Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(18-08-2015 08:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation.

While spontaneous generation does involve the idea of life coming from non-life, it is always used in the context of incorrect assumptions about an organism's origin based on partial observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
18-08-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(18-08-2015 08:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation.

No, it is called abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is a different concept.

Quote:Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules--the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long, precisely ordered chain.

So? They came about by the accumulation of changes - not all at once. Why is that so difficult a concept for you? Consider

And the order is not, in fact, so precise. There is redundancy of coding and there are non-coding stretches.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-08-2015, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 11:15 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Precisely ordered? Has he SEEN a genome?!

Look, dude, you don't get to just make shit up. Reality matters. Facts matter.


Edit to Add: If you think the human genome (for one example) is "precisely ordered", browse for a moment:

(Thanks, as always to the National Institutes of Health for making their science journal data public.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154576/

Or this really fun one, where getting too many copies of a gene (which is stuck in multi-copy mode in all of us, but makes too many in some individuals) means getting nasty tumors/cancers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12203773

Yeah. We have a "precisely ordered" genome! Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-08-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(18-08-2015 08:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation.

Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules--the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long, precisely ordered chain.

So what?

This isn't an argument. This isn't even a coherent objection to an argument. What is your point?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
19-08-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(18-08-2015 11:20 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 08:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation.

Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules--the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long, precisely ordered chain.

So what?

This isn't an argument. This isn't even a coherent objection to an argument. What is your point?

My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research? Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:20 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So what?

This isn't an argument. This isn't even a coherent objection to an argument. What is your point?

My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research? Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

Well it also would demonstrate that perhaps intelligent life can't design life from that stance.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research? Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

Golly gosh, do you think maybe current conditions aren't conducive to that? Or perhaps that we haven't yet found the right conditions given our current predictive powers?

While I'm asking questions, does it bother you at all that all you can do to make your case is point at a mystery and go "we're ignorant of that! That's my argument!"

Hmm, sounds almost like they could name a logical fallacy after that... Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
19-08-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research?

"If flight is just aerodynamics, why hasn't anyone built an airplane yet?"
- The Q Continuum, 1895

(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

It's a good thing we know more than that, then.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 08:26 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(19-08-2015 02:56 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research? Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

Golly gosh, do you think maybe current conditions aren't conducive to that? Or perhaps that we haven't yet found the right conditions given our current predictive powers?

While I'm asking questions, does it bother you at all that all you can do to make your case is point at a mystery and go "we're ignorant of that! That's my argument!"

Hmm, sounds almost like they could name a logical fallacy after that... Consider

I've taken the time and courtesy to thoroughly address these questions on another thread.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My point is the logical inference if there is no creator is that random chemical processes produced life. Why hasn't this process been reproduced by scientists? Why isn't it available in peer reviewed research?

"If flight is just aerodynamics, why hasn't anyone built an airplane yet?"
- The Q Continuum, 1895

(19-08-2015 02:12 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because "it just kind of happened across millions of years" sounds suspiciously like a "Darwin of the gaps" argument.

It's a good thing we know more than that, then.

Please provide herein a brief outline of "the more that we know" (yes, you sound like an NBC PSA) or else, perhaps, some citations of things that a poor lay person like me can understand about the brilliant design effected by mindless, mechanistic, random processes that led to even simple life being more complex on the order of thousands of times above man's basic machines.

Because saying "It's a good thing we know more than that, then," is now what I will call a "someone else knows more of the gaps than I" argument. You still have gaps! So feel free to fill them right here and now to defend your argument and show me to be utterly wrong.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: