1221 replies to this topic

[Clacksberg]

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know

[platypus]

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know

I've very much enjoyed his paper about the non-existence of intelligent aliens ( http://adsabs.harvar...QJRAS..21..267T) but I do not want to read his crazy stuff (it's inevitable that an super-advanced civilization (judeo-christian god?) at the end of time will "resurrect" us via advanced computing - hello??  ). 

[calyptus]

The mistake you are making is to equate the "wedge" with ID.

 

Which is why I made the distinction between naturalistic id and supernaturalistic id in the same comment.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You don't have a mechanism to establish supernaturalistic id so why should I care.

Edited by calyptus, 12 May 2015 - 05:36 PM.

[Clacksberg]

 

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know

I've very much enjoyed his paper about the non-existence of intelligent aliens ( http://adsabs.harvar...QJRAS..21..267T) but I do not want to read his crazy stuff (it's inevitable that an super-advanced civilization (judeo-christian god?) at the end of time will "resurrect" us via advanced computing - hello??  ). 

 

 

Yes i know what you mean..

A funny thought experiment though, say i was cryosuspended and reanimated in 300 years time - if it's the old me that comes back, which is what a lot of cryonics guys think - if i can have a gap in my experience, whats wrong with a 10,000 year gap and my neurons being simulated on a similar media as the brain/body??

In 10,000 years they could bring me back by just estimated  simulation. JUST FOR A LAUGH!

[shadowhawk]

 

The mistake you are making is to equate the "wedge" with ID.

 

Which is why I made the distinction between naturalistic id and supernaturalistic id in the same comment.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You don't have a mechanism to establish supernaturalistic id so why should I care.

 

 

I notice you say nothing about the "Wedge" source I posted.  ID is scientific and deserves to be studied.  Science is limited to the material aspect of the world, what ever that is given the state of cosmology.  What is matter?  Now that you wasted our time with a bunch of false charges, you are not going to waste your time.  OK.
 

[shadowhawk]

I am a scientist and can assess the impact of published scientific papers. ID only results in pamphlets in 3rd-rate or even non peer-reviewed journals. This means it is not a scientific theory and that it has not contributed anything to science. I'm sorry to break you the news but I have to call it how it is. 

You have several times claimed to be a scientist and now you claim to be able to assess peer reviews.  I quoted and sourced Frank Tipler and his take on it.  Lets compare his qualifications with  your conclusions.  So you are a scientist.  Give us your background, then I will give you his.  Here is his post again.   http://intelligentde...T16_29_38-07_00

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 May 2015 - 08:45 PM.

[The Brain]

Has anyone proven the existence of the hateful psychopathic god of christian beliefs yet ?

[platypus]

 

I am a scientist and can assess the impact of published scientific papers. ID only results in pamphlets in 3rd-rate or even non peer-reviewed journals. This means it is not a scientific theory and that it has not contributed anything to science. I'm sorry to break you the news but I have to call it how it is. 

You have several times claimed to be a scientist and now you claim to be able to assess peer reviews.  I quoted and sourced Frank Tipler and his take on it.  Lets compare his qualifications with  your conclusions.  So you are a scientist.  Give us your background, then I will give you his.  Here is his post again.   http://intelligentde...T16_29_38-07_00

 

So where are the references in his post?

 

Also, why is it that you shadowhawk or nobody else cannot name any contribution that ID/creationism has made to science? How come you do not care that during 150 years ID/creationism has achieved exactly nothing? 

[shadowhawk]

Mr claimed scientist.  I noticed you completely ignored my questions.    ID is a modern theory, not nearly 150 years old.  Shows how much you know about ID.  Now tell me do you ask this same question of other modern day theories?   Next what do you mean bu "contribution?"  Is understanding a contribution?  Finally what do you mean by references in his post?  It was a talk.

[The Brain]

Haven't you been ignoring questions all throughout the thread ?

[shadowhawk]

Smoke with no example.  How USUAL.

[platypus]

So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work? 

[The Brain]

Smoke with no example. How USUAL.

Avoiding your USUAL hypocrisy, WANKER !

[platypus]

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad. 

[The Brain]

Shadowdork is sad, look how many hours the sad arse has spent on this message board posting screeds and screeds of shit all to bolster his hungry ego.

[platypus]

There are a lot of sad Christians out there. 

[shadowhawk]

Platypus: So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work?

Notice again our self proclaimed scientist again did not post his credentials.  Hmmmm.  Nor has he told us what a scientific contribution is as has been asked for.  Then he calls ID proponents creationists, not a bad word but ID proponents are not creationists.  Then he launches into a scientific diatribe claiming they are influenced by demons no less.  Without a drop of evidence he claims this demon has led ID proponents to support something that does not work.  And this from a self proclaimed scientist!    What does it mean to work?

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad.

Empty charge from the scientist, self proclaimed.

There are a lot of sad Christians out there.

Bigotry from our scientist.  How sad.  ID is made up of people of all faiths and non faiths but for some the truth doesn’t matter.  
 

[shadowhawk]

Platypus: So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work?

Notice again our self proclaimed scientist again did not post his credentials.  Hmmmm.  Nor has he told us what a scientific contribution is as has been asked for.  Then he calls ID proponents creationists, not a bad word but ID proponents are not creationists.  Then he launches into a scientific diatribe claiming they are influenced by demons no less.  Without a drop of evidence he claims this demon has led ID proponents to support something that does not work.  And this from a self proclaimed scientist!    What does it mean to work?

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad.

Empty charge from the scientist, self proclaimed.

There are a lot of sad Christians out there.

Bigotry from our scientist.  How sad.  ID is made up of people of all faiths and non faiths but for some the truth doesn’t matter.  
 

[shadowhawk]

Just how much luck was involved? Dr. David Berlinski discusses it here:

Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid well. The question is the odds.

For the moment, no one knows precisely how to compute those odds, if only because within the laboratory, no one has conducted an experiment leading to a self-replicating ribozyme. But the minimum length or "sequence" that is needed for a contemporary ribozyme to undertake what the distinguished geochemist Gustaf Arrhenius calls "demonstrated ligase activity" is known. It is roughly 100 nucleotides.

Whereupon, just as one might expect, things blow up very quickly. As Arrhenius notes, there are 4¹⁰⁰, or roughly 10⁶⁰ nucleotide sequences that are 100 nucleotides in length. This is an unfathomably large number. It exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, as well as the age of the universe in seconds. If the odds in favor of self-replication are 1 in 10⁶⁰, no betting man would take them, no matter how attractive the payoff, and neither presumably would nature.1

Following that description, Berlinski notes that Arrhenius seeks to escape his own dilemma by proposing that such long self-replicating sequences may not have been as rare in the primeval earth as they are today. He then answers:

Why should self-replicating RNA molecules have been common 3.6 billion years ago when they are impossible to discern under laboratory conditions today? No one, for that matter, has ever seen a ribozyme capable of any form of catalytic action that is not very specific in its sequence and thus unlike even closely related sequences. No one has ever seen a ribozyme able to undertake chemical action without a suite of enzymes in attendance. No one has ever seen anything like it.

The odds, then, are daunting; and when considered realistically, they are even worse than this already alarming account might suggest. The discovery of a single molecule with the power to initiate replication would hardly be sufficient to establish replication. What template would it replicate against? We need, in other words, at least two, causing the odds of their joint discovery to increase from 1 in 10⁶⁰ to 1 in 10¹²⁰. Those two sequences would have been needed in roughly the same place. And at the same time. And organized in such a way as to favor base pairing. And somehow held in place. And buffered against competing reactions. And productive enough so that their duplicates would not at once vanish in the soundless sea.

In contemplating the discovery by chance of two RNA sequences a mere forty nucleotides in length, Joyce and Orgel concluded that the requisite "library" would require 10⁴⁸ possible sequences. Given the weight of RNA, they observed gloomily, the relevant sample space would exceed the mass of the Earth. And this is the same Leslie Orgel, it will be remembered, who observed that "it was almost certain that there once was an RNA world."

[shadowhawk]

I think Platypus wants to discuss evolution.  Perhaps he has something to add to the last 41 pages. 

[platypus]

I'd just like to point out the following errors in the Bible: 

 

- There has not been a global flood and resulting extinction-event on Earth during the existence of Homo Sapiens

- All species have evolved from others and the Bible says nothing about this. 

[shadowhawk]

Why do you think the flood was global?  It does not say that anywhere.  Does floods cover the earth.  Can you think of any huge floods?

Is there any evidence for intelligent design?  Some Christians are are evolutionists such as Francis Colleens.  Your argument is an argument from silence.

 

Nether is an error.  Proof and evidence.