Creating a Religion

[nemo]

Semantics

 

I agree that the definition of abiogenesis must be kept clear and unaltered. I understand that spoken language is subject to the changing whims of culture and the ravages of slang, but if there is an arena that must be defended from from the horrors of Ebonics, it must be Science and Mathematics. Without a clear definition of specific topics of discussion, we are wasting our time. Of course, posting items like “Get an education before wasting our time” should solve most of these problems – people will simply not visit the site anymore.

[nemo]

Wrap-up

 

I'm looking for answers. I understand that my views are not the prevailing opinions at this site, and I have no problem with that – I don't want to talk to people who only agree with me. If my opinions, thoughts or beliefs are (in your opinion) incorrect – I'd like to hear it, along with supporting opinions, beliefs and evidence. If I have a question about one of your beliefs, I'd like to hear more than “Christians wouldn't understand” or a variation on that theme. One of the strongest factors in my initial belief in God was my study of Science. Questions that went unanswered about the origin of matter (not life, but matter itself), the laws of physics (I'd like something more than observations) and the refusal to allow questioning about commonly held beliefs such as the speed of light as a constant throughout time and evolution furthered my curiosity for knowledge. I have studied Scripture enough to have developed my own opinions on the subject at this point, but would still like information regarding scientific principles if it is available. You must know, however, that anyone with questions about evolution should not be called out as a silly Christian – else you will never disciple anyone into your thought process.

[Tormod]

Nemo, may I take your posts and publish a compilation of "Nemo on Science and Religion"?

 

No, seriously, I think you are doing a great job here and I will read your posts and give it some real thought. Hope others do the same.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: nemo

Esprit de corps

 

“I'm glad you're on our side.” Are we in Junior High now? Is the state championship on the line again? Do I have to take HomeEc again? Can I leave a note for myself to avoid whatsername after that party at Will's house during Senior year? Do we have to be on 'sides', or can we just ask questions and look for answers?

 

Doesn't matter, as long as you're on my side. (Note to self: go home from job and stop posting silly comments before the other mods kick me out)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

HUP and Abiogenesis vs. Ardor and Faith

 

Perhaps my confusion originates with English comprehension; HUP and Abiogenesis are built upon probability – not certainty. Correct?

Welcome back. We understand that not everyone lives on this site all the time the way Irish and Unc do! :-)

 

Now to your comment. I can see where your comment, if taken as literaly correct, could cause problems with the discussion later. This is based on how you define "probability". And based on what I see later in your post, it will cause problems sooner than later.

 

1st, Abiogenesis has nothing to do with "probability" the way HUP does. Abiogenesis, Evolution, Gravity, particle duality and every other Scientific Theory is based on "probability" based on each representing the Theory that is "most probably correct" based on available evidence and accuracy of predictions made from them.

My understanding of HUP is that it has been an extremely useful foundation for many areas of science,

And this is how all of the other Theories in Science are "understood". There is no specific value to ANY Scientific Theory other than how it helps us understand and PREDICT. Having a theory of Evolution has no value other than it helping us understand biology and predict how species respond to various things. Same with HUP. It's value is in helping us understand what has and is happening. The more accurately it fills this role, the more value the Theory has.

but that if you cannot accurately measure the location of an electron 100% of the time – you must eventually have faith that it will be where you expect it to be.

This is where your approach fails. This is where you want to pretend that "faith", acceptance without factual support, is being used. Yes HUP states that we can not know exactly where a particle is until we "look" for it. But that does not mean we randomly assume where it is and "expect" it to be there. Here "probability" tells us where the greatest chance of it being is, based on factual models. This application of "probability" is more like a weather report. e.g. if we are told there is a 40% probability of rain on Thursday, this does not mean it IS going to rain 40% of the time this Thursday. It means that when these conditions exist, it historically rains 40% of the time.

 

Another way to understand "probability" regarding HUP is radioactive decay. Take any qty of a radioactive element. We KNOW what the decay rate is and based on how much of that element we have, we can predict how many particles will be released in a given time. That within a given period of time, say one minute, we would get a specific number of clicks from a gieger counter, say 20. Now we KNOW that we will get 20 clicks, 20 atoms will shed a particle from that mass. But which of the atoms out of all of them in that mass? We have no way of knowing WHICH. We are competely uncertain as to exactly when one specific atom we would pick out, would decay. Only the 100% probablity that 20 of them will.

Abiogenesis proposes a number of exciting possibilities with regard to chemical interaction and the potential for creating truly unique life forms in a controlled environment;

Remove "controlled". Abiogenesis deals with uncontrolled environments. At least not controlled by intentional interaction.

however, there are points at which I have questions about the mathematics and geography. You state that simple forms of life do in fact live near smokers on the ocean floor – I agree completely; simple forms of life exist all over this planet. You insist that abiogenesis could or did happen at these locations, but that it's not any more, and that I should have faith in your assumptions that something unknown broke this chain of events that must have happened the way you desc

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Bifurcation

 

First – nice word; it beats the hell out of the 'crotch theory', 'logical chromosome theory' or 'flip-a-coin theory'.

"Bifurcation" has nothing to do with BEING a "theory". It has to do with constructing support for one. It is one of a large number of fallacies people use when incorrectly trying to construct support for a claim. A good education on "Argument Fallacies" allows one to evaluating whether a reason given as support of a claim is worth evaluating further for viability. i.e. When somone claims that something is correct beacause some large percent of people beleived it, there is no reason to research what percent of people believed the earth was flat in determining whether the earth is flat or not. The proposition that a flat earth is viable because it was believed by some large percent of the population is fallacy regardless of how large that percent is. The assertion can be rejected simply on the grounds of it being a fallacy, not because only 56% beleived instead of the 87% claimed.

As far as I know, with regard to the origin of life on this planet, there are only two theories. Ok, I'm ignorant – please educate me. Not that I need you to actually state the thousands of alternative theories you've referenced, but a starting point for additional research would be appreciated.

You repeat that you only know of two theories for the origin of life. Yet I gave examples of others. Actually the bible itself gives TWO. Gen1 and Gen 2 have conflicting orders. Then there are any number of other Creation myths. A simple Google of "Creation Myths" provides "about 31,100 English pages for "creation myths". There are even various Scientific approaches to abiogenesis including extraterrestrial, organic elements from space.

 

Does it benefit our discussion here to delineate any number of the thousands of myths? Only if specific ones are promoted as alternatives to a naturalistic abiogenesis. Thus when you say you want to challenge a totally natural abiogenesis and claim you believe in the bible, we are left to assume you are promoting one of the biblical creation myths. If this is not the case, please provide specifics as to which other myth you are asserting and why. If in fact the alternative to a completely natural abiogenesis you are promoting is specifically biblical, then we need to evaluating how accurate the source material is.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Esprit de corps

Do we have to be on 'sides', or can we just ask questions and look for answers?

Well, are there "sides"? If memory serves, this was from a discussion regarding the differentiation between the Theories of Evolution and Abiogenesis. As such my comment regarded your proactive promotion of thier being a difference bewteen them. As opposed to the typical attempt to combine them and use one to attempt to discredit the other. Thus I expressed pleasure at not having to cover this tired territory this time around.

 

Yes therefore there does tend to be "sides". In this specific case the "sides" are those that understand that Evolution does not include Abiogenesis and those that do not.

[Freethinker]

Ah so now we move into obfuscation. Instead of replying to the obvious INTENT of the post, you try to confuse the issue. YOU claimed the bible is accurate. As such we need to see if that is a fact or not. Can the bible provide FACTUAL SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT data? Does it serve as a scientific resource? If so, it can be used in any and all scientific efforts. Specifically you assert that HUP is as faith based as a religion is. Again, we then need to compare a RELIGION to HUP. Again requiring that if the particular religion is revelation based, it's source of revelation needs to be evaluated for it's usability and accuracy. Instead you use the fallacy of Obfuscation.

 

Originally posted by: nemo

Barrier Voltages

 

Perhaps you can show us the biblical math for determining barrier voltages?

Nope, as you might recall from a previous post, I've already said I'm not a double-E. I hereby admit your superiority in the categories of Voltage, Amperes and any other energy that will make a housecat breakdance.

The question is NOT whether YOU understand QM based electronics. It is whether the bible provides the answers needed or not. Your reply is merely an attempt to hide the failure of the bible to do so.

[IrishEyes]

Wow, FreeT, I don't recall ever seeing you be so restrained before. I stand in awe of your self-control!

 

One quick request though...

 

I'm sure that you've posted a list, link, or reference for the most common Argument Fallacies that you use to combat the less educated. However, in the interest of leveling the playing field, would you be willing to do so again? Maybe if we all have an idea of the things to avoid when posting, our discussions will be more fruitful.

 

Note to Tormod, this list could possibly be incorporated into the FAQ or Rules page at some future point in time, as a general guideline of what to avoid...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Selected Verses

Psalm 137

Yep here we go. I make a specific assertion about what is ACTUALLY in the bible. You PRETEND to not know and ask me to supply proof. COntrary to such efforts as bifurcation and obfuscation used by others, *I* ACTUALLY DO SUPPLY support for my claims.

 

Suddenly your claim to not know the bible becomes your being the only correct source for understansing the bible. Especially when the effort requires IGNORING what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE and instead trying to defend it by using OTHER parts of it.

This is part of the “Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord” theme you might notice elsewhere in the Bible.

Again to establish perspective, I made the assertion that the bible supports smashing the heads of babies. You pretended to need specifics. I gave them.

Originally posted by: nemo

I have no problem doing my own research, but would appreciate a point of reference for your comments about baby smashing,

"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9)

Suddenly my providing exactly what was asked for is attacked. Not because the passage did not say what I claimed it said, but because of some OUTSIDE reason. The discuss was NEVER *WHY* the bible supports smashing babies heads. It was whether it DID or not.

 

I PROVED it did.

 

So you want to change the discussion to WHY.

This Psalm discusses the plight of Israelites held captive.

How typical of a Christian. Suddenly it does not matter WHAT the bible ACTUALLY says as long as you can invent excuses for it.

 

YOU asked for proof of WHAT the bible says. If you can't prove that the bible did NOT say it, don't bother trying to change the topic of discussion to WHY. Learn to stay on topic.

 

For the record, another Fallacy of Argumentation is being used here. It is called "Dragging a red herring". An attempt to drag the discussion away from the ACTUAL topic because you can not actually prove it wrong.

 

Same as my very specific statement that the bible supports killing women. I provide FACUTAL support. Can you PROVE the bible does NOT say it?

 

NOPE!

 

So instead you drag the red herring again. Suddenly it is not whether it is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE, but WHY.

Jeremiah and Leviticus

 

Both of the verses you quote deal with the wrath of God for those who break His commandments.

So we see that I WAS RIGHT. You just don't like what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE. so you want to make excuses for it.

 

If you want to discuss WHY the bible is filled with all these promotions of horredeous attrocities, we can start that discussion. But don't think you can get away with pretending it does not say what it ACTUALLY does by trying to drag the discussion away from the ACTUAL topic.

 

However what we find is another typical Christian selective application of passges. Yu know, what I was accused of at the beginning of this post!

Your selections also help to underscore the importance of Jesus to Christians. The release from Mosaic Law to Messianic Law is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism.

Which is compeletely contradictory to the bibles own mythical Jesus very specifically stating.

 

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the <u>law</u>, till all be fulfilled.

 

You know what <u>law</u> we are talking about, YOU put it in context

the Old Testament – It's called God's Law, not God's Suggestion.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Note to Tormod, this list could possibly be incorporated into the FAQ or Rules page at some future point in time, as a general guideline of what to avoid...

 

Good idea. Noted. FT, bring on the list.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Things that scare FT

 

This book is scary!

I would think Isaiah and Revelation would fall into that category for you, but I suppose the idea of negative consequences for specific actions (similar to modern law) are unsettling for some people, regardless of the source.

Ah yes. Once more we find the red herring. Can you actually address the questions as discussed? Or is your only ability to try and drag the discussion to sonmething you want to answer? That is what we have seen so far.

 

When did the discussion stop being about errors in and then the attrocities promoted in the bible and instead become a veiled accusation of my not wanting to follow laws? Oh ya, when YOU failed to be able to show that the bible is NOT filled with admonitions to commit attrocities.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

My knowledge of pool halls

You missed the one you specifically used.

 

Pretend you don't know the game.

 

"Ah, which end of the stick do I use?"

Originally posted by: nemo

I am glad you are well versed in the bible, that should help when I have questions.

Way too obvious.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Wrap-up

 

I'm looking for answers.

So are we. It would help in the discussion if you actually answered ones asked of you.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Please show us Abiogenesis fits even the remaining definitions.

No answer.

 

You repeat the claim, but do not provide any FACTS to support it

Originally posted by: nemo

Abiogenesis fits into the religion category of religion on the basis of the second definition I provided.

• 
  A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
  

No answer

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: nemoI was curious, so I tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could and verify their numbers. What I found was that they did an effective job of shooting down the creationist arguments they list, but inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.

Such as?

No answer

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: nemo

Lines in the sand... How do the lines you mention differ from HUP? Each is based upon supposed limitations of science, and at some point, asks you to believe in something that cannot be measured.

What can't be measured in HUP?

No answer

Originally posted by: nemo

Barrier Voltages

Perhaps you can show us the biblical math for determining barrier voltages?

Nope, as you might recall from a previous post, I've already said I'm not a double-E.

No Answer.

 

Avoided answering by dragging the red herring.

 

Your very good at ignoring questions or dragging the discussion away from answers that you don't want to acknowledge. But how honest of a dialog can be expected from that?

If my opinions, thoughts or beliefs are (in your opinion) incorrect – I'd like to hear it, along with supporting opinions, beliefs and evidence.

Those of us on "this side" HAVE done so. Turn about SHOULD be fair play, but so far...

If I have a question about one of your beliefs, I'd like to hear more than “Christians wouldn't understand” or a variation on that theme.

I have never provided that as the only answer to a single one of your questions. Yet how many of my questions have you even attempted to answer? Also typical of a Christian.

One of the strongest factors in my initial belief in God was my study of Science.

So you didn't like Science eh?

Questions that went unanswered about the origin of matter (not life, but matter itself),

Yep, you did not like Science. If it was Science you had adopted, instead of antiquated superstitions, you would no better than to accept invented stop gaps in place of "I don't know".

the laws of physics (I'd like something more than observations)

Again, if you had a factual concept of science, you would not make this statement. In fact if you paid any attention to what you read here, you would have caught how the understanding of QM is the only reason we have computers. And obviously had we LEARNED anything from the observations, we might have been able to throw hunks of metal millions of miles and land them on other planets.

 

Ops, guess maybe we already did that!

<block

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I'm sure that you've posted a list, link, or reference for the most common Argument Fallacies that you use to combat the less educated. However, in the interest of leveling the playing field, would you be willing to do so again? Maybe if we all have an idea of the things to avoid when posting, our discussions will be more fruitful.

Ah if we could get people to stick to reasoned, logical discussions! Yes I have posted url's listing some set of the argument fallacies, but I will do it again. We sure wouldn't want anyone to have to type "Argument fallacies" into Google manually!

 

"Results 1 - 10 of about 70,700 English pages for Argument fallacies."

 

Fallacies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

Matteo Dell'Amico provides this feature in Italian

http://www.linux.it/~della/fallacies/index.html

 

Common Argument Fallacies

http://www.liberty.k12.mo.us/hs/WB/wh_caf.htm

 

Fallacies in arguments

http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php

 

NOTES ON LOGICAL FALLACIES, ETC.

http://www.philosophy.eku.edu/Williams/HON102Web/falsec-web.htm

 

Fallacies: Mistakes in the Logic of Arguments

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.htm

 

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/argument_logic.htm

 

Fallacious Arguments

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FallaciousArguments

 

Fallacies

http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/fallac/

 

And my favorite:

 

Logic & Fallacies

 

[ Español / Spanish | Portuguese | Hebrew ]

 

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

 

Want to bet that this won't stop others from continuing to use them?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

We sure wouldn't want anyone to have to type "Argument fallacies" into Google manually!

 

Hey pal, what do you take us for? Neverdowells who spend their free time discussing religion in a science forum? Duh! Got more important things to do!

 

(Like updating the FAQ with the links).

[GAHD]

ok FT, at this point you're nitpicking. he did answer you on several points, you are just unable to accept his answers. You are incapable of giving up an argument even when you've painted yourself into a corner;better to walk on the wet floor and keep painting, or try to climb the walls. That is if you follow the metaphore.

 

Your ask for proof, yet you fail to define acceptible guidelines for said proof; explain your question better than just railing on whatever they say, it's seems childish and is unproductive.