The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics

originally posted by: AlienView
And you should be sorry - As apparently taking statements out of context [a form of trolling] and then using them to generate
one's own agenda - And just what is that agenda ? Argument, debate for its own sake.?
Obviously it is not for generating knowledge nor intelligence - As you possess little of either

The insult is not necessary. You complained to the mods when I called you a troll before and now you are doing the same things to me.

Your quote:

"A few of the posters on this debate take a solidly materialistic view of science and I am taking the liberty in categorizing this view as atheistic. "

How did I take that out of context? It literally says that because posters take materialistic viewpoints of science that you take the liberty to categorize the position as atheistic. I merely pointed out that it is not always atheistic, so it's unfair to generalize them like that. That would be similar to me saying that all theists believe the earth is flat. The debate is more about science and probability, so pigeonholing all atheists into your narrow category, goes against logic.

Science by nature is materialistic because it can only test or experiment with things that we know exist in reality. That has nothing to do with atheism, but ID advocates seem to always bring it up. You don't have to be an atheist to understand science or agree with it.

Also random quote mines and opinions from scientists do not increase or decrease the odds of what you mentioned. Stop looking at the scientists themselves and look at the SCIENCE. There is a big difference between the 2. Anybody can have an opinion. Being a scientist doesn't change that or make the opinion more valid. It's a bit off topic as well.

a reply to: peter vlar
Dismissing something that isn't 'tickling your ears' (2 Timothy 4:3,4) by simply calling it quote-mining might be very convenient to you but it isn't very reasonable. Especially when you complain about quote-mining scientists that have already concluded from the evidence (using inductive reasoning) that "Someone made it happen" (or that the explanations and arguments regarding these subjects offered by evolutionary philosophers and philosophies are woefully insufficient and illogical). What's there to quote-mine if they already agree with a particular view (remember that quote-mining involves twisting or misrepresenting someone's views by leaving out something that directly relates to what you are misrepresenting and would demonstrate that if it was part of the quotation; there's a little more to it than that but I don't want to mention too many details)? You want to see an example of quote-mining? Have another closer look at those anti-Jehovah websites when they're going on about doomsaying and false prophecies (quoting from decades old literature and leaving out anything that doesn't help their picture painting and half-truth telling with an agenda). Then check out the video-responses I've shared many times already when people have thrown those accusations out there on ATS (for example in my thread about "three 16th-century truthseekers...").

Or perhaps better:
this comment
this video (first 22 seconds is all that should be required for a reasonable person in regards to this subject to understand what's going on, but the rest are more specific examples of this quote-mining and twisting business)
or this blog

Especially the last link has many examples how some people like to quote-mine and tell half-truths to support an agenda of picture painting, slander and one big argumentum ad hominem.

Just a reminder, the more often people have to resort to these tactics regarding Jehovah, his witnesses and his word or message to humankind, the bible, the more sure I am that I made the right choice where to put my trust and what to consider as reliable and accurate. Propagandistic arguments are for the ones who have no logical arguments to stand on or for those who have been affected by propaganda (victims) because of a lack of a proper biblical education that trains the mind to recognize it and choose wisely what they will feed their minds with (something that is referred to as brainwashing by those who don't like people being trained and educated in this manner, people that are very dependent on the use of propaganda and deceptive speech themselves, usually influential religious figures; and mostly within Christendom, or they're the loudest with the false accusations of doomsaying and false prophecy, brainwashing, etc.; 'the pot calling the kettle black').

For the record, science can only concern itself with things which are material.

If it's not measurable and falsifiable, it's not science.

originally posted by: Greggers
For the record, science can only concern itself with things which are material.

If it's not measurable and falsifiable, it's not science.

To a limited extent that may be true - But if science followed that line religiously [excuse the pun] there would be no progress.

Its was a long time after Einstein conceived of the 'Theory of Relativity' before it was verifiable and proven true.

No imagination - No progress



"The scientist needs an artistically creative imagination."
- Max Planck


"What seems today inconceivable will appear one day, from a higher standpoint, quite simple and harmonious."
- Max Planck





"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: Greggers
For the record, science can only concern itself with things which are material.

If it's not measurable and falsifiable, it's not science.

To a limited extent that may be true - But if science followed that line religiously [excuse the pun] there would be no progress.

Its was a long time after Einstein conceived of the 'Theory of Relativity' before it was verifiable and proven true.

No imagination - No progress

"The scientist needs an artistically creative imagination."
- Max Planck


"What seems today inconceivable will appear one day, from a higher standpoint, quite simple and harmonious."
- Max Planck





"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

Relativity was always based upon measurement. In fact, it was the constancy of the speed of light in all intertial frames of reference that gave rise to it as a model. Of course, not every prediction made by relativity was measured immediately -- new affirmations continue to come in all the time. That certainly does not mean that relativity was not based on measurement. It was.

It also doesn't mean it wasn't falsifiable. It certainly IS falsifiable.

Ergo, it was science then and is science now.

That's not to say that imagination isn't important in science. It certainly is, and it took imagination to come up with relativity.

There is also merit in theoretical science and science-fiction in that both can lead to hard science. But they are not hard science until they are, in fact, measurable and falsifiable.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
Dismissing something that isn't 'tickling your ears' (2 Timothy 4:3,4) by simply calling it quote-mining might be very convenient to you but it isn't very reasonable.

It has nothing to do with what does or does not "tickle my ears". I'm simply pointing out a fact. I was responding directly to article you cited titled

How We Can Know There Is a God: Does God Care

. What you posted was in fact quote mining. Out of context quotes that were supposed to support the thesis statement of the title which do not actually support said title. Your "inductive reasoning" is nothing more than opinions and a vague and veiled appeal to authority based on someone's credentials. Opinions are not facts no matter how you paint them.

Especially when you complain about quote-mining scientists that have already concluded from the evidence (using inductive reasoning) that "Someone made it happen" (or that the explanations and arguments regarding these subjects offered by evolutionary philosophers and philosophies are woefully insufficient and illogical).

Pointing out a fact isn't equitable with lobbying a complaint. The only woefully insufficient and illogical argument/position I see here is yours. You aren't dealing in facts and you're hiding behind fluffy frosting to make it seem as though inductive reasoning and appeals to authority somehow supersede scientific facts because you suffer from an extreme case of confirmation bias.

What's there to quote-mine if they already agree with a particular view (remember that quote-mining involves twisting or misrepresenting someone's views by leaving out something that directly relates to what you are misrepresenting and would demonstrate that if it was part of the quotation; there's a little more to it than that but I don't want to mention too many details)?

They are quote mines because they offer absolutely no context or citation to offer context. Why are you unwilling to offer more details? Certainly it is in keeping with the theme of your cited material so in THAT context, it makes perfect sense.

You want to see an example of quote-mining? Have another closer look at those anti-Jehovah websites when they're going on about doomsaying and false prophecies (quoting from decades old literature and leaving out anything that doesn't help their picture painting and half-truth telling with an agenda). Then check out the video-responses I've shared many times already when people have thrown those accusations out there on ATS (for example in my thread about "three 16th-century truthseekers...").

We aren't talking about your faith, we're talking about science and evidence here. Can you offer anything resembling that? Or are you going to circle the wagons some more and shout about Indians and hope everyone runs?

Or perhaps better:
this comment
this video (first 22 seconds is all that should be required for a reasonable person in regards to this subject to understand what's going on, but the rest are more specific examples of this quote-mining and twisting business)
or this blog

Especially the last link has many examples how some people like to quote-mine and tell half-truths to support an agenda of picture painting, slander and one big argumentum ad hominem.

So much hypocritical irony right here because what you're whining about while refusing to support your position with any science is exzactly what you are doing. Quote mining to support an agenda is exactly your M.O.

Just a reminder, the more often people have to resort to these tactics regarding Jehovah, his witnesses and his word or message to humankind, the bible, the more sure I am that I made the right choice where to put my trust and what to consider as reliable and accurate. Propagandistic arguments are for the ones who have no logical arguments to stand on or for those who have been affected by propaganda (victims) because of a lack of a proper biblical education that trains the mind to recognize it and choose wisely what they will feed their minds with (something that is referred to as brainwashing by those who don't like people being trained and educated in this manner, people that are very dependent on the use of propaganda and deceptive speech themselves, usually influential religious figures; and mostly within Christendom, or they're the loudest with the false accusations of doomsaying and false prophecy, brainwashing, etc.; 'the pot calling the kettle black').

SO much ignorance and arrogance and not even the tiniest shred of compelling deductive reasoning based on actual verifiable and independently repeatable evidence. You don't even realize that in the above quoted portion you are actually describing yourself. You loathe your own methodology and approach and aren't even cognizant enough to realize it. This is the most amusing thing I've read all week so thank you for the laughs!

a reply to: peter vlar
Your attack on me isn't going to change reality. Twisting what I'm saying (in your mind) to hear what you want to hear (and assist others in this as well when expressed in commentary) is a clear sign of the confirmation bias you speak of. And is one of the reasons I'm not sharing more details than I already did, so it's very unreasonable to complain about that part of my comment. When my comment is too long, you or others will complain about that (cause then I'm supposedly "ranting" for example; which someone accused me of when I gave a lot of details about a particular subject), there's always something. (and then arguing that it isn't a complaint, capitalizing on the ambiguity of language in the process and taking an issue with the way I phrase something that could also be phrased as using an argument in the form of having an issue with something that was done, such as quote mining or ranting, or making comments too long too read, or supposedly only using rhetoric, etc. the usual; just before 'complaining' about not being given enough details regarding something. See, the word "complaining" is much easier to use when talking about such arguments being used against what someone is saying. I have no issue with a complaint if you can and are willing to justify it. If they are quote mining, why don't you demonstrate it with some details? See further below which details. I'm not the one making the accusation of quote mining regarding those quotations so I don't feel like I have to provide those details or the ones using those quotations.)

Your quote-mining accusation is unsubstantiated (why don't you tell us which part of the quotation was left out that would alter the impression of what someone was arguing for or talking about in the quotation). Standard argumentum ad hominem. Your accusation of arrogance is also unwarranted (but I expected it when I was typing my last paragraph just trying to be honest about the effect it has on me). My words after all have to fit your painting/picture of me in your mind, so you make them fit.

Hey, at least you're honest in voicing your little game and not keeping it in your head and talking to me in a manner that I can still recognize you're doing that to yourself. I much prefer people being honest about their views of other people they are talking to then talking to them with utter disdain without admitting to it (playing the nice openminded guy for the audience). So thanks for your honesty in that regards.

You're welcome to say "creatard" (or a variation) as well if that's what you're really thinking (about me). Of course, I may respond with bits and pieces about the use of negative labels in the propaganda techniques discussed in the articles I mention and link a lot on ATS. If I feel like it's worth it.

Quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as ... quote mining), is ... a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

How was that which was quoted distorted again because of which surrounding matter that was missing from the quotation? (rhetorical: and who is the one not giving any details so far? Regarding your response to my usage of the word "details") I didn't get your explanation of that part, it looked more like you were trying to re-define what quote mining means in order to make it fit your argument that:

What you posted was in fact quote mining...

(rhetorical) Might that have something to do with a reluctance to even search for that surrounding matter cause you just wanted to throw an accusation out there that you already knew to be false because propagandistic arguments work so well and are so much easier to use than proper logical justifications for what you're arguing for?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for the chuckle.

The odds of a single organism springing from lifeless elements, then developing in its lifespan the ability to replicate and reproduce would be akin to winning three Lotto super jackpots in a row.

Probably but then if you had as many Lotto tickets as there are sunn in the universe I'd be willing to bed you'd have more than jist3 of those Super Jackpot things you Americans go doolally for...

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not attacking you. That perception is entirely on you. Again, what you perceive as a personal attack and what you perceive as complaints... It's a testament to the faults in your reasoning. I'm simply pointing out facts and how silly the whole thing is. You haven't presented any evidence to support your position, you went on an arrogant
rant about your faith. Show me actual evidence that can be independently reproduced. That's how science works. It's not a quote mined and out of context opinion which is all you have presented. You want me to show you what was out of context or left out? How can I do that when your citation doesn't provide that information? Are you really this ignorant or is it willful Ignorance? You're either trolling the thread or you've never taken a science course. Frankly, I'm not sure which would prove sadder. So you go ahead and keep projecting your own M.O. on me as if im the mirror your schizophrenic personalities yell at when the silence becomes unbearable. When you're ready To cease hiding Behind your little cults skirts and discuss the science not a Random out of context quote regarding an opinion with no basis in fact, let me know. I'm always interested in looking at facts. All you've got in hyperbolic conjecture though so I'm not holding my breath. You play the same game of point the finger and run in every thread though so I'm not
Holding my breath for facts to come from you.

originally posted by: cooperton
Even the word "system" strongly implies a complex harmony of interrelated parts which could not have been generated in a piecewise manner (i.e. evolution) - because without the whole intact, the individual parts are worthless.

You mean like the perfectly balanced, natural eco-systems we have around the planet?

originally posted by: cooperton
This may seem like a cop-out, but logically it makes sense - something cannot come from nothing, therefore there always was something (God).

You've made it more complex than it needs to be, let me simplify that for you into a more logical statement.

Something cannot come from nothing, therefore there was always something (The Universe). No need for the middleman.

a reply to: peter vlar
Oh come on, you're making the accusation and complaint of quote mining (attacking the characters of those who wrote that article as being dishonest), justify it if you can or please stop making such false accusations and then pretend you're not attacking someone (which you clearly did and continue to do), complaining, twisting logic and the meaning of terms and squirming your way out of justifying your false accusations and attacks and more complaints about what someone is doing not being good enough for ye.

Plenty of facts that you don't want to acknowledge by probably calling them opinions mentioned in this article:
Where Did the Instructions Come From? Origin of Life:

A professor of molecular biology and computer science noted: “One gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, can store as much information as approximately one trillion CDs [compact discs].”
...
Despite advances in miniaturization, no man-made information storage device can approach such a capacity. Yet, the compact disc offers an apt comparison. Consider this: A compact disc may impress us with its symmetrical shape, its gleaming surface, its efficient design. We see clear evidence that intelligent people made it. But what if it is embedded with information—not random gibberish, but coherent, detailed instructions for building, maintaining, and repairing complex machinery? That information does not perceptibly change the weight or the size of the disc. Yet, it is the most important feature of that disc. Would not those written instructions convince you that there must be some intelligent mind at work here? Does not writing require a writer?

It is not far-fetched to compare DNA to a compact disc or to a book. In fact, one book about the genome notes: “The idea of the genome as a book is not, strictly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literally true. A book is a piece of digital information . . . So is a genome.” The author adds: “The genome is a very clever book, because in the right conditions it can both photocopy itself and read itself.” That brings up another important aspect of DNA.

MACHINES IN MOTION
...

Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

originally posted by: AlienView

What is lacking in both theories is an explanation of 'intelligence' - Where did intelligence come from?

The closest I get to any form of religion is a very healthy respect for nature and the world around me, i don't believe in an all powerful creator that has any care for us (if there ever was a creator he stopped paying attention a long time ago). I don't know where we came from and you are correct, neither Science nor Religion can explain where intelligence (nor, for me, more importantly) consciousness came from. The difference between Science and Religion is that Religion will never find the answer...

a reply to: whereislogic

I love the way creationists quote creationist and fundamentalist sources as if they have any credibility!

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for the chuckle.

The odds of a single organism springing from lifeless elements, then developing in its lifespan the ability to replicate and reproduce would be akin to winning three Lotto super jackpots in a row.

Probably but then if you had as many Lotto tickets as there are sunn in the universe I'd be willing to bed you'd have more than jist3 of those Super Jackpot things you Americans go doolally for...

Don't forget to add eternity to the equation. That guarantees life has had forever to develop. Which means it has always been there and is pretty much everywhere.

I don't gamble for money.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
Oh come on, you're making the accusation and complaint of quote mining (attacking the characters of those who wrote that article as being dishonest), justify it if you can or please stop making such false accusations and then pretend you're not attacking someone (which you clearly did and continue to do), complaining, twisting logic and the meaning of terms and squirming your way out of justifying your false accusations and attacks and more complaints about what someone is doing not being good enough for ye.

And the goal post moving begins. You claimed I was attacking YOU in your precious reply. Did you write the article you previously cited? Pointing out facts is not a complaint. It's not my job to provide evidence of a negative. Your
Article did not provide references or citations to show the reader with critical thinking skills and an understanding of due diligence where the quotes originated from so that one so inclined would be able to go to the source and understand the proper context of the attributed quotes. Not just the context but the veracity and accuracy of the quotes in question. Your problem with me is that you find the authors to be unimpeachable and it burns you that I'm calling them out for actions that would get a first year student removed from their program but I'm supposed to accept the conclusions that you feel are wholly truthful because... Inductive reasoning. Which does not meet the same threshold as deductive reasoning based solidly on testable and independently repeatable facts. Your insistence that the opinions derived from inductive reasoning are equitable with the end result of deductive reasoning is your cross to bear, not mine.

Plenty of facts that you don't want to acknowledge by probably calling them opinions mentioned in this article:

See, I will actually read through your citation before I pass judgement. Meanwhile the JW in their ivory tower is already prejudging me. Pathetic and typical. While we're at it though, do you have any scientific sources that support your position? Or is every piece of support that you intend to offer going to come from a JW site?

See, there's a woman from the local Kingdoms Hall who stops by every 3 months or so. Sometimes it's her and her husband, sometimes another woman from the Church, other times she shows up with someone from another Kingdom Hall who she refers to as her "evolution specialist" because while she enjoys trying to work her Jesusy magik on me, she has no clue how to respond to someone with an Anthropolgy degree when I start hitting her back with questions that aren't on the script.

I know all too well how the Church programs these people and they base their litanies on articles such as those you cite. They've brought many of them to my house. She's a lovely woman and our talks are often fascinating so I go out of my way to show her the utmost respect but that doesn't change anything. The below cited article does contain some facts but then plays fast and loose with how the authors choose to portray that factual information. Conjecture, hyperbole and wild assumptions without much basis in fact.

If the science supports your position, why are you citing a religious website as opposed to a peer reviewed paper? Even a science article would be awesome. Because if what you're claiming is rock solid, there would be a scientific consensus making similar statements. But that doesn't happen. It couldn't be because in science we adhere to actual rules and provide citations and references as well as allow anyone else attempt to replicate our results independently could it?

Let's take a look at your citation a little more. You claim that there are no quote mines, nothing out of context and your source material is implacably unimpeachable right? Here's a good one from your article-

Famous scientist Richard Feynman left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”25 His candid humility is refreshing, and his statement, obviously true in the case of DNA. Scientists cannot create DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet, some assert that they know that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Does the evidence that you have considered really support such a conclusion?

Seems pretty cut and dry right? But its not the case. They're using someone's words to support an argument he never made and they think they can give it wings because Dr. Feynman has passed away. See, it wasn't some mysterious message he left just before dying. He had discussed the statement with colleagues previously

When Feynman said "create", he did not literally mean that in order to understand particle physics, he had to go Tony Stark on us and build his own accelerator. Instead, he meant that, starting with a blank piece of paper and the knowledge already in his mind, he could take any theoretical result and re-derive it.

See, Feynman thought that ability was the true marker of understanding something because the only way to be able to work something out yourself is to have a firm understanding of each step of the reasoning involved. Further, if you try this, even with relatively simple concepts you think you understand well already, you'll find that you frequently come away from the process with a much deeper appreciation for the problem.

I can do this with every BS quote mine the JW's put forth and that you just rinse and repeat like you've had an original thought where you're just handing out prepackaged nonsense that you haven't done an iota of due diligence to ascertain the veracity of the information you're tossing out based entirely on confirmation biases. At least in Anthropology, we're taught to question everything and attempt to understand all sides of the hypothesis or postulation being tested. You aren't testing anything, you're not questioning anything. You're repeating nonsense because it is what you are told to know and then level accusations of the same thing at anyone who disagrees with you. It's shameful and you should be embarrassed by the garbage you attempt to put forth as though its based in facts.

a reply to: peter vlar
Repeating myself cause you're not really responding to it (by giving those details and justifications)...

Your quote-mining accusation is unsubstantiated (why don't you tell us which part of the quotation was left out that would alter the impression of what someone was arguing for or talking about in the quotation).
...
wikiquote: "The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as ... quote mining), is ... a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

How was that which was quoted distorted again because of which surrounding matter that was missing from the quotation? (rhetorical: and who is the one not giving any details so far?...
I didn't get your explanation of that part, it [still looks] more like you [are] trying to re-define what quote mining means in order to make it fit your argument that:

"What you posted was in fact quote mining..."

a reply to: whereislogic

Repeating yourself because you have no coherent response to the above posts. You're not fooling anyone

a reply to: whereislogic

I did respond to it, repeatedly. And in mny last reply I even pointed out a specific quote from your citation that was taken completely out of context and then gave the appropriate context and told you exactly what Feynman meant which completely contradicts what your JW site claims it meant.

Let me repeat something now. If there is an iota of veracity to your hyperbolic supposition, why then are you not linking some valid scientific sources. Papers, peer reviewed journals, even an article disseminated to media sites would probably do. Let me give you a specific number here. In a poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2% believe that there is no evidence supporting Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Of the 98% who do believe that MES is a factual account of the history of organic life on Earth, nearly half consider themselves religious.

Not surprising at all, the evangelical Protestant faith most likely to reject Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is you guessed it! Jehovahs Witnesses at 74% rejecting MES. Followed by Mormons at 52% and then in 3rd place for scientific illiteracy we have the Muslims at 41%.

www.pewresearch.org...

www.pewresearch.org...

The above is how you give information without quote mining. You cite the original source material so that others may engage in due diligence to attest to the veracity of the data presented.

Please feel free to support any of your positions regarding science, with a science based source. Do you read any scientific articles in an attempt to better understand what is actually being put forth by academics? Or do you get your science spoon fed to you by JW.org?

a reply to: whereislogic

So I am to take the word of some random video caster? Especially with the name "Christian Appologetics"

a reply to: Noinden

Oh come on! It totally sounds legit and completely neutral and unbiased. Right?