Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

LOL says the troll who is constantly pushing his own personal agenda.

 

I link to a paper from MIT with a survey of the top minds in origin of life research...

you response is to say what... its a quote from one guy.

What a troll you are no thinker.

 

you are one funny deluded dude but you do keep this place interesting.
we are still making progress. at one time people like you thought that god caused lightening and thunder as a way of showing his displeasure. now you have retreated back to the point of the origin of the universe. it is understandable because that is the only real gap left in out knowledge. religionists must have a gap to place their god.

"Throughout history, God has been shrinking. The time when the world was small and God was in control is always in the far distant, half-remembered past. The closer we approach to the present, the less common miracles are and the less accessible he becomes, until the present day when divine activity has dwindled until it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent. Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church. "

 

Atheist fools like you and Stu used to say science was on the atheist's side and that science said we all got here by random chance. You guys did that on this very board.

Now the world knows that science says no such thing.

You can bring an et atheist to science buy you can't make him think.

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

To prove what a fricken troll you and stu are... I will make a wager.
If you show links to even one top scientist who says we currently have proof that life evolved from non life here on earth I will never post here again...

and if you do not --- you and stu never post here again (under any of you many names).

agreed?


Of course not you are a fricken troll and you know there is no proof of life evolving from non life.

 

how many times do we have to point out that this is not science. it is one mans opinion. science says no such thing.

jem you are dishonest. i am not sure how that fits into your religious background or if you make a case for all religious people being dishonest if it helps them rationalize what they are told to believe.
what the point of making shit up about dawkins or hawking or susskind? i am sure you could go to answers in genesis or the discovery institute and find people who claim to be scientists that really do say they believe the univese was designed by biblegod. whats the point of lying about these three. do you feel you gain some credibility by dropping their names even if it is a lie?


Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
[St. Augustine],

 

and i am still waiting for one peer reviewed piece of falsifable evidence for design from any source you can quotemine.

 

you are a really fraudulent piece of work.

That is one mans opinion?

He surveyed the top people in the field and presented their positions. Try learning the science troll.

Or we can go back to your buddy Dawkins


BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

 

jezus jem this isnt sunday school class. how low will you stoop? at least do a little research outside of the creationist websites before you post so you wont look so dishonest and silly:

.Lying for Jesus? By RICHARD DAWKINS

I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

 

Charming!
You are really rattled by this aren't you.
Having no real argument you constantly resort to vulgar profanity and name calling. So that's what religion does for you.

1. I have explained .
You've ignored it.

Here's just one difference, again.
If the universe is tuned entirely by the laws of physics, which Stephen Hawking states is all that's needed, it isn't going to be what you call (intelligently) designed.

2. Yes that is exactly what you do ...use sentences out of context and leave out the meaning.

I have both explained and put what Stephen Hawking said in 1988 in context.
Whereas you've explained zilch and put everything out of context.

Nothing Stephen Hawking said in 1988 about any appearance of tuning has been overthrown in any way by what he has said in 2006 or later. Whatever scientific method preferred, he made it abundantly clear as recetly as last year, what you are calling design is not necessry, as the laws of physics alone can create a universe or a multiverse.

3. I already have explained what the writer of the article has done.

He has only selected partial quotes he attributes to scientists to skew toward the prospect of fine tuning , where actually there is no science whatsoever that establishes any fine tuning at all.

To compound the fact that therefore non of it is actually science - which you claim it is, he includes in it a religious comment too.
It is both a distorted and a distorting viewpoint.

Not science, at best a disputable philosophical ramble.

4. Get a clue.