hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus
  
  

  For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).

  
  
  Of course, here hooberus ignores no one has seriously talked about abiogenesis in water and open sunlight for decades. The Creationist's best technique - choose your battles carefully - make sure they are ones you can appear to win - and rely upon your audiences' level of knowledge to be at a low enough level for them not to be aware the bit of theory you are sniping out hasn't been credible for decades.

  I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).

  As tetra points out, you ignore that statistics is no friend to those wishing to prove an Intelligent Designer, as that has to be the highest unliklihood of it all, unless you are a presuppositonalist.

  So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?
  
  

  And if you are a presuppositionalist, your opinions count for nothing, as it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows, you'll close your eyes to it and preach your presuppostions.

  Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" as being "reasonable" should be careful about making arguments that others are "a presuppositionalist" who's opinions "count for nothing" because they are those to whom "it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows", etc.
  
  

  Add your mean spirited assault against the scientific community, ad homing millions of people whose work and study have improved the average quality of life in the past hundred years beyond all recognition, and one doesn't know what to bother saying to you, as none of it will do any good, and you'll insult and impune those that you disagree with as if you can't beat someone in a fair discussion, you'll stoop to character assasination.

  Readers can examine my post history here and decide for themselves if such claims are true or fallacious. Perhaps they should also examine your post history.
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:
  

  Ken Ham is really worth reading up on.
  
  
  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

  AiG is a money making scheme; he is paid TWICE the average of a non-profit CEO for his post with AiG.

  
  

  Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully. Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
  

  His 'science' is deceitful garbage. And hoo quotes from the site despite having been shown this? *sigh*

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  RodentBoy said:

  The problem with Answers in Genesis and all the other Creationist outfits who make the "odds of abiogenesis" claim is that, in fact, they are beating a strawman of abiogenesis. They frequently start out with "it would take one in xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx to get from organic soup to DNA", when in fact no modern theory of abiogenesis says any such thing. Abiogenesis, like any chemical process, would occur in stages, and that primitive organisms would not have had all of the features that we find in extant organisms. The earliest very likely did not have DNA at all (look up RNA world).

  I would recommend that you ought to read some real abiogenesis research, rather than going to organizations whose sole purpose is to misrepresent science to prop up their religious beliefs.

  And the problem with some evolutionary sites (such as TalkOrigins http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935) is that they give the impression that creationists only argue against "instant" abiogenesis when in fact creationist sites (such as Answers in Genesis) actually deal with a wide varity of proposed abiogenesis scenarios (including occurence in "stages" "RNA world" etc).

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  well, about the quotes hooberus, all i can say is that in the context you provide them, i disagree with this a priori stuff. because if god did turn out to be an explanation, then he *would* be natural. wouldn't he? now he just needs to stop being a baby by only appearing to the people who agree with him, and appear to us all and put us in our bleeding places, hey?!

  I know of at least one creationist that has pointed this out as well (indeed if all things were created except an eternal God, then an argument could be made that the God would then the only truely "naturalistic" thing in existence)- however in practice evolutionists generally define "natural" so as to exclude God a priori.

  "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
  
  "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd
  
  Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/full/401423b0_fs.html
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  UNDER CONSTRUCTION

  true hoob, so true what you say. evolution is not aiming at anything. it's always under construction. glad we finally agree on something.

  TS

  I agree that evolution is always "under construction" -however many evolutionists are aiming at something-that is for non-designer explanations for the world around us.
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  you leave out the fact that a scientist who could pull the carpet out from under evolution, would have a huge career boost. it's in the professional interest of scientists to one up their peers.

  
  

  
  Given the philosophical worldviews accompanying evolution (materialism/naturalism)*, as well as the evolutionary theorists ability to adapt evolution to virtually any data, it would be a daunting task to come up with any way to "pull the carpet out" that would convince the theorists/ materialists.

  Furthermore, any scientist that even attempts to openly "pull the carpet out from under evolution" also faces the possibility of an attempt to "pull the carpet out out from under" his career, once the entrenched evolutionary establishment turns on him and labeles him a "creationist".

  *Those who only consider only considering "naturalistic" (materialistic) explanations for all phenomena (see below quotes) including origins (before looking at and regardless of the data) are virtually bound to be limited to some sort of evolutionary scenario.

  "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
  
  "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd
  Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/full/401423b0_fs.html
  
  
  Many evolutionists (including the NAS and teachers groups) even go so far as to require that "science" itself be defined as being limited to only "naturalistic" explanations:

  "The NAS defines science as a search for purely natural explanations for all phenomena. Under this definition, science is bound to oppose any theory of intelligent design, no matter how compelling the evidence. That is fine, but the NAS should admit that this definition is a philosophic choice, and a statement of faith that natural explanations indeed exist for all things, and indeed are true." (A Critical Analysis of Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences In relation to Intelligent Design Theory By Casey Luskin)

  “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
  
  (Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)

  and the interesting thing about you bringing up this counter-argument, is that you obviously do not apply it to your own belief systems, or the people you reference in support of them. remember that conversation we had about the rafter in your own eye? ya. that one.

  
  My previous comment (which I decided to remove before any comments were posted because I decided that I did't want to take the time to now to get into another subject). applied my comments to "all" scientists, not just evolutionts- hense there was no rafter in my eye (as there wasn't in my eye in the previous conversation either).
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  
  A better lottery analogy would be evey one in China (1 billion people) slecting a number between 1 and 1 trillion, and then each month comparing these numbers with 10 "winning" numbers within this range (thus no pre-necessity of a winner each month as in the previous example).
  
  

  Since a trillion is 1,000 billion and there are a billion persons in China the odds would be 1000 to 1 against any one of the numbers being hit upon in any month. However this would be offset by the fact that there are 10 possible winning numbers - hense the odds drop to 100 to 1 of there being a winner in any month (thus on average there should be 1 winner every 8.5 years ).

  However, the odds of getting 12 winners in any single year would be 1 in 10 to the 24th (100 times 100 times 100 times etc.- twelve times), which if it occured (even if within a 1,000,000 year period of lotterys) would be strong evidence of fraud .

  Furthermore, if in the resulting fraud trial an indicted lottery officials defense was that: "Unprobable things happen all the time judge !- why take this deck of cards judge and randonly shuffle it. Now that you are done here is the sequence (7of clubs, 6 of diamond, etc.). Do you know judge that the odds of getting the specific combination of playing cards that you just got from random shuffling?- Why it is less than 1 in 10 to the 67th! yet it still happened! and there certainly was no fraud on your part in such an unlikely event occurring. Therfore, why should anyone be charged with fraud in the lottery case of 12 winners in the past year with its much more likely odds of occurring!"

  Of course a wise judge would recognize the fallacy in the mans defense argument, in that (similar to as Dr. Batten wrote in another AiG arcticle) that any arrangement of cards is as ‘good’ as any other and there will be of necessity (with 100% probability) an arrangement of cards within the period of time that the judge shuffled them. However, within the time period of the lottery (even if 1,000,000 years) the odds against twelve winners in any year are in contrast a very low probability (so low that intelligently directed fraud within that year would be very well substantiated).
• 
  16

  The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 12 - The Flood

  by RunningMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  well, i've been waiting for a long time to post this one.

  it's my personal favorite.

  some angels became inflamed with lust for human women and took on human form.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I am an atheist, so I put no stock in it, but as a kid I had some children's bible books that had pictures in them, in the chapter(s) that dealt with the flood, the picture that went with the story showed not only rain, but geysers bursting forth from the ground like Old Faithful. Does anyone know if there is a biblical basis for picturing geysers, or were they just trying to make up for the inadequacies of a purely rain-based worldwide flood? (Or even more likely, simply a paid artist's rendition that had more to do with the artist's imagination than anything else.)

  "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11 KJV http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp
• 
  58

  Creatiolution. This could be the answer.

  by Spectrum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

  we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

  i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Almost Atheist said:
  
  

  without getting into who says something so wildly improbable has therefore never happened, let me instead ask about the probabilities about evolution. Which things in particular are you referring to as improbable?

  Creationists make a habit of starting with some bad assumptions, then building huge mathematical refutations based on them. For instance, they might talk about the probability of life ever starting at all. They talk about such and so chemicals needing to be in this and thus order in the presence of whatever. That life might begin in any one spot with any one shoebox of chemicals would be quite improbable. But they forget that whatever processes were involved were going on all over the planet, for a billion years. It only had to happen once to get the whole thing kicked off.

  After all, how likely is it that a lightning bolt will set a particular tree on fire? And yet forest fires start this way. How? Because there are a bazillion trees and scores of years for it to happen in.

  You are mistaken in that:

  1. The calculations done by many creationist scientists (and non-creationist scientists who have pointed out the problems as well) do in fact allow for the possibility of large areas as well as long timespans (such as a billion years).
  
  2. Due to numerous factors even if such events did somehow "happen once", this still would not at all mean that the whole thing would then still be likely to get kicked off. For example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).
  
  Mathematical problems not only affect abiogenesis but other following evolutionary scenarios as well: see for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_proteins.pdf http://evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm