Continuing Challenge to Creationists

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: PhotonEffect

When pseudo science is held to the scientific method then pseudo science fails to have any merit so it can be said real science disproves pseudo science.

Pseudo science rarely disproves itself. Ironically, one of its most discouraging qualities. A fool doesn't learn from his mistakes, a clever man learns from only his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from others mistakes. Also:

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sure. But disproving pseudo science is not what the scientific method sets out to do. However as a by product, it can and does relegate what were once considered scientific theories/ hypotheses to pseudo science status.

Correct science does not set out to disprove pseudo science.

Pseudo science is what we call it after the scientific method is applied and it fails to hold up to any standard and the claim is continued to be made that it is factual.

Take for example homeopathy. The claim that dilutions of a substance with water and the water retains a memory of the substance.

Every time it has been held to the scientific standard and tested it fails yet there are still claims that homeopathy works.

Homeopathy is pseudo science.

It would be cool if it wasn't because I would never run out of beer. I could just keep diluting it and by homeopathic claims it would continually get stronger the more I diluted it.

a reply to: Phantom423

See, you are confusing me. First you address creationists directly in your challenge, then you say it's not about creationism, then you make it sound like creationists own the monopoly on pseudo science, then you say you don't care what they believe and you are fine with having god in a lab, then you turn around again and say that there is no science to support it...and you are okay with that?

You are all over the board here.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

See, you are confusing me. First you address creationists directly in your challenge, then you say it's not about creationism, then you make it sound like creationists own the monopoly on pseudo science, then you say you don't care what they believe and you are fine with having god in a lab, then you turn around again and say that there is no science to support it...and you are okay with that?

You are all over the board here.

Sorry if I'm confusing everyone. I think what you're referring to is my comment about Francis Collins. I was trying to get the point across that a good scientist understands that his belief system doesn't define the way he does his research or compromise it in any way. Dr. Collins said he sees God every day in his lab and in his work. But he adheres to the scientific method because he understands that science, which relies on data collection and the objective results it produces, should not be influenced by a religious belief or any other belief which presupposes the results.

Make a long story short - you go into the lab with an idea, a hypothesis. You design an experiment. You collect the data, analyze it and evaluate the results. That's it. Doesn't matter whether you're a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or atheist. You don't bring your philosophical convictions into the lab to compromise your work.

I hope I cleared this up. If not, no problem - I'm happy to continue the conversation and explain it further.

Sorry for the confusion.

a reply to: UniFinity

If you would read just a few paragraphs in the first link you would notice that it is a a collection of paragraphs copied from a few of different books from various religious backgrounds

Of course I looked at the link. There are no paragraphs from any sacred text at it, only some stuff written (and copyrighted) by someone named Pardeep. It says so on the page itself.

The embedded links are to quotes from modern books written by Indian 'gurus' popular with American dabblers in mysticism. I couldn't find extracts there from any ancient text.

I read a lot of those books and I recommend them all

Not one of the books mentioned on that page is an ancient text. They are all modern publications.

So this is the third time of asking.

1. Which ancient sacred texts have you actually read?
   
   
2. Out of them which ones impressed you most?

If I do not receive a serious answer I shall feel free to conclude that you are maker of fraudulent claims and that every word you have written here is nonsense and falsehood.

I don't think you have ever read any ancient sacred text, except perhaps the Bible. You are a believer in New Age mumbo-jumbo with an Indian twist. What I call a Hollywood Hinduism. I wonder if you even realise this.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Cool straw man, bro. Also, neat job on erroneously conflating the hypothesis of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution.

I included abiogenesis in the library for a good reason and I knew it might be controversial .

Abiogenesis is the study of how simple compounds could assemble in a way that allowed the basic components of life to form on this planet. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution directly. But it does ask questions in chemistry, biology, geophysics that may suggest how life was formed on this planet. In the future, there may well be a connection between abiogenesis and evolution - personally, I think there will be simply because they are intrinsically related. But this is far, far away from the topic of this thread.

Remember the section on Self Assembly? We know from laboratory experiments that self assembly seems to be ubiquitous in nature. How it happens and under what conditions is being tested as we speak. We already know from Craig Venter's work that synthetic life is possible.
www.theguardian.com...

This whole area of research is intriguing and fascinating because new discoveries are popping up all the time. Venter's work is highly complex and above my pay grade. But anyone who wants to dive into it, I'm always up for learning and would welcome the opportunity to have a deeper understanding of his work.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Faith in rationality is an oxymoron.

I suggest you have another think about that. Your belief that reason will lead you to the truth is at best an inductive conclusion based on prior experience -- in other words, an act of faith.

By the same token, there is nothing in the world to ensure that an application of reason will always lead to a truthful conclusion. On the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that it need not.

a reply to: Phantom423

We already know from Craig Venter's work that synthetic life is possible.

Did he really invent synthetic life?


#IStandWithCraigVenter

a reply to: Astyanax

A perch is a fish.
Birds perch.

Therefore, birds are fish.

a reply to: Phage

And the two have a common ancestor:

a reply to: dusty1

And the two have a common ancestor:

Actually, not.

Birch are angiosperms. Angiosperms didn't show up until about 130 million years ago. Fish showed up more than 450 million years ago.

a reply to: Astyanax

Very well said.

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423

We already know from Craig Venter's work that synthetic life is possible.

Did he really invent synthetic life?


#IStandWithCraigVenter

That's how he describes it. As I said, the methodology is above my pay grade, although I can understand the basics of what they did. I suggest that you look up his publications and make a determination yourself. Don't read someone else's interpretation of what he did - it's complex enough without getting muddled by other people's perception. Read the original papers.

a reply to: Phage


So all fish are perch.

Not Birch.


Yet how did the birds perch?

Apparently not on the birch.


Unless, theoretically, the birch debarked through its own wormhole, they were all then, left in the lurch.

a reply to: Phantom423

That's how he describes it.

For a second there I just thought Ventor took another invention, added to it a bit, and called it his own new creation.

But I will have to delve deeper.

a reply to: Astyanax
Awww you think I care about what you think, that is sweet.

If I do not receive a serious answer I shall feel free to conclude that you are maker of fraudulent claims and that every word you have written here is nonsense and falsehood.

Your a funny guy. Just for that I give you a star

What you make out of my posts is up to you...if I would have such silly thoughts I probably would not event started this or participate in spiritual threads in general, because did you not notice, that THE Truth is nonsense and falsehood to most people?? ahahha

But anyway there are ancient text there, you just don't see them or recognize them as such, for instance:
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
tao te ching
Dhammapada
Hua Hu Ching
yoga vashista
The Essen gospels
different vedas
....

Some of them are older then bible, is that really hollywood era or new age by you? oh boy oh boy...you provided another laugh, thanks! you are on a roll this morning for me

oohh and you are wrong again.
bible is not among the books which I have read, I don't care about it. I had let say a christian setting growing up so I learned a lot about it as a kid, but I did not ever consider myself a Christian or any other.
And anyway the essen gospels are a lot more useful for spiritualist because they talk about practical ways to attain the truth. Bible is just a set of stories, but they have value and truths hidden in them.

a reply to: Phantom423

I was commenting on BlueJay's insinuation that those who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution as a scientific theory must also consider the hypothesis of abiogeneis to be on equal standing. Classic creationist tactic.

a reply to: GetHyped

those who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution as a scientific theory must also consider the hypothesis of abiogeneis to be on equal standing.

Actually they don't, what they must do is accept that they are inextricably linked and that is all.
Seriously people let's be intellectually honest here and not get overtaken by a biased cognitive dissonance. Even the OP links them.

If evolution is equal to a large 30 story building, abiogenesis is equal to the underground parking underneath the building, it is only a few percentages in size and scope of the total structure, but structurally it's important to the building above it, they are linked.

It's a choice to ignore the logic.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This is the part where you post your abiogenesis theory (or hypothesis) for peer review. Publish or perish. And remember - falsifiable. If you can't prove it false, you can't prove it true.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: GetHyped

those who accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution as a scientific theory must also consider the hypothesis of abiogeneis to be on equal standing.

Actually they don't, what they must do is accept that they are inextricably linked and that is all.

Nonsense. Evolution would still be exactly the same even if a god created the first life form(s).