The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 11:30 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 11:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 06:03 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It occurred to me that the key difference between someone who believes in woo and an atheist is that the former does not take into account probability. This is why scientists and critical thinkers are seen as close minded when they try to point out such things as reality. They are accused of only explaining everything in terms of what they know and therefore of not being open to new ideas.

The wooist will try to come up with a belief system that is logically consistent and they may even manage it if they rely on assumptions that cannot be falsified. But at no point do they ever ask what the likelihood is of those assumptions being true.
Problem is that creationists have made the same argument against atheists regarding abiogenesis, and in that case the atheists say it's a poor argument. Go figure.

Ugh, stahp. This is what I'm talking about. an atheist and creationist enters a ring to fight and the creationist punches a fucking bystander, thinking that he just won.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2014 03:03 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 07:34 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  You said aliens.
Aliens are waaaaaayy more probable that magic or angles.

I completely agree with that. To a wooist, belief in aliens is just as valid as belief in magic and angels.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 06:28 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 05:43 PM)ivaneus Wrote:  Uh. Hydrocarbons.... organic chemistry..... life......

What....? I..... What? Never mind.
Careful you don't pull something...that's a mighty long stretch!

Are you seriously telling me that those pieces are on abiogenesis as we were discussing it here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 06:30 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 11:30 PM)le_bard Wrote:  Ugh, stahp. This is what I'm talking about. an atheist and creationist enters a ring to fight and the creationist punches a fucking bystander, thinking that he just won.
What's wrong with pointing out an ad hoc or special pleading fallacy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
The books that I have been reading on the subject which include many references are:

(Unfortunately in storage)

An Introduction to Astrobiology

This book discusses the process of self-organisation since the big bang and describes how complexity has arisen at every step because of the laws of thermodynamics and the expansion of the universe causing thermal gradients, including from chemical to biological systems.

Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos

I am currently reading this absolutely fantastic book on the same theme:

Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life


Unfortunately my book on Cell Biology is also in storage but I remember reading a discussion about how cells possibly came about in the first chapter. They also discuss thermodynamics.

Essential Cell Biology
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 05:47 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 03:20 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Wow did those goal posts shift at light speed. You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you. Criticizing my search query and what the first result was is simply you deflecting the issue. Read the evidence, come up with a refutation, or shut the fuck up. Ignoring the plethora of articles that are related that DID come up is beyond disingenuous.

Wow, it's almost like alpha male doesn't want to be provided with evidence and won't read it anyway. Makes you glad not to spend too long providing links and references if he's determined to dismiss whatever you give him.

I always use google scholar when searching for references when writing a paper. Also cite seer, another search engine.

Yeah, you can lead an ignoramus to knowledge, but you can't force it to learn.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 07:44 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 07:31 AM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Yeah, you can lead an ignoramus to knowledge, but you can't force it to learn.
On the contrary, I learned a few things from the answers in genesis piece - you know, the only article on the first page that actually pertained to abiogenesis of life. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 07:44 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 07:31 AM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Yeah, you can lead an ignoramus to knowledge, but you can't force it to learn.
On the contrary, I learned a few things from the answers in genesis piece - you know, the only article on the first page that actually pertained to abiogenesis of life. Smile

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes donotwant's post
26-02-2014, 10:05 AM
The missing ingredient is ... probability
So basically, you completely ignored not only the articles on hydrocarbon abiogenesis, but also these:

(25-02-2014 03:22 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”"

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n....1086.html

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918...c333fe7f95

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm

http://m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Perhaps your Abiogenesis question would be better suited for a thread about Abiogenesis.

It's a common Theist mistake to believe science is only valid with an origin of life theory, when no such theory is necessary for scientific inquiry to be valid.

It's a wonderful illustration of the significant difficulty Theists have with probability: They present a story of the origin of life with no proof or evidence to support it, and assert it is more valid than theories with empirical evidence behind them.

Theists don't seem to understand the burden of proof, evidence, or why presenting a false dilemma is unscientific, unfounded, and simply wrong.

Read the AiG piece:

(26-02-2014 07:44 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 07:31 AM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Yeah, you can lead an ignoramus to knowledge, but you can't force it to learn.
On the contrary, I learned a few things from the answers in genesis piece - you know, the only article on the first page that actually pertained to abiogenesis of life. Smile

You asked for evidence of abiogenesis, that evidence was provided for you: And you went ahead and chose to read only the article that confirms to your beliefs.

And still don't understand why no one takes you seriously.

Why join a debate forum?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(26-02-2014 06:30 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 11:30 PM)le_bard Wrote:  Ugh, stahp. This is what I'm talking about. an atheist and creationist enters a ring to fight and the creationist punches a fucking bystander, thinking that he just won.
What's wrong with pointing out an ad hoc or special pleading fallacy?

How is pointing out that being wrong about abiogenesis will not affect the argument for the existence of god any of what you said? Abiogenesis is false, therefore god is a complete non sequitur. When the creationist attempts to debunk science (ergo punching a bystander) he does not make HIS argument more likely.

I don't think that abiogenesis is wrong, but tell me, please. What about the disproval of abiogenesis will make the idea of a being creating life from nothing, as well as the world, and doing things like parting a sea through presumably telepathy or waterbending MORE LIKELY? It's like assuming that mcdonalds burgers MUST be better because red robins burgers suck. Non. sequitur.

So, don't shift the argument to heavily researched theory when your own arguments for life fall on its face.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: