marxists.

Only by imposing a narrow definition that excludes it. Abiogenesis is the bedrock upon which all other aspects of organic ToE rests.

Your typical style. Asserting that 'I want to prove a supernatural being'. Wrong of you to assert it. And wrong outright. I'm against the imposition of materialism as the only acceptable position for academics in the field to hold.To assert only unguided natural processes can exist is simply dogma.

More dogmatic assertions you have no right to make. Tackle the man not the ball. Typical of 'intellectuals' with strong leftist leanings. Next post I reproduce verbatim the intended response to your vacuous #63, before another poster got in and torpedoed things.

 

Who is suggesting otherwise? Keep them coming, any number. They will all crash and burn at the very first hurdle. Because every single one postulates an impossibly 'friendly' environment somehow magically filtering out those pesky Maillard reactions that invariably degrade biochemical molecules in the real world. Reducing conditions, neutral conditions, oxidizing conditions, won't matter. No peptides of any consequence can form and go on to not only survive but grow in complexity. Not even necessary to go the next hurdle, where one might have to deal with origin of sophisticated information generation, storage, and processing that would allow true self-replication of enzymatically useful bio-molecules. Real world chemistry got in the way of that next baby step.

Nothing wrong with researchers trying hard to find a fully natural explanation, futile as that quest may be. And sure there have been too many idiotic creationists with religious agendas and silly misunderstandings of say the 2nd-Law. That doesn't excuse the militant, I would say Marxist, insistence science is only compatible with pure materialism. Making out science and Strict Scientism are identical is imo stupid dogmatism.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Above would have been post #85. You failed totally to meaningfully answer my challenge in #71, something easy to predict. A True Believer in the absolute certainty of naturalistic abiogenesis won't be fazed. True Believers never are.

 

The mix of being stimulated and inebriated simultaneously does need careful handling. Most of us have had to deal with it. Not too often hopefully.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's imo a matter of what one can reasonably expect. Competent ID types who aren't primarily motivated by religious commitment, as far as I have seen, simply work intelligently and objectively to point out the huge and varied problems facing an unguided origin to life. And many other issues further along. That alone is a healthy check against the many and powerful arrogant scientism advocates. Who insist only minor details have to be ironed out. Nonsense. The truth is, after nearly 200 years of trying hard, nothing close to a working hypothesis is out there. And like it or not, you have the ID crowd to thank for trying hard to have that glaring fact given due prominence.

To expect or demand ID theorists should be able to furnish a detailed step-by-step blueprint for creating life is unreasonable. The whole ID argument being whatever or rather whoever was responsible has abilities far exceeding our own current level.

 

That, if true, would demonstrate that living beings cannot exist now, either.

 

How so? We are not talking existing cellular biology, with all it's complex machinery for replication and maintainance. The issue is whether prebiotic chemicals could ever achieve the necessary complexity to finally qualify as organic life. Peltzer's multi-pronged critique, if you go back and follow it through carefully, is devastating.

 

Ummm Ummm (2 Ummms means I'm sober and thinking really hard). Also I only have 2 Radlers (lemon flavoured Bintang Bali beer a night) so I am far from ever being drunk. Last night it was mostly the earth shaking sound and trying to keep a eye open for a night companion.

I don't really think anyone involved in looking for the origin of life needs the hurdles pointed out to them.

They find out the problems while doing the research.

Has the public been led down the path of "we are so close, nearly there", yes.

I think that has more to do with the glosses uping the drama for sales. Not many lay persons get the data raw. A pre digested snack does for most.

I don't think it is asking to much to expect advocates of ID to show the workings of how they come to a decided a ID'er did it. I'm not asking advocates to show the process HOW the ID'er did it, just how the advocate arrived at the conclusion an ID'er did it.

Would you play cards with someone who after you have put all your cards on the table looks at their cards says "I win" without offering any evidence/proof?

If your answer is yes I have a big red rock in the middle of Australia coming up for sale.

 

Yes, it's actually laughable, and even more so how all of a sudden, this Peltzer character has been raised to the level of a god by some, despite the fact that any ID is by definition unscientific and any scenario is covered by scientific explanation anyway.
The many paths of which Abiogenesis has obviously arisen is unknown, but the fact remains it is the only logical scientific explanation we can arrive at.
As the American Loony society says....
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/315-ed-peltzer.html
"Since the creationist movement is arduously seeking out anyone with a modicum of scientific credibility who supports their cause, Peltzer is widely used, e.g. in the Kansas Evolution Hearings" .
"Another otherwise intelligent chap who is willing to throw critical thinking and science under the bus if the results don’t fit sufficiently smoothly with his preconceptions. It’s sad, really"

Here he is in another creationist rant.......
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo3.html
and
http://jgrr.blogspot.com.au/2006/01/uncommon-descent-dont-dispute-common.html
One guy who I wouldn't mind seeing Dawkin's rip asunder.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Correct.

I'd say more to do with ideological stricture.

Hmm...tell you what. Point out anything that seems to be a particular weakness or even fatal flaw in Peltzer's suite of arguments, or of any other ID advocates of similar calibre. That would be something less fluffy to grapple with.

 

Shamelessly re-posting the same old same old ad nauseam.Typical paddoboy. No principle, other than to make sure to be on the 'winning' i.e. Official Position/majority-opinion side. All I have to do to justify that is point to #76, #79, ##80, #89 here. From straight out atheistic attitude and language in #76, we continue on the Lunar Park ride to 'i'm not an atheist' in #79, to 'I'm not anything' in #80, then to 'Bingo!!!' in reference to highlighted in red "the most intelligent approach to it at this point is agnostic, to admit that we just don't know."
So, a sometimes militant atheist, to a sometimes 'I'm not an atheist' to a sometimes 'I'm not in any category', to a sometimes agnostic? Shite!
A touch of schizophrenia hitting hard, paddoboy? Or just the usual tactic of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds as the occasion suits?

 

Peptides have to be maintained in complex configurations without repair or replication, for living things to exist as they do.

If this were so, spores and seeds and dormant stages of algae and all manner of such could not exist, let alone sprout and develop complexity. Dead trees would crumble without bacterial or fungal attack. And so forth.

 

I don't have any argument and I believe 100% in all he advances in his summing up of
* what has been tried and
* why it failed and
* why what has been tried and failed will never work.

No ifs no buts and definitely no Ya but Ya but Ya but. So far.

If he eliminates the few hundred million billion gazillion other ways it can't happen (including the intervention of an ID'er) he might be onto something.

Same goes for all others of his standing.

I wish them all the luck and as much much more research money as Trumpy has.

Go for it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The entire cell structure and machinery, working as a whole, enables that. Creating and maintaining a continually safe environment. Slice the apple. Watch it turn brown in minutes, not weeks.

I'm no specialist in those areas but you do know that a typical oily seed can keep well for many months if the protective coating is not disrupted, right? And once it is disrupted, rancidity will set in very quickly. Whether you want to call that 'nature's clever design' or something else is up to your personal persuasion.

 

Well Michael Finnegan Begin Again (sorry, couldn't resist that ditty

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), are you really sure there are such a humongous number of other ways? Postulating a near infinite number of random attempts to crash through the abiogenesis barrier is one thing. That's allowed by both sides. But what are all these gazillions of different ways exactly? Can you name a few?

 

3 bears.

To hot, to cold and the one that works just right.

Dilution.

To weak, to strong and the one that works just right.

pH.

To acid, to alkaline and the one that works just right.

Light.

To bright, to dark and the one that just works just right.

Something missing.

Haven't got enough, got to much and the one that works just right.

Not to be confused with dilution which relates to the combined group of chemicals and the % of them in water. Missing is the absence of the substance or an over abundance.

Count each of those as one or two at your preference.

There would be then the number of combinations of each of these. In fact I think this was pointed out in the video.

Again I don't dispute his conclusions.

Mind you when he was giving the mathematical odds of the reactions that had been tested and failed (which, if I recall correctly, would take the foreseeable age of the universe to run through) he did make one omission.

He never gave any odds of an ID'er doing it.

Funny that. He puts forward the idea - proposition - theory (take your pick) but didn't say "that's what happened" or " may be it was ID" or "could it be ID?"

Give us odds ID did it.

1%?, 50%?, 100%?.

And another twist. I take it Peltzer made his calculations with the Goldilocks formula appearing on Earth.

What about the numerous planets out there, within their own Goldilocks zone, conducting their own Goldilocks mixtures?

Something about parallel computing springs to mind which mathematically shortens the time frame needed for Goldilocks mix to appear on stage.

Perhaps Earth got lucky and here became the stage.