Getting closer to the origin of life.
Szostak doesn't need any introduction. Here's part 1,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXo ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU&feature=player_embedded)
After posting this thread on a theist forum, here's what I got.
Theist:
QuoteI watched the whole thing for the music -- love it!
The rest was a pure, unadulterated just-so story, a.k.a. pseudo-intellectual garbage.
Here... I have stated several times that if I should ever need FAITH,
I will consult an Atheist before I consult any other Christians. I say this
because no one - NO ONE ! - could possibly have more faith than Atheists
given the nonsense, the sheer stupidity, that they believe. Worse than that,
they claim to "follow science" yet what they actually follow is a children's
version of science - a version where the details are omitted lest they show
the Emperor to be stark naked.
But, of course, I know the true reason for their beliefs. Let me outline it:
humans are spiritual beings and, as such, they absolutely cannot be in a
"spiritual vacuum" state. Remove God from their life and something
must fill the void. And there you have it. That's why it has been said
that ceasing to believe in God does not mean that the person believes
in 'nothing'; it means that the person will believe in anything.
Enough said here ... nothing more is merited. Adios
My reply to the
bold part:
QuoteNice fairy tale, but nevertheless a blatant assertion with no evidence to support it.
His next reply
QuoteYou want "evidence", find yourself a mirror and look right into it.
One of my main platforms is to denounce what I believe to be the
greatest ideological falsehood perpetrated on society, which also
happens to be amongst the most important issues needing resolution.
I'm referring to the lie that "non-religious is an attainable state".
Last year I gave a talk in California on that subject and I'm preparing
that talk into a video presentation.
That's all I will say on that.
My reply to the
bold part:
QuoteReflection of light has been thorough studied, and none of those studies proves your assertion.
I'm waiting for his next one.
:twisted:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Getting closer to the origin of life.
Szostak doesn't need any introduction. Here's part 1,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXo ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU&feature=player_embedded)
Yeah, a cell biologist on Twitter linked me that once. Szostak is good. :)
The problems with a lecture like this, when presented to theists, also include the 'ing' words. If something was 'done', it needs a 'doer', which they call God. They don't accept that chemicals do things with no conscious direction. As Szotak showed in the first lecture (the one you linked to), if the right kind of clay has the right chemicals suffusing through it, it's going to form long-chain molecules and lipid membranes around them. Given trillions of trillions of cubic miles of chemical-laden water, and half a billion years, and the need for a protocell like this to only need to be formed once, and the odds that it happened are astronomical - it
must have happened trillions and trillions of times.
The children's story I'd like to see evidence of is God creating everything. That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), with absolutely no evidence that any of it happened (and tons of actual physical evidence that parts of it are impossible).
Quoteyet what they actually follow is a children's version of science - a version where the details are omitted
When you give a lecture to undergraduates who haven't studied the subject (I'm assuming, from the nature of the lecture, that that's what it was), you don't go into details they won't have a chance of understanding. But the details are there. How which molecules bind to which other molecules, why they bind to those molecules, not other ones, etc. Szostak seems to have been talking to chem majors or people who have taken some chem courses. He mentions some chem terms, but not at a much higher level than HS chem. I'm sure he goes into MUCH greater detail when speaking to his peers. (And if you give those details to your theist correspondent, I'm sure that all you'd get would be a fixed, glazed stare. From his remarks, I'm sure that he doesn't even understand the basic, middle-school-chemistry aspects of the lecture, like 'polymerize' or 'chain'.)
Quote from: "Colanth"The problems with a lecture like this, when presented to theists, also include the 'ing' words. If something was 'done', it needs a 'doer', which they call God. They don't accept that chemicals do things with no conscious direction. As Szotak showed in the first lecture (the one you linked to), if the right kind of clay has the right chemicals suffusing through it, it's going to form long-chain molecules and lipid membranes around them. Given trillions of trillions of cubic miles of chemical-laden water, and half a billion years, and the need for a protocell like this to only need to be formed once, and the odds that it happened are astronomical - it must have happened trillions and trillions of times.
The children's story I'd like to see evidence of is God creating everything. That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), with absolutely no evidence that any of it happened (and tons of actual physical evidence that parts of it are impossible).
Quoteyet what they actually follow is a children's version of science - a version where the details are omitted
When you give a lecture to undergraduates who haven't studied the subject (I'm assuming, from the nature of the lecture, that that's what it was), you don't go into details they won't have a chance of understanding. But the details are there. How which molecules bind to which other molecules, why they bind to those molecules, not other ones, etc. Szostak seems to have been talking to chem majors or people who have taken some chem courses. He mentions some chem terms, but not at a much higher level than HS chem. I'm sure he goes into MUCH greater detail when speaking to his peers. (And if you give those details to your theist correspondent, I'm sure that all you'd get would be a fixed, glazed stare. From his remarks, I'm sure that he doesn't even understand the basic, middle-school-chemistry aspects of the lecture, like 'polymerize' or 'chain'.)
This theist has claimed in the past that he was a major in physics. So I tested him by sending him to one of blogs. He then claimed that he had studied this stuff back in the 1970's and couldn't remember his "college" physics. So from that time on, I have pretended to give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows some science, though I know he knows very little and might have been lying to the members of that forum. The other thing is that he is very active in the creationism movement. From his reply, "Last year I gave a talk in California on that subject and I'm preparing that talk into a video presentation." I know he is not bluffing there. He is known to give talks in some circle, and with his supposed authority he is spewing that nonsense.
But ... magic is so much simpler.
To my latest response:
QuoteReflection of light has been thorough studied, and none of those studies proves your assertion.
This is his next post:
QuoteNone so blind as they who refuse to see.
A man with a net worth of $10 million, gave $5 million to help the poor.
A man with a net worth of $10,000, gave $10,000 to help the poor.
Mathematics says that the former gave 500 times as much as the latter.
And so it seems that the former loved the poor much more than the latter.
Proper 'sight' and wisdom would say the opposite.
This is the vision and wisdom that Materialists can never possess.
My reply:
QuoteYou're giving me an anecdote that is irrelevant to my post. Your statement,"humans are spiritual beings and, as such, they absolutely cannot be in a "spiritual vacuum" state", is an essertion without evidence. At least be honest enough to say that it is sheer speculation on your part.
Ask him to tell you something moral that religious people can do that atheists can't.
I'm not sure if I want to go on a tangent. I'm trying to get him on the abiogenesis as posted in the OP, since he is not only a creationist, but also an activist in that movement among christians, and a prominent member of that forum.
:evil:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"I'm not sure if I want to go on a tangent. I'm trying to get him on the abiogenesis as posted in the OP, since he is not only a creationist, but also an activist in that movement among christians, and a prominent member of that forum.
Save it for later. It's a fun thing to do to them.
Here's is next reply, and mine.
QuoteHonest is what I am.
You call it "sheer speculation"; I say that you cannot see what is plain sight.
My anecdote was meant as an aid to get you to see something that, as a
Materialist (Atheist), you are blind to see, namely, that the physically
measurable is not the only reality and in fact is not Reality at all.
Now, I stated and re-affirm that humans cannot be in a spiritual vacuum.
You objected and want evidence.
I said, for evidence just look in a mirror.
Not surprisingly, you did not understand.
Since you demand honesty from others (me), why not give it yourself?
Answer these : do you actually think that you do not fervently adhere
to very powerful beliefs - every bit as powerful as that of any
person whom you would call "religious"?
Do you actually believe that you are a-religious, i.e., without religion?
Do you not know that Atheism is a full-fledged religion?
Atheism may not have a 'god' (actually it has many 'gods' but that's
another story) but many religions have no deity yet remain religions
nonetheless.
Lastly, again in the name of honesty, is it not "sheer speculation" on
the part of all Atheists to claim that everything is the result of mass,
energy, time, space and physical laws? If you answer "no" then present
your hard evidence here and now that that is not "sheer speculation"
but rather that you are able to demonstrate it. Go on, demonstrate, for
example, that consciousness is able to proceed from Materialism alone.
So, answering your post, NO, it is not "sheer speculation" on my part.
Simply by observing people has proven that all without exception
adhere to a set of beliefs. The beliefs may differ but what does not
differ is that they are BELIEFS making everyone 'religious' in the sense
of the term. I put it this way : "Everyone has beliefs, everyone has a religion.
The only difference lies in the specific beliefs and religion of each person."
Now, you be honest ... look in a mirror and 'fess up if only to yourself.
I think you're confusing between beliefs with religious beliefs. I believe that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East, I believe in a few hours I will be very hungry and will eat a nice dinner, etc. I believe in a lot of stuff, and they have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The question is: are these beliefs that one holds correspond to real things. Certainly, the Superman of DC comics isn't real, the Mickey Mouse of Disney cartoons isn't real, and Iron Man, the movie character, isn't real, and so is your God. You see the burden of proof is not on me to disprove Superman, it's not on me disprove Mickey Mouse, it's not on me to disprove Iron Man. And neither is it on me to disprove your God. The burden of proof falls squarely on those who believe in Superman, Mickey mouse, Iron Man, and yes your God.
Where's the evidence? I'm still waiting.
Well, that sort of Hitchensian question about "what moral action a theist can do that an atheist cannot" is, strictly speaking, meaningless. I've rarely, if ever, heard a theist seriously say that an atheist is incapable of moral actions. The claim I often see is that we cannot justify being moral without God (bollocks, yes).
Which theist forum? I might like to lurk on this one.
EDIT: It doesnt seem like you need any help, so I am not interested in getting involved in the argument. But I can only speculate that the reason you feel the need to waste time with people like this is for the benefit of the proverbial "fence sitter" who might also be reading.
that said, after all these years of being an atheist, I never cease to be amazed and frustrated at the extent to which the "faithful" willingly and knowingly engage in flagrant, arrogant ignorance.
Science is a self-correcting mechanism interested only in seeking out the true nature of things, independent of iron-age superstition and myth. And yet, rather than re-examine the basis of their belief, the faithful believe that science is actually consciously conspiring against them. As if science gave two shits about their ridiculous beliefs.
Xtians believe that there is a supreme creator to all of the vast complexity of the entire universe, and that this "god" created them, they are special, they have a personal relationship, he hears their individual thoughts and prayers, and actively intervenes in the fabric of reality on their behalf. There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.
Quote from: "Seabear"There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.
LaVeyans are worse, trust me.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Seabear"There is in my opinion, quite simply, no one more egotistically self-centered and childishly arrogant than the typical evangelical xtian.
LaVeyans are worse, trust me.
We had one stop by a while back. Didn't last long...
My theist replied:
QuoteYou're wasting my time as well as your own.
You have already defined as "evidence" only that which you can place under
your microscope or put on a weight scale whereas I've been trying, in vain,
to get you to see that Reality consists of infinitely more than just the
physically measurable.
You're a married man. Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife? How many units of love do you have for her? How much
does that love weigh? What is its energy, mass and momentum?
You are so deeply immersed in a Materialistic worldview -- which is
a religious position despite your denials -- that you cannot see
anything beyond mass and energy. For that you are to be pitied.
You ask for "evidence". Until you pull yourself out of your delusional
pseudo-reality, there is no "evidence" that can be presented to you.
Oh, and when you have the proof that consciousness is able to emerge
solely from mass and energy, be sure to give me a ring.
My reply:
Expressing feelings or opinions doesn't require measurement. And providing evidence for them is even harder. You could profess all the love you want to your wife, but you could be lying to her or cheating on her. Those expressions of feelings or opinions can never be proven. But as to the existence of an object or entity, that is a totally different matter. So again, where's the evidence for the existence of God?
The saga with my theist continues.
His latest post, and my reply.
Quote[sigh ...] Let's go in baby steps ...
Answer this : do all entities exist in the same way?
HINT : Consider two entities: the idea (or concept) of Socialism and a ballpoint pen.
[You will not object, I assume, that both of these entities do in fact exist;
i.e., a ballpoint pen does exist and the idea of Socialism does exist. ]
Related: If you were asked to prove the existence of the ballpoint pen,
would you / could you go about proving this in the same way as you
would go about proving the existence of the idea of Socialism?
A ballpoint pen is an object. To prove its existence, all I need is to show you one of those.
OTOH, socialism is a concept, and if you question 10 experts on the subject, you'll get 25 different opinions of what it is. You could argue that it exists as a concept, but not as a thing. Similarly, Superman exists as a concept, but not as a thing. Now, you can put God into that conceptual box. And like Superman, if there's no evidence of his existence, then God is not more real than Superman.
:evil:
The saga continues.
Theist:
QuoteTry to remain focused : do all entities exist in the same way?
You digressed into an irrelevant speech about the the many ways that
an idea, such as Socialism or Superman, may exist. That wasn't the point.
Does an idea exist in the same way as a material object?
It is given that both exist.
The question was, do they exist in the same way?
It's a yes or no question.
Reading what you wrote and eliminating all the 'fluff',
you seem to be answering, "They exist in different ways."
Please confirm.
My response:
Thoughts exist. OTOH, the contents of those thoughts are not necessarily real. I'm thinking of the tree just outside my window - the thought is real, and so is the tree. OTOH, I'm thinking of jumping over those mountains like Superman - the thought is real, but its content is pure fantasy, not real.
Now, I'm still waiting for the evidence for the existence of your God ? see that thought is real, but its content has no meaning until you show up with the evidence.
Well, there isn't any substance to a thought. They're basically impressions of things we experience via our sense, as well as a synthesis of said impressions. That's why I can conjure up the idea of a unicorn or magic, even if there is no actual such thing. In other words, an idea can have sense, but no referent. The latter necessitates the former, but the former does NOT necessitate the latter.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"My theist replied:
QuoteYou're wasting my time as well as your own.
You have already defined as "evidence" only that which you can place under
your microscope or put on a weight scale whereas I've been trying, in vain,
to get you to see that Reality consists of infinitely more than just the
physically measurable.
You're a married man. Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife?
My reply:
Expressing feelings or opinions doesn't require measurement.
Actually, we can't provide objective evidence of love
because love doesn't objectively exist - it's purely
subjective. No one claims that the Christian god (or any god) doesn't subjectively exist, but Christians claim that their god OBJECTIVELY exists, yet claim that the only evidence of this is subjective.
Just another instance of theism not having a clue about what it's talking about (let alone about anything else).
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The saga continues.
Theist:
QuoteTry to remain focused : do all entities exist in the same way?
You digressed into an irrelevant speech about the the many ways that
an idea, such as Socialism or Superman, may exist. That wasn't the point.
Does an idea exist in the same way as a material object?
It is given that both exist.
The question was, do they exist in the same way?
No - and that ends his argument before it begins.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll keep them in mind for my next encounter. Here's the latest one, which most likely won't be the last one:
Theist:
QuoteI'd forgotten how frustrating it is to chat with a hard-core Materialist.
Once you realize and accept that things do in fact exist in different
ways (e.g., a book does not exist in the same way as the idea of a book,
yet both do exist) then you can see that "evidence" is also not just of
one kind. Supplying evidence that a book exists is not the same as
supplying evidence that the idea of a book exists.
This forces you to qualify what "evidence" would satisfy your demand
for the proof that God exists. I mean, do you expect to be handed a
vial with a solution that you can measure pH or viscosity? Do you
expect a slide that you can stick under a microscope and 'see' God
just as you would see an amoeba? What "evidence" do you want?
Me: I want the same evidence that we have that trees exist, that electrons exist or that E = mc2
So far, you are zilch in that column.
Theist:
QuoteMy point : the evidence for God is of a different nature than the
evidence for a ballpoint pen or a book. However, rest assured that
there's plenty of evidence. The question is, would you accept it?
For instance, the words in the Bible provide tons of evidence for
God's existence. Would you accept it as such? I'm guessing, NO.
Me:Funny that the God of your bible interceeded continuously in human affairs, by making his present felt, by ordering directly that innocent be killed, and so many unspeakable atrocities. Yet, some 2500 years later, we don't get to see him. What happened? Did he die along the way?
Theist:
QuoteAnother example : Given that there is a perfect dichotomy, then
eliminating one alternative means that the other must be true.
What is this perfect dichotomy? Either the universe and all therein
arrived here via purely natural means or there was a 'Directing Agent'.
Following the hard scientific evidence sans unrestricted speculation
eliminates the former alternative. The conclusion is thus unavoidable.
The objection is usually, "But there's NOT a perfect dichotomy."
Okay, list any or all of the other alternatives. Go ahead ...
The proof of the existence of God is as trivial as it is ironclad.
Except, of course, if the person wishes to engage in unrestricted
imagination and denial of what the hard facts say. In that case,
NOTHING would be able to prove God's existence to this person
(save standing in front of God Himself).
That's just two, there are others.
Me:
Either God exists or not, you've got that part right. But you have no evidence to prove that existence, just wishful thinking on your part.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"My theist replied:
QuoteYou're a married man. Why don't you prove to us, with physical measurements,
that you love your wife? How many units of love do you have for her? How much
does that love weigh? What is its energy, mass and momentum?
We could measure the levels of oxytocin in your blood when you're in close proximity to her.
Would that be good enough for your theist friend?
QuoteThe objection is usually, "But there's NOT a perfect dichotomy."
Okay, list any or all of the other alternatives. Go ahead ...
You can come up with any number of different varities and amounts of "directing agents", though. So at best you can state "everything came around naturally" or "everything did
not come around naturally" (a true dichotomy) but then it does nothing to prove that any specific directing agent was involved or even exists.
Well, if that question comes around I'll keep that in mind. But as to causal willing agents, there is this we can point. I can compare a painting of a tree with the tree itself. There's no way the painting can come into existence on its own. It needs a causal willing agent. OTOH, the tree grew from a seed. It needed soil, water and sun. And one can watch it growing and you know from that observation that there was no causal willing agent, just a natural process which can be explained by scientific laws.
I think my theist is giving up on me. The latest bout:
QuoteWrong, I listed two just below.
But as I suspected, you 'see' neither.
You haven't presented any evidence. All you've done so far is to say: 1) the proof for the existence of God needs different kind evidence; 2) either God exist or doesn't. None of those arguments is any kind of evidence. You provide the kind of evidence that is objective, verifiable, testable, reproducible, otherwise, you have NO evidence, just begging for special pleading which doesn't help your case.
Try again.
:evil:
Not surprisingly, it seems that your theist adversary is a condescending fuck as well. Kudos on taking the high road.
It is incredible the level of idealism under which these people operate. They constantly change or add to their definition of the nature of their god, and any explanation they can think of is automatically accepted to be true. This always raises two thoughts in my mind:
First, these explanations of how "god" fits in what is known of the natural world was curiously unnecessary while mankind was ignorant and illiterate. Odd; an all-knowing god should have done a better job of defining himself. Surely his omniscience would have allowed him to foresee the contradictions that would arise from scientific knowledge?
Second, its ironic that these people profess to understand so much about the nature and characteristics of a being for which they have absolutely no evidence and no reasonable means to know them. Yet that doesn't stop them from jerry-mandering their "definition" of god to avoid every contradiction. And again, THINKING of a explanation is the same as KNOWING it is true. This more than anything else is a glaring proof that they are simply making this shit up as they go along.
Ask me about the dragon in my garage...
LOL. My theist is definitely losing patience with me. Here's the latest round. I haven't answered him on the last post, but I [s:3qgmu44j]will[/s:3qgmu44j] just did it.
Theist:
QuoteWell, God has provided tons and tons of "signs" already. God is
not some trained bear that will jump at the command of people
like yourself. The many evidences that God has provided have
been "twisted" by the secular mind via re-interpretation, ignoring,
re-defining and other means. God allows you to do that while
Knowing that you remain without excuse.
Sorry, you can't be helped on your question until you sincerely want to be helped.
ME:
I can compare a painting of a tree with the tree itself. There's no way the painting can come into existence on its own. It needs a causal willing agent. OTOH, the tree grew from a seed. It needed soil, water and sun. And one can watch it growing and you know from that observation that there was no causal willing agent, just a natural process which can be explained by scientific laws.
Theist:
QuoteWOW ... you 'see' nothing ... blind as a bat!
Soil, water and sun are totally useless, in fact harmful, unless there exists
an elaborate system (I call it a MEMS for Mass Energy Management System)
able to extract, transform, store and coordinate/regulate. Such a system
could not have emerged naturally. To believe otherwise is an act of
immeasurable faith - which is what Atheists practice regularly. Ask God
for 'sight' that you may begin to 'see',
EDIT: I thought I would wait and take my time, but couldn't resist, so I just fired back:
Yes, I have beliefs that the universe can be understood without the need of a God.
LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.
QuoteWell, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe. Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.
Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.
QuoteWhat I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.
Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.
QuoteIf Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.
Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?
QuoteIt won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word. After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.
Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.
QuoteBut they DON'T 'man-up'! They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith". That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.
If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.
Quote from: "Colanth"That's all the entire Bible is - a story for little children (or adults with the minds of little children), ..
God did not even create Bible.
[spoil:14lj9upd]
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.
QuoteWell, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe. Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.
Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.
QuoteWhat I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.
Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.
QuoteIf Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.
Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?
QuoteIt won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word. After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.
Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.
QuoteBut they DON'T 'man-up'! They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith". That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.
If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.
[/spoil:14lj9upd]
LMFAO...oh, the irony of his angry replies...
again, job well done on taking the high road and not stooping to his level. Not sure I would have done so well in the same situation.
Quote from: "Seabear"[spoil:2gqn1xvn]Quote from: "josephpalazzo"LOL, my theist has posted his most daring one. And this is perhaps my last parting shot.
QuoteWell, thank you very much for openly admitting what I already
knew, namely, that as an Atheist you believe in a Godless
universe. Always remember : to hold on to that belief you
must ignore hard facts, empirical science and sound logic.
Well that might be true for some, but in my case, my beliefs come from 500 years of scientific investigation, during that time, not a single evidence for the existence of God has been uncovered. So it's not a "presupposition" as some theists falsely believe. And it's not about ignoring "hard" facts, as there are none supporting your beliefs. What you believe in is based on hearsay.
QuoteWhat I do care about is when people LIE, such as claiming to
adhere to "facts, science and logic" when the truth is that they
are merely following their own desires while avoiding the
things that they do not wish to submit to.
Hmm, perhaps there are people like that but most atheists I know of came to their conclusions after they realized they were brainwashed by their parents, guardians, ministers and the people in their lives. It took time, reflection and making the hard choices even if that meant they might lose the love of their families, friends and sometimes their jobs.
QuoteIf Atheists / Humanists / Agnostics would be 'man-enough'
to admit the truth, then I'd be happy to let them be in peace.
Well, why then are you so hateful towards them?
QuoteIt won't be me that'll be in their boots on the Appointed Day,
plus I did my duty by informing them of God's Word. After
that, my job is done - it is for God to carry out the rest.
Why do you need to proselytize? Why does your God need you to defend him? BTW, you'll find the same "dedication" of defending their religion among many faithfuls. Think 9/11 and Islam.
QuoteBut they DON'T 'man-up'! They go around telling the world
that they operate on "facts, science and logic" while their
opponents are operating on "blind faith". That is the lie that
has to be fought against every day.
If you would take the time to find out how exactly they came to their conclusions, you might have a different opinion than this one. This tells me that you are "blinded" by your faith.
[/spoil:2gqn1xvn]
LMFAO...oh, the irony of his angry replies...
again, job well done on taking the high road and not stooping to his level. Not sure I would have done so well in the same situation.
It's a theist forum. So I avoid any personal insult, keeping my reply only on the issue. Not too long ago, they told me I could not use my own blog as a link. It's an underhanded way to censure me. So last time, I just posted the "Google at...{name of my blog}". So far, no reponse from the moderators on that.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It's a theist forum. So I avoid any personal insult, keeping my reply only on the issue. Not too long ago, they told me I could not use my own blog as a link. It's an underhanded way to censure me. So last time, I just posted the "Google at...{name of my blog}". So far, no reponse from the moderators on that.
Seems to be a common thing on theistic forums... in spite of their self-professed "unshakable" belief in an infinitely powerful supreme being, they cannot tolerate a level playing field when it comes to discussion. It's amazing how much help an omnipotent god needs...
:evil:
I finally got him to get back at the OP, inadvertently, but nevertheless, he open the door.
Theist:
Quote"500 years of scientific investigation" - Hmmm
Okay, so prove to me that everything including mind, consciousness and
life, is able to emerge from raw mass and energy. Just as you want me to
prove that God exists then using your own rules, I want you to prove
Materialism. If you cannot do that (which I know you cannot because
it isn't possible) then know that you stand on religious belief - not "science".
Me:
Well, this is where the OP comes in. Szostak and several labs across the planet are making outstanding discoveries about abiogenesis. So we are very close to explain how living matter arose from inert matter. Just think that 100 years ago we didn't understand how atoms got together to form molecules. Now, thanks to QM, we do understanding the fundamental principles of chemistry. And 50 years ago, we discovered the complex molecule DNA, which forms the basis of all living matter. And now, we are at the cusp of discoverring the principles of abiogenesis.
We also have a lot of research into the mind going on, and on all its components: free will, self-awareness, memory, etc. However, we are still in the primitive stage, just like 100 years ago, we were in the primitive stage of understanding chemistry. As a scientist, one thing I learned is to be patient enough. There is no need to invoke a supernatural entity just because we don't fully understand certain realities. You see, I have beliefs too, but on those things like science and technology that will eventually yield results.
:evil:
Man this guy is a walking encyclopedia of theist cliches... "prove materialism to me, else I win by default"
PS regarding how much knowledge has changed over the last 100 years, its funny to see how much theistic definitions of "god" have to keep changing to keep him fitting in the smaller and smaller box that science creates. I wonder how gods definition will have to be changed next?
The consequence, of course, to the fact that "god's" definition has had to be constantly changed to keep him in line with science, is that you can argue that the theistic "understanding" of god is STILL incorrect today, and will have to be continually changed again and again as we gain more understanding. The irony is in the "ex post facto" nature of these alterations; theists claim to understand god's nature right up until the point that they change it again; it's never prior to the discovery of conflicting knowledge. I am repeatedly reminded of Carl Sagan's Dragon.
Given this history of alterations, it makes one wonder how theists can be so certain of their understanding today?
We've entered the phase of derision and mocking. I guess this won't last long. Perhaps I'll get banned.
Theist:
QuoteFine.
Unlike your position - which cannot make any substantive predictions - I will make
one here for the record. Here it is :
[color="#B22222"]Neither in your lifetime (or mine) will we see life, mind or consciousness arise
solely from pure, undirected mass and energy ... IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN![/COLOR]
That's about as clear and emphatic as I can make it.
I know you believe otherwise - the operative word being "believe".
This goes towards my point - you people are based on BELIEF.
The hard part is getting you to admit it - which, of course, you never will.
Me]BTW, my prediction above is based 100.00% on science. [/quote]
Me:
You mean pseudo-science. Or maybe you have a crystal ball. Whatever. But you are very entertaining. However don't quit you day-job, if you have one, you won't last long as a standup comedian.
Theist:
QuoteAs someone that knows a bit about information (co-authored a book on it and am
working alone (for now) on expanding it), I know with absolute certainty
that life / mind from pure, unguided mass and energy is impossible.
It takes blind religious belief to think otherwise.
Well, no scientist would ever say, " with absolute certainty"... oh wait, you're not a scientist. Bummer.
QuoteAs someone that knows a bit about information (co-authored a book on it and am
working alone (for now) on expanding it), I know with absolute certainty
that
This is where you say "prove it". Knowledge with absolute certainty must either be provable or bull.
:evil:
Grand standing:
QuoteExcept that I will bet my life on my prediction.
You realize that your life isn't worth very much. So betting it means you're betting zilch.
QuoteBut be careful - be sure to read precisely what I said.
I am very familiar with the underhanded tactics
of Materialists to smuggle things into the experiment,
it's called 'investigator interference'.
Don't know what you're talking about.
QuoteWow ... you just blew the 2 micrograms of credibility
that you had remaining right out of the solar system.
Yep, standup comedy is not your
forte.
QuoteThat's very interesting given that I've pretty much worked my
entire career in maths/science - with the Air Force in pure and applied
research (7+ years); Cape Canaveral in guidance systems development
(2+ years); with Honeywell in pure and applied research ... and always
successful (e.g., Air Force Scientific Achievement Award, Griffiss Air
Force Base, Rome, New York, 1979 ... et al.). That's evidence for you.
The proof is in the pudding, and, I hate to say this but the evidence has made a monkey out of you. Sorry! :smile:
Jorge
Your credentials means little to me, as every time I posted something on real science, like Einstein's derivation of mc[sup:2v5m41ej]2[/sup:2v5m41ej], relativistic doppler effect, or the latest one, on the Unruh Effect, you don't seem to me to have the capability of following simple mathematical derivations. So whatever work you did in the past certainly does not reflect in your grasp of science so far in this forum.
BTW, when scientist publish their findings, they normally indicate the margin of errors in their work. It's an indication that no work is 100% precise. Secondly, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle forbids any observation to be 100% precision. As one who is supposed to have spent an entire career in maths/science , you should have known this by now. Apparently, you don't.
Yay! Argument from authority! Twice now. "The merits of my argument are weak, so let's focus on my authority instead."
LOL
:evil:
I was just given a second warning. Thery told me not to link my blog on any of posts. So on the Unruh Effect I said: you can get the derivation by going to my blog. Just google {name of my blog}. This prompted the second warning:
QuoteDear JP,
You have received a warning at ....
Reason:
-------
Advertising
JP,
The mods feel that this is a clear case that you are still trying to advertise your blog but by using a loophole instead of an actual link. The principle is the same and we feel that it falls under advertising. Please desist from this tactic.
Thank you.
So what I did is copy and paste the entire bog of The Unruh Effect, and posted in a thread. Yep, all 46 equations + diagram. Waiting to see what will be their next move.
Is this the last reply from my theist?
After my last post questioning his credentials, this was his reply:
Quote*************************************
Wow ........ I mean, WOW !!! :dizzy: It's like talking to a sack of hammers!
Jorge
I can understand your inability to answer. On the real physics presented on my blog, you would get an F. Yet, those derivations were designed for college students. If you don't believe me try to go through an article on the Unruh Effect such as this one: //http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5373v1.pdf , and compare it to my derivation, ( http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-unruh-effect.html (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-unruh-effect.html) ) you will find that an article published by
an expert for other experts is at least 10 times more difficult than my blog. Yet you can't even pass equation (2) on my blog. So stop misrepresenting yourself. When it comes to science, you have NO credibility.
EDIT: My "friendly" theist is Jorge Fernandez. He is a blogger at trueorigin.org, yep, the website's name is more than just ironical... pathetic would be mild. Anyhoo, here's is one of his blog, a true eye-opener:
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp)
a sack of hammers, huh? I guess when Argument from Authority fails, it's time to fall back on Ad Hominem!
How's it feel to be so dumb, Joseph?? #-o
It feels great. I know I won't convince this dude. But those who are on that forum, and even those who just lurk, I hope they will think twice before they buy his nonsense. Well, anyway, whatever the outcome, if I planted doubt in one mind, I've done my job.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"It feels great. I know I won't convince this dude. But those who are on that forum, and even those who just lurk, I hope they will think twice before they buy his nonsense. Well, anyway, whatever the outcome, if I planted doubt in one mind, I've done my job.
=D>
:evil:
Can you suffer one more post from Jorge?
QuoteThat's alright, Junior.
Thanks. At my age, that's a real compliment.
QuoteI've already proven myself in the real world numerous times.
So far, you've done a miserable job. A guy like you who is supposed to have a degree in math/science who can't follow a simple derivation, when the thinking was already done for you, speaks loudly of your inability to comprehend simple concepts, let alone more complex ones like evolution.
QuoteI certainly do not have to prove anything else, much less to the likes of you.
If you can't do it here, on this forum, then it's unlikely you can do it somewhere else.
QuoteI'll let you know when my next book comes out ... been
working on it between my 'jabs' at you people. :axe :hehe:
Jorge
Derp.
You should ask him for his previous book. And if you have too much time on your hands, burn it to the ground line by line. Assuming it's rubbish anyway, which seems likely.
:evil:
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Theist:
QuoteMy point : the evidence for God is of a different nature than the
evidence for a ballpoint pen or a book.
Exactly. A ballpoint pen exists as an object in reality. God exists solely as an idea in a mind. No atheist actually argues with that. (Are you sure that your correspondent isn't a closet atheist? :) )
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Can you suffer one more post from Jorge?
QuoteThat's alright, Junior.
Thanks. At my age, that's a real compliment.
QuoteI've already proven myself in the real world numerous times.
So far, you've done a miserable job. A guy like you who is supposed to have a degree in math/science who can't follow a simple derivation, when the thinking was already done for you, speaks loudly of your inability to comprehend simple concepts, let alone more complex ones like evolution.
QuoteI certainly do not have to prove anything else, much less to the likes of you.
If you can't do it here, on this forum, then it's unlikely you can do it somewhere else.
You are aware of how a pigeon wins a chess game, right? Jorge just won your game.
After a hiatus, Jorge came back at me. It's not that he was ignoring me, or had no answer. It's that he was heavily involved in another thread, in which YEC's and OEC's are going at each other's throat. Jorge, being a YEC, said this in one of his outstanding outrage:
QuoteI assure you that the feeling is mutual with the
qualification that us Biblical Creationists wouldn't trust TEs / OECs
for theology OR for science. Why? Coz you'all tend to take far
too many liberties with both - distorting, reinterpreting, selectively
applying, and so on.
At least the Atheist is consistent - they reject the Bible and blindly
push towards their Materialistic worldview. The TE / OEC wants to
have one foot in the Atheist Camp and the other foot in the Christian
Camp; i.e., they want their cake and eat it too. The Atheist is an
enemy that is clearly recognizable - against God all the way. The
TE / OEC infiltrates the Christian Camp by carrying Christ's Banner
and then, when you least expect it, they pull an 'Atheist Switch' on
you.
So like I said, the feeling is mutual, with important qualifications.
Jorge
Anyhoo, he came back to me with this:
QuoteOriginally posted by Jorge
"Junior" was referring to your mental age, not chronological.
Me:That's funny coming from you who can't follow any of the real physics I've posted so far.
Quote"Supposed to have"??? Are you for real?
Me: It's not supposed, it's a fact.
Quote"Can't follow a simple derivation"??? More irrational, unsubstantiated claims
.
Me: Here's a simple challenge. Even your undocumented nanny would be able to do it. There's a mistake in my thread on the Unruh Effect. Can you find it?
QuoteWork accomplishments, book and papers that I've published would prove you wrong - again!
Me: But no paper published by peer-review journals.
QuoteYou regard yourself as "smart" - don't you know when to quit
or is it that you take pleasure in making yourself look dumb?
Me: Jorge, stop projecting. In every thread in this forum, you're treated like the village idiot. I'm trying to redeem you.
Find that mistake, and get a boost for your ego.
..........................................................................................................................................................
He shot right back immediately in a follow-up post,
QuoteAs I said, the "junior" referred to your mental age.
Want proof? Just read the above post. Q.E.D.
Jorge
Me: As I said before, you stink at standup comedy. Come on, show me the mistake as I asked you. Whatever happened to praying to God for help?
.........................................................................................................................................................
Stay tuned.
"In every thread in this forum, you're treated like the village idiot"
If true, and he is widely ridiculed on that forum, then that should really get his goat.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"QuoteThe TE / OEC infiltrates the Christian Camp by carrying Christ's Banner and then, when you least expect it, they pull an 'Atheist Switch' on you.
So if a Christian finds a factual error in the Bible ... oh, right, lying for Jayzus is a sacrament.
Quote from: "Seabear""In every thread in this forum, you're treated like the village idiot"
If true, and he is widely ridiculed on that forum, then that should really get his goat.
Many of them get involved in that sort of thing (debates with their mental superiors) because being abused wins you heaven points.
I actually found the forum in question and amused myself for a bit there.
What I found interesting is that they actually seem to tolerate some atheists there.