Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

[Michael 345]

Out of a sense of fairness I must post this for support of ID........
'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work"
:Bill O'Reilly:

[TIC MODE ON!!!]

Billy said there must be a god?

Phew everything settled then.

OK all yous scientist out there listen up yous alls. Pack up yous test tubes and cyclotron thingies Billy has spoked.

Don't go throwing a hissy fit nows. You there. Yes you with the microscope. You know who I mean. Put it down nows and go home.

And yous with a smirk on yours face. Put the chalk down and step away from the blackboard. Arnt yous a throws back thinkings yous can work it out.

Goes home the lot of yous. I won't tell yous again.

Billy has spoken.

 

[Q-reeus]

1) Your links to the standard Christian creationists, such as Stephen Meyer, who have been arguing ID as a stalking horse for their God for years now and are familiar sources of such spam on forums such as this. Here is you, doing that, in post 217:
There are various sites and individuals out there doing a far better job than what I could summaries here. Someone else who impresses me: http://www.stephencmeyer.org/
Just watch/listen to the 2-minute Flash Player intro for a very brief synopsis of his main argument. Which I agree with.

Meyer enjoys the distinction of having had his arguments determined to be religious, rather than scientific, in a formal Court of Law - even though the Creationists who were defending themselves in the case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) had withdrawn his direct testimony and personal appearance in the court due to his obvious prejudicial influence as a Bible based, rather than evidence based, theoretician.

2) Your employment of the standard assault and deflection vocabulary of the mainstream American Christian creationists, again familiar from years of creationist spam on forums such as this one - "evolutionists", "militant atheists", "materialists" (even directly contrasted with ID proponents!), "Higher Power " presumed synonymous with God, and so forth.

3) Your employment of the standard American Christian Creationist techniques and "arguments", also long familiar on forums such as this one,

including the Gish Gallop
(you have by my count made two Gish Gallop loops just in your replies to me, the Gish Pony Express stations being a selection from the combinations of Present Biology/Prebiology; Human Intervention/Natural Environment; and Protein Complex/Peptide/Amino Acid. There are 24 possible combinations, so you haven't made a sequential false statement about every possible one yet, but there is time)

and the standard silly-ass "probability" or "odds" calculation (the kind that compounds overtly invalid assumptions about unknown mechanisms with hidden invalid assumptions of irreducible complexity).

I thought we were done? Just had to butt-in and answer for paddoboy? My position was made perfectly clear back in #75. Given you must have read that, you are in #270 making me out to be a liar - really a fundamentalist Christian but posing as something else. You are quite the arsehole. The great majority of ID sites, resources, and proponents are of the Christian persuasion, so it should be no surprise my ID vocabulary and ID references will reflect that to a large extent. Just why Muslims and devout Jews are painted out of the picture? Maybe because they tend to shrewdly choose a low profile, in-house-only strategy. At any rate you take the extra step of 'fingering me' as having a hidden Christian creationist religious agenda - one of paddoboy's favourite blunt weapons. Guilt by association, and a very weak one at that.
As for your charge I got the stats all wrong etc. etc., I did indeed make one error in using the term odds rather than probability back in #258. Big deal. Fact is,when it comes to the overall status of abiogenesis as 'established science', you and your ilk can do no better than weakly say 'So what?' when confronted with the hard facts; e.g. that last link in #266.

 

[Q-reeus]

Yes, similarly brief certainly, and fabricated so as to not interfere with your obvious mission.

Not really, I'm not the one that has been dragged out of the closet, so to speak .....It's simply that I dare have the gaul to confront your fabricated provocative claims, here and elsewhere:
See the fact remains that ID and your god whoever/whatever she/he is, is constantly being pushed further and further back into oblivion as I explained earlier, simply by the advances in science and technology: That scientific fact being that Abiogenisis is the only possible scientific explanation: Life from non life...We are all star dust Brother!
You take it easy now, ya here?

Still not prepared to 'come out' and honestly declare yourself an atheist? Given above? Weak and weaselly - paddoboy.
Launching in again with all the force of a feather duster, you somehow forgot to apologize for your gaffe. The one I pulled you up on. Nor any admission you were wrong in accusing ME of having initiated a thread derailing. Which if you cared so much about, should have been dealt with and nipped in the bud way back p2. Instead of bitching about with only me as target on p14. Not to worry, 'Likes' will continue to pour in from your faithful side-kick, in whose eyes you can do no wrong.

 

[Michael 345]

Boys boys.

T. T. Out

Ding ding.

Go sit in your naughty mats in your corners.

This time don't come out until you can stop serving up rehash.

No dessert for either of you.

And early bed.

God will be very angry with you (under breath) that's if he exist and gives ashit.

And don't forget I'm still thinking of washing your mouths out with soap. Such language.

 

[Q-reeus]

Boys boys.

T. T. Out

Ding ding.

Go sit in your naughty mats in your corners.

This time don't come out until you can stop serving up rehash.

No dessert for either of you.

And early bed.

Time to give up pretensions to being a neutral referee Michael. Forfeited that right via posts #280 & #281. Now firmly on the safe majority opinion side. Yes I am alone here with no supporters, not really a surprise. Just how heavily stacked with members of a given bent SF is, should be clearly evident.

 

[Michael 345]

Time to give up pretensions to being a neutral referee Michael. Forfeited that right via posts #280 & #281. Now firmly on the safe majority opinion side. Yes I am alone here with no supporters, not really a surprise. Just how heavily stacked with members of a given bent SF is, should be clearly evident.

Boo hoo. Sob sob. "I'm alone here"

You really want to play the David and Goliath card?

OK up to you.

No one is forcing you to play with the big boys.

Now pick up your "Frozen™" dress bat an ball.

Got everything?

Sure you can find your way home?

OK byeee.

Yes that's right keep walking into the sunset.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Yes that's right keep walking into the sunset.

What makes you think I'm doing that, Michael? I'll stick around to answer anything genuine and relevant. Got somethin useful to offer that department? For instance, tearing apart with relentless logic Tour's tour of the actual problems facing abiogenesis. If you can make serious contributions along those lines, you might earn my respect. But somehow.....

 

[paddoboy]

Boo hoo. Sob sob. "I'm alone here"

You really want to play the David and Goliath card?

OK up to you.

No one is forcing you to play with the big boys.

Now pick up your "Frozen™" dress bat an ball.

Got everything?

Sure you can find your way home?

OK byeee.

Yes that's right keep walking into the sunset.

Most here know the circumstances Michael and how some will continue to try and bully their way to what they perceive as a victory in their own peurile mind.
I've made my point, as everyone else except one has. That stands as the scientific answer, and most certainly over rides any fairy tale mythical ID pretense and hero worshiping of labeled loonies.

PS: On the subject matter, how do you compare the styles of Dawkins and Sagan? Both of course delivering the same scientific thinking in vastly different styles.


Oh, and glad you liked my Bill O'Reilly "validation.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/summary.htm

Summary and Conclusions.
And that Inverted Bowl we call The Sky, beneath which crawling, cooped, we live and die;
Lift not your hands to it for help, for it as impotently moves as you or I!
—Omar Khayyam (translated by Edward Fitzgerald)

 

[paddoboy]

. Big deal. Fact is,when it comes to the overall status of abiogenesis as 'established science', you and your ilk can do no better than weakly say 'So what?' when confronted with the hard facts; e.g. that last link in #266.

There are no hard facts other then ID is unscientific myth and Evolution is a fact.
We have no hard facts about abiogenisis, other then it is really the only answer: The unknowns with regard to methodology, exact mechanism etc is just that unknown, despite the likely possibility of it probably occurring multiple times, based on the near infinite extent and content of this big wide wonderful universe of which both you and I are a part of. Remember, we are all star stuff q-reeus.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Fact is,when it comes to the overall status of abiogenesis as 'established science', you and your ilk can do no better than weakly say 'So what?' when confronted with the hard facts; e.g. that last link in #266.

Hi Q-reeus,
Perhaps start another thread and deal with these matters which really are a little away from the op.
I read the link you provided but I am not sure what one should take away there.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

What makes you think I'm doing that, Michael? I'll stick around to answer anything genuine and relevant. Got somethin useful to offer that department? For instance, tearing apart with relentless logic Tour's tour of the actual problems facing abiogenesis. If you can make serious contributions along those lines, you might earn my respect. But somehow.....

Just to be clear at the start I did not start out (and I am not interested in being) any sort of referee let alone a neutral one.

Introduce a bit of civility may be

Now I did skip the full tour of Tour (didn't even watch the video). From what I did glimpse it looked like a wasteland.

Relentless logic would be wasted on trying to prove the problems of abiogenesis.

Every scientist knows they exist.

Are scientists trying to figure out a workaround? Yes.

Are ID'ers working on a workaround? No.

"Here, I believe, is where it gets really interesting. Failures in science can tell us just as much as successes. If the attempt to find a guided pathway leading to the first living cell turns up empty-handed after a diligent search of all promising options, then the only remaining conclusion for us to draw is that life wasn’t assembled. That, however, does not mean that life wasn’t designed. Rather, what it means is that the first living cell was created holus-bolus, in its entirety."

Failures in the attempt (not science, which constantly fails in attempts) continues to try until it comes up fullhanded.

ID'ers give up trying to find a pathway (NOT a guided pathway) and conclude life was not assembled, further it does NOT mean life was wasn't designed, (congratulations on proving a negative).

Jump to "Rather, what it means is that the first living cell was created holus-bolus, in its entirety."

Holy moly. Because it wasn't that it must be this.

Bingo. Think of an idea. Any idea will do. Now do some experiments to prove your idea. Didn't work out? No problem since your experiments didn't work out your idea must be the only answer.

Not really into the earning of respect.

More into being myself and being granted respect.

That way I know I am true to myself and not trying to please another.

 

[Q-reeus]

Hi Q-reeus,
Perhaps start another thread and deal with these matters which really are a little away from the op.
I read the link you provided but I am not sure what one should take away there.
Alex

I agree that the thread has drifted far from the OP topic which was just one of taste and style preference. However everyone who wanted to have a say on the abiogenesis angle has surely chimed in by now. We all know the positions and tactics adopted by whom, so starting as separate topic elsewhere will simply be a repeat performance. To the extent you were trying to be fair and balanced - thanks.

 

[Q-reeus]

Just to be clear at the start I did not start out (and I am not interested in being) any sort of referee let alone a neutral one.

Introduce a bit of civility may be

Now I did skip the full tour of Tour (didn't even watch the video). From what I did glimpse it looked like a wasteland.

Relentless logic would be wasted on trying to prove the problems of abiogenesis.

Every scientist knows they exist.

Are scientists trying to figure out a workaround? Yes.

Are ID'ers working on a workaround? No.

"Here, I believe, is where it gets really interesting. Failures in science can tell us just as much as successes. If the attempt to find a guided pathway leading to the first living cell turns up empty-handed after a diligent search of all promising options, then the only remaining conclusion for us to draw is that life wasn’t assembled. That, however, does not mean that life wasn’t designed. Rather, what it means is that the first living cell was created holus-bolus, in its entirety."

Failures in the attempt (not science, which constantly fails in attempts) continues to try until it comes up fullhanded.

ID'ers give up trying to find a pathway (NOT a guided pathway) and conclude life was not assembled, further it does NOT mean life was wasn't designed, (congratulations on proving a negative).

Jump to "Rather, what it means is that the first living cell was created holus-bolus, in its entirety."

Holy moly. Because it wasn't that it must be this.

Bingo. Think of an idea. Any idea will do. Now do some experiments to prove your idea. Didn't work out? No problem since your experiments didn't work out your idea must be the only answer.

Not really into the earning of respect.

More into being myself and being granted respect.

That way I know I am true to myself and not trying to please another.

It takes a while to figure out where someone new is really at. Your MO is basically caricature and rhetoric, sadly. And btw, you should pay attention just a little. See what I highlighted in red? Tour's tour was in the form of a scholarly article, dear Michael, not a YT vid. And I gave the link to it three times. Me thinks you specialize more in Bali beer and girl chasing. Being too harsh?

 

[Michael 345]

Most here know the circumstances Michael and how some will continue to try and bully their way to what they perceive as a victory in their own peurile mind.
I've made my point, as everyone else except one has. That stands as the scientific answer, and most certainly over rides any fairy tale mythical ID pretense and hero worshiping of labeled loonies.

PS: On the subject matter, how do you compare the styles of Dawkins and Sagan? Both of course delivering the same scientific thinking in vastly different styles.


Oh, and glad you liked my Bill O'Reilly "validation.

Came to Sagan long before Dawkins.

Not much into comparisons but if pushed Sagan soft Dawkins abrasive.

The style I prefer can be considered Monty Python but I suspect you have tumbled such.

Gentle ridicule without resorting to belittling.

Not sure I always hit the mark. Not sure even if I hit the first spot on those on the receiving end grasp the difference between one and two.

What I fail to grasp (there is so much) but this nugget is bothersome.

Why don't ID'ers take the high ground? After all there is nothing higher than heaven. Is there?

Can't think of any scientist (there I go equating ID'ers with scientist what am I thinking?) who built his/her reputation on tearing down other scientist failures and/or successes without replacing it with more plausible explanation.

As I remarked elsewhere, in slightly different form, ID'ers only have at base level 1 card.

Imagine a bunch of scientist (is bunch good enough for group of scientist?) sitting to play snap with an ID'er.

Each scientist has a full deck of cards. All different. The ID'er has 52 cards but they are ALL the same.

No matter what card any scientist puts down the ID'er puts down one of his and claims Snap/Trumps.

If the ID'er goes first and lays down a card all the scientist don't have any card in their decks to match.

????

 

[Q-reeus]

No need to have confirmed MO as caricature and rhetoric so soon, Michael. But thanks for doing it. And trust me - you're in for lots more chummy thanks from paddoboy. Just wait and see!

 

[Michael 345]

It takes a while to figure out where someone new is really at. Your MO is basically caricature and rhetoric, sadly. And btw, you should pay attention just a little. See what I highlighted in red? Tour's tour was in the form of a scholarly article, dear Michael, not a YT vid. And I gave the link to it three times. Me thinks you specialize more in Bali beer and girl chasing. Being too harsh?

Oops oops

Checked back. Wasn't your link I went to.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...oints-the-way-forward-for-intelligent-design/

Was this one I Googled. This one has the video.

To harsh? A little.

Bali - twice a year during off peak.

Beer - no more than 2 small over 2 hours.

Girl chasing - my age? not on. Have enough lady friends who come to me.

 

[Q-reeus]

Oops oops

Checked back. Wasn't your link I went to.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...oints-the-way-forward-for-intelligent-design/

Was this one I Googled. This one has the video.

To harsh? A little.

Bali - twice a year during off peak.

Beer - no more than 2 small over 2 hours.

Girl chasing - my age? not on. Have enough lady friends who come to me.

Nice of you to have cleared up my silly misconceptions. Well, one or two maybe. Cheers.

 

[iceaura]

You are quite the arsehole. The great majority of ID sites, resources, and proponents are of the Christian persuasion, so it should be no surprise my ID vocabulary and ID references will reflect that to a large extent.

Your vocabulary and references in describing the rest of the world - not the ID stuff, but the entire scientific community of evolutionary theorists and the like - was what I pointed at. Essentially nobody except A-fundies uses that language, whether talking about ID or not.

As for your charge I got the stats all wrong etc. etc., I did indeed make one error in using the term odds rather than probability back in #258. Big deal.

This is the actual post:

"Your position as materialist is that we are here and nature alone did it. It follows the accumulated odds were unity. Duh"
I posted no such crass error of reasoning.

Allow me to unpack that for you, take it from the top: I am not a materialist (and nobody but A-fundies has ever called me a materialist). In my philosophy, "nature" does not "do" things, except metaphorically. There is no such thing as "accumulated odds of unity" - odds don't accumulate; odds are never "unity" (you need two numbers, hence the plural); you may have meant probability, not odds - a probability can be unity, or 1, but probability does not "accumulate" either; and the actual a priori probability of abiogenesis (of it happening, when it hasn't) does not change if it happens - the probability of abiogenesis having happened changes to 1 if it has happened, but that's different.

In order to calculate the odds of abiogenesis happening, before it does, we would need (among other things) a complete list of the ways it could happen in the given situation. We have no such list. We aren't even sure of the situation. It is unlikely to be "1" - but it might be close. Some people think so. Nobody knows, to repeat myself.

You fundies never know how to calculate an evolutionary probability. And this is a bit odd, because math is one of those topics supposedly unaffected by fundie beliefs

You have made dozens of errors in your posts, regarding calculated probability, including basic conceptual ones.

I went through that one pair of sentences, and noted what - six? And I skipped a couple. I even tried fixing your "odds" misnomer, along the way - still no sense. Your entire set of calculations on this forum, every assumption in them, and every conclusion you have drawn here, is standard silly-ass ineptitude from a standard, stereotypical A-fundie website. So are all your links except the irrelevant one on complexity of modern biological life (and you got it from one of those sites anyway). That reasoning would flunk a remedial probability and stats class at the senior high school level, and pretty much the only people who post that in places like this (it's very common - you are nowhere near the first poster of that crapola) are Abrahamic fundies.

So maybe you are the first ever non-fundie to post all that gibberish, using that vocabulary, Gish Galloping through the objections and refutations, and name-calling anyone who objects. But that's not the way to bet.

 

[Q-reeus]

Your vocabulary and references in describing the rest of the world - not the ID stuff, but the entire scientific community of evolutionary theorists and the like - was what I pointed at. Essentially nobody except A-fundies uses that language, whether talking about ID or not.

Shall we spend precious time engaging in right-wing vs left-wing or atheist vs theist terminology and polemic? I'm not interested. Really.

You have made dozens of errors in your posts, regarding calculated probability, including basic conceptual ones.

BS. Waste more time and point to my supposed dozens of errors re calculated probability. Better be accurate in context, not vacuous 'we don't really know' shite. It's going to be hard, since my actual 'calculations' won't count to more than zero at most.

I went through that one pair of sentences, and noted what - six? And I skipped a couple. I even tried fixing your "odds" misnomer, along the way - still no sense. Your entire set of calculations on this forum, every assumption in them, and every conclusion you have drawn here, is standard silly-ass ineptitude from a standard, stereotypical A-fundie website. So are all your links except the irrelevant one on complexity of modern biological life (and you got it from one of those sites anyway). That reasoning would flunk a remedial probability and stats class at the senior high school level, and pretty much the only people who post that in places like this (it's very common - you are nowhere near the first poster of that crapola) are Abrahamic fundies.

So maybe you are the first ever non-fundie to post all that gibberish, using that vocabulary, Gish Galloping through the objections and refutations, and name-calling anyone who objects. But that's not the way to bet.

Are you done ranting? Feels good to let all that bile out in one rush? Want me to start listing all your use of standard lefty vocabulary in return? To what good end?