Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_EAllusion]

As an awesome bonus, that post shows the same person who is going around condescending people about the philosophy of science not that long ago said, "Isn't it true that the scientific method is limited to the present?"

Um, yeah. Exactly.

[_Kevin Graham]

Heck, you have referred to Hoyle even in the context of just endorsing creationist anti-evolution thought.

EA can't produce solid examples of me rejecting evoluton as he previous implied. Now he is backpedaling with vague descriptions of what he thinks took place. Now I am guilty of "endorsing anti-evolution thought"? Sounds a lot like when I was posting on MAD years ago. I was chastized for being someone who "endorsed anti-mormonism" whenever I brought up Book of Abraham criticisms that I thought weren't adequately addressed. Like those idiot Mormons, EA refuses to deal with the arguments but finds comfort in labels.

As if this was the only posting you've done on this message board. You have repeatedly positively referenced Hoyle's abiogenesis is so unlikely as to be impossible arguments in reference to making a design case for the origin of life.

Any monkey with a keyboard can do a search and see that I have addressed abiogenesis as dartagnan on five different occassions, and the example above is the first and only time I brought up Hoyle's Boeing 747/Tornado analogy. And I wasn't even consciously using that analogy for anything in any argument I presented. It just happened to be in the citaton I was using to make a totally unrelated point. The only reason I cited it was to make the point that reputable scientists agreed. But this was explained in the context, which EA doesn't care for. So let's get a quick run-down of my "posting history" on the subject.

The first time I mentioned abiogenesis, I referenced an argument by Antony Flew, former career atheist and recent convert to theism. His marble table analogy can hardly be a considered "classical" creationist argument. No mention of Hoyle in that discussion.

The second time I spoke on the matter I again referenced Flew's question, "How did Life go Live?" No mention of Hoyle.

The third time I spoke of it as something atheists take on faith. No mention of Hoyle.

The fourth time I alluded to the Miller experiment which failed miserably. No mention of Hoyle.

The fifth time was similar to the third, and again, no mention of Hoyle.

And yet EA assures us that I have "repeatedly positively referenced Hoyle's abiogenesis." If that were true, he wouldn't need to burrow all the way back to the time when we first started discussing these things more than a year ago, to snag an example I already referred to.

Heck, you have referred to Hoyle even in the context of just endorsing creationist anti-evolution thought.

The most ridiculous thing about EA's standard for being a "creationist" is that all it requires is that one cite Hoyle or allude to something Hoyle presented in an anaolgy. Fred Hoyle was not even a creationist! So, so what if I mentoned him? I have cited dozens of scientists and philosophers including Hawking, Gould, Ruse etc. Are these guys found in creatonist works? EA won't address my usage of these guys. How convenient. Instead, EA dismisses me because once upon a time, I mentioned an anaolgy that appears in some popular creationist materials published when I was 13!

Hoyle was an atheist and a proponent of panspermia for God's sakes. But if anyone dares use his argument, they're not atheists nor are they proponents of panspermia. No, according to EA's logic, they're creationists!!!

On we go to history lesson number two.

1. I have cited Hoyle seven tmes, and this is the only instance I referred to his Jumbo-Jet analogy.

2. Fred Hoyle was not a creationist, but rather an atheist and proponent of panspermia.

3. Subsequent references to Hoyle was when I was quoting several pages from Patrick Glynn, someone who also wrote a chapter criticizing ID.

4. The context of the citation EA provided proves why I mentioned him to begin with. I cut and pasted some citations to prove the point that there are educated people that would have to fall into the "daft" category according to the board atheists. I reiterated this point several times, but to no avail.

It bears mentioning that Kevin was caught quote-mining here via creationist sources. The first quote actually was about a scientist writing in favor of the RNA-World hypothesis, so it looks like we've come full circle.)

Too funny. I knew you were full of crap. I challenged you to produce these so-called "numerous" examples where I used creatonist material and you can't come up with anything concrete. Your convoluted "if you allude to Hoyle you're a creationist because creationists like Hoyle" standard, is nothing short of asinine.

Whenever pressed to produce examples where I relied on creatonist materials, you always run all the way back to the very beginning of these discussions to try makng a mountain out of this molehill example. I knew perfectly well the article I referenced would be googled by you guys; but had I known it appeared on a creatonist website I wouldn't have bothered. Anyone with eyes can see that in this instance the only "argument" that I was making was that respected scientists have and do dissent from some of the claims of evolution theory. That was it. This wasn't a debate about abiogenesis. Those debates would take place later on down the road.

It is more than a bit disingenuous to pretend I'm just inventing out of thin air to create a strawman.

It is worse than that. You're lying through your damned face.

I'm referring to your own posting history.

Uh, you constantly accuse me of simply regurgitating creationist arguments verbatim, trying to justify your desperate dependence on the guilt by association fallacy. Your method here is to insist that if anyone ever mentions or alludes to Fred Hoyle, that this is proof positive he or she is a creationist and deserves that label in every sense of the word. What an argument!

I have a basis for saying what I do that goes beyond what was said simply in this thread.

You have no basis whatsoever so you have to invent one. Again, Fred Hoyle! I mentoned the guy ONCE over a year ago long before I ever got into the various abiogenesis debates. Whenever abiogenesis was subsequently brought up, I referred to Flew, Glynn, Collins, Crick or McGrath, all of whom criticize ID. That disrupted your intended straw man so you repeatedly avodng dealing with them.

You're trying to rig the game here so you get away claiming something that's not true. Stop pretending it is my "history." Demonstrate it. You said you had demonstrated my dependence of "creationist material" on "numerous" occassions and every time I call you to the carpet you pull out this same example from day one. How pathetic.

As an awesome bonus, that post shows the same person who is going around condescending people about the philosophy of science not that long ago said, "Isn't it true that the scientific method is limited to the present?" Um, yeah. Exactly.

And your point is? You were all blathering away about the "scientific method" and yet none of you wanted to explain what method you were using. Gee, what a surprise. You still haven't! Probably because you're afraid I'd be proven right about how Popper has a special place in the hearts of atheists.

Now I see you want to tell me I am a theist because of some citation you mined from the web (typical EA research). Why don't you try reading the book for once? Is it against your religion to read anti-atheism works?

[_EAllusion]

On we go to history lesson number two.

1. I have cited Hoyle seven tmes, and this is the only instance I referred to his Jumbo-Jet analogy.

2. Fred Hoyle was not a creationist, but rather an atheist and proponent of panspermia.

Hoyle's argument against abiogenesis was, at one time, one of the most prominent creationist arguments. To be more specific, Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" reasoning was used against the possibility of abiogenesis by natural (unguided) means, followed by an inference to design.* In didn't matter that he personally was an atheist. In creationist writing, it often was on one of the first things mentioned. Creationists might also argue that in order to deny the force of their reasoning, atheists had to invent panspermia and believe in that. This specifically was one of the arguments that was used in defense of creationism when it was crushed in the round of court battles in the 1980's. It's still common nowadays too, but no where near the heyday of its use back then. I called you out on creationism in this instance because you followed that same pattern. I've seen you use Hoyle in this context more than once, but now I'm tasked with using bad search engines and multiple user names to go through.

*Creationist arguments very often take the form of presenting two options, natural (usually "random") or design. They then attack natural causation via strawman or pointing to lack of explanation, then conclude it must design.

[_EAllusion]

Heck, you have referred to Hoyle even in the context of just endorsing creationist anti-evolution thought.

EA can't produce solid examples of me rejecting evolution as he previous implied.

Uh, huh?

1) I said you endorsed anti-evolution writing, which you did. You at multiple points in that thread, endorse classic anti-evolution chimeras. In your mind you might be playing Devil's Advocate, but the Kevin in print is saying those are good arguments. When you say this: "the main problem with evolution is that it rests on assumptions that cannot be verified using the scientific method," you are, you know, saying it.

2) Again, depending on what is meant by "evolution" there are creationists who believe in it. Micheal Behe comes to mind. In that thread, you also were arguing that evolution might've happened, but then intelligence would have to have something to do with it. To quote you,

"I don't see how intelligence cannot have something to do with it [evolution]. Would flying creatures, conceivably be able to mutate to the point that they could leave our atmosphere, and adapt to our orbit? Maybe develop a respiratory system like whales, where they could dive into our atmosphere for a deepth breath of air and go back up and munch on cosmic debris?

Wouldn't you suspect there was some intelligence behind that acheivement as well? We are talking about a creature accomplishing flight as a way of life. If you clip a few feathers at the ends of the wings of most birds, they can no longer fly. So theoretically, for millions of years, as they were becoming less dependant on water and their respiratory systems developed lungs, and for another million or so years, as they were "mutating" into fully feathered creatures capable of flight, they must have been something akin to dodo birds or chickens. Assuming this is true, there just seems to be have been some intelligent means at work, trying to get to a specific end: getting these creatures in the air. You're saying this is just an act of random mutation that, by sheer chance, ended up developing creatures that had the exact requirements for flight? Maybe is there was only one flying creature onthe planet, but there are thousands. This suggests a means to an end. I mean if one tiny thing is off, the bird doesn't fly. It must have extremely strong chest muscles, it must be designed a specific way, it must have high powered vision, etc."

That's creationism. "What good is half a wing" is probably one of the two most famous creationist arguments, with variations of Paley's Watch being the other.

I will continue to say you've endorsed creationist reasoning, thus making you a creationist. Like, arguing, as you do in that thread, that life developing from nonlife requiring an intelligence because, "But if we accept this theory [evolution] as well as the big bang, then the two have to meet at an inevitable point by suggesting that life somehow sprang forth from inorganic matter in a manner that is beyond explanation in the current paradigm. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife. There has not been a single documented case of this happening anywhere in the world, in recorded history, nor have scientists been able to produce such an experiment in the lab, even when replicating the supposed atmospheric scencarios that are supposed to have been present during the time when life first came about. So how could this have happened after the big bang? The current scientific paradigm will never provide that answer."

So, yeah.

Like those idiot Mormons, EA refuses to deal with the arguments but finds comfort in labels.

I have extensively replied to your arguments in the past.

Here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7243&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I think that's a pretty detailed dismantling.

You're the one choosing to focus on the label. I understand. It has a very negative connotation. Of course, that negative connotation derives from how badly the arguments you support are thought of, so in the end it's not going to matter what you call what you are arguing. You're the one who made it an issue out of it. I merely explained myself.

It is worse than that. You're lying through your damned face.

One of the two of us has an established history on this board of claiming not to argue something, having someone quote him arguing it, followed by a disappearing act. Which one Kevin? Which one?

And your point is? You were all blathering away abou

t the "scientific method" and yet none of you wanted to explain what method you were using.

A person who says that hasn't even the most basic grasp of philosophy of science and probably did not develop sufficient expertise within the span of a year to justify condescending people about it like you are going about.

Now I see you want to tell me I am a theist because of some citation you mined from the web (typical EA research). Why don't you try reading the book for once? Is it against your religion to read anti-atheism works?

If you search the archives of ZLMB, you'll find me commenting on Flew's initial coming out right when it happened. Technically, I commented even before then when there was just speculation. That quote comes from a very short offering on the subject that was the sum-total of the information Flew offered at the time. He was very clear about endorsing a ridiculous ID argument I just quoted. I remembered it, found it on the web, and quoted it. You have, over and over, said you are a theist for the same reasons as Flew. Or are you going to now deny that too? All I did was quote Flew's reasons and point out that they are creationist, so it's pretty silly to get upset when I describe you as endorsing creationist arguments. Flew criticized ID before he endorsed it!

I'm far better read than you are on this subject on both sides of the fence. The bluff doesn't work here.

[_EAllusion]

If you search the archives of ZLMB, you'll find me commenting on Flew's initial coming out right when it happened. Technically, I commented even before then where there was just speculation. That quote comes from a very short offering on the subject that was the sum-total of the information Flew offered at the time. He was very clear about endorsing a ridiculous ID argument I just quoted. I remembered it, found it on the web, and quoted it. You have, over and over, said you are a theist for the same reasons as Flew. Or are you going to now deny that too? All I did was quote Flew's reasons and point out that they are creationist, so it's pretty silly to get upset when I describe you as endorsing creationist arguments. Flew criticized ID before he endorsed it!

It bears mentioning that this isn't the first time we've gone over this.

Kevin, incidentally, keeps denying ID and creationism, while simultaneously endorsing the same reasons as Flew, which are ID/creationism in the classic sense. Flew supposedly bought into the origin of life unlikely, therefore God argument. That's ID. Heck, he references Gerald Schroeder as a chief persuader. His arguments were known explicitly as an old-earth creationism until the great relabeling occured.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8225&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[_mikwut]

EA,

Do you have example(s) that you would accept of evolutionary theists that are not "creationists"?

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Here's another example of Kevin making this argument:

If God doesn't eternally exist, then matter does. From what we know of matter, it is impossible for life to just create itself on its own. Yet we know life exists, and that it had to have come from somewhere. God is the most rational explanation given the impossibility of the only other alternative explanation.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5335&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

That's about as raw example of this version of the creationist argument as there is.

Bam.

[_EAllusion]

EA,

Do you have example(s) that you would accept of evolutionary theists that are not "creationists"?

mikwut

Sure, there are lots. Ken Miller is usually the goto example given his prominence in being a critic of the ID-creationist movement and being a Catholic. Along the same lines, one could mention Robert Pennock.

[_mikwut]

Thanks EA that helps.

mikwut

[Guest]

Tell that to Francis Collins. (It's too late to tell it to Theodosius Dobzhansky.)

I am sure someone's already beat me to it, but Collins himself should really know better - he needs nobody to explain anything about this to him. There is no guarantee that even a very smart person will always view things rationally. Francis Collins has surrendered to a particular irrational idea, and I don't see him changing his mind on it. It's his right. Oh well.

Collins' invention of God being "outside" the Universe (not a part of it) is just that, an "invention". And IMHO is whack!