Genesis is an example of legendary still surviving origin of life theory in religion that has been handed down for many generations. You can argue about details but the cosmic formation of one thing after another sounds like astronomers still believe. An Adam and Eve who realized their nakedness being in our lineage makes sense for scientific reasons pertaining to human chromosome speciation and cognitive wiring change around that time.

Genesis is from religion, but it's still also early science, that is still inspirational and can make some sense even today.

ABO...Let me rephrase, I wasn't referring to you or the supposed scientific language, but rather the implication of what you understand about my language.

ABO,

It's getting late, I'll address this tomorrow.

How open and upfront you want me to be with you about understanding your language?

In the short time I've been on this board I have only obtained glimpses into you. I may take some time to read up on your posts before I came on. So, my brief about your will be rather short, limited in scope, based just on little I've glanced at in the past few days since I came on board.

Talk to you tomorrow.

DagnyWener

Yes, we have different world views/beliefs, but I don't see where the exclusion of one confirms the other. Science has not found the ultimate source of everything or anything for that matter. The utilization of ideas, theories, hypothesis and so forth have great value. But when the very foundation of these tools is formed of unknown supposition it cannot be compared to gravity, death and taxes, which of course is what you've doing.

It's not a matter of religion or preconceived beliefs I have but rather the notion the conclusions don't add up. If the simple thought that it is unreasonable to consider a creator or intelligence involved in the construction process of something we as human were unable to detect or understand how much more unreasonable is it that the same complex phenomenon would present itself without any direction any organization or any purpose or any intelligent input ?

Life itself, not the chemical or organic components, those can be found in caskets all over the world. Life is identifiable but not understood. Nothing has been discovered in the process of life coming int being from anything generated by MU or any other experement. Life is on the planet but there is no indication it came from the planet, space or Richard Dawkins's imagination.

I notice that Dagny had earlier said the ABO's view were a threat to civilization.

I would like to know what he/she means by that, since Science has already provided Weapons of Mass Destruction that could destroy civiliation in an afternoon.

So just how are ABO's views some kind of threat in the face of what Science has already provided? (I know this, as my other questions, will be run away from but perhaps someone else could give their opinion.)

That should be good. I can hardly wait.

And in the short time that Dagny has been on this thread, or at least claims to have been, he/she has revealed several things.

After coming on here with the pretense of simply being interested in science, the posts quickly devolved into philosophical/religious declarations that the need for a Creator has been falsified. It reminds me of a rant made by PZ Myers, who has been favorably referenced before on these threads.

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/585835 ... ral-allies

This not only made the posters agenda clear, but also made clear that despite prostestations to the contrary, Dagny was conflating the Mehodological Naturalism of the Scientific Method with the Philosophical Naturalism of the Anti Theists. It has become so blatant that I am starting to think it is not just a ploy but that the poster really does not undertand the difference.

And to make claims that abiogesis is as established a "fact' as "evolution" (depending on what you mean by that) or as Gravity is simply false. I can't believe the poster seriously thinks that is true and I suspect that it was simply exaggeration in a moment of anger.

Moreover, I said before and I say again that I take the bet that Dagny would NOT accept any evidence for a creator, as Dagny has already simply dismissed the copious "lab notes" ranging from the mathematical order present in observable reality to the information passing content of living cells. Dagny's Blind Faith in Naturalism, not the Scientific Method, means that there is NO EVIDENCE... even in principle... that Dagny would accept; simply because any such evidence could simply be taken back to some Naturalistic starting point.

If Dagny has the courage to propose any such evidence, I will then demonstrate that it FAILS as long as Dagny holds to an indemonstrable Naturalistic Philosophy.

To get the word out on the computer model and theory, I'm thinking it might be best to quickly as possible finish this short paper I mentioned in another thread:

viewtopic.php?p=21166#p21166

What do you think?

ABO....Let me rephrase, I wasn't referring to you or the supposed scientific language, but rather the implication of what you understand about my language.

ABO,

You and I speak and communicate in the English language quite well. But I guess, this is not what you mean. I can do a bit more research into your posts (this may require some time). Below is my short preliminary summary from what I have seen so far.

As for your "other" language (metaphor, of course) as your world view, it is a theistic worldview from what little I have seen. (I can change my mind if other evidence comes in) I'd venture to say you are a fundamental theist. Furthermore, you are a literal theist, a resolute theist. You are a creationist. I don't know your denomination - Missouri Synod? Baptist? Pentecostal? - but it has to be rather fundamental. Or you may not even go to church and just stew in your own world.

For you the Bible is true or false and it seems you have bought into CS Lewis' argument about it, however, I am not sure if you are fully aware of his theology at all, CS Lewis is normally quoted by somewhat more sophisticated and literal folks and your style doesn't appear to support it. You derive your world view logic (also on science) from "cannot show me the Bible is not true, nothing can show me the Bible is not true" and "I can't prove it happened, you can't prove it didn't." As a biblical literalist, you can not, shall not and will not accept anything that contradict your reading of the Bible. You will never change your mind.

Your knowledge of field of comparative religion is rather limited if not not existent. I also have grounds to believe that your knowledge of the history of the Bible is rather limited, you are not familiar with basic Biblical research and theological as well as structural, factual, historical and linguistic criticism. From your remarks about nature of scientific method, your level of education is Bachelors or below, vocational school? It's not improbable that you only have high school education. Your inflexibly points to you deriving your information from creationists sources (mostly online?) rather than reading science oriented web sites and books. I would not be suprised if you don't have any creationists books either; but if you do, they would be older (5-20 years old). You appear not to be familiar with the latest apologetics by sophisticated theologians This further points to lack of higher education, inflexibility towards other people's views, as well as bias against other religions.

All things considered, you are most probably Republican, on the right fringe of the party, Tea Partier? Strict constitutionalists in your own way, yet you don't understand the basics of Civics that America is a secular republic and that religious judges can put aside their biases just like religious scientists can for the sake of the common goal.

As for personal characteristics, from little I've seen, you don't have a problem to contront people. In person you are most likely a reserved individual. There is some hidden tension behind your demeanor. Could be upbringing, personal family issues, perhaps financial problems as source. I've seen you are not below going into personal details of people you are talking to (e.g. talking about other people's wives). Which can point to an extremely fundamental upbringing, inflexible nature of your character, possible problems with family, possibly drinking and depression.

I'd put your age between 45-60. As to where you live, for all I know in my area, however, the demographics of the community I am in, would not lend itself to a high probability to a person like you, the town over all may as well as my county and state. I can't put you in the South, as this fundamental and uncompromising style of theism is all over the country.

Let me know if I understand your language more or less and if there are any misses.

Someone pass the popcorn.

And Mike refusing to answer Jon's questions until DW answers his, is just crap. We've all seen how Mike just doesn't like to answer tough questions and he will make any excuse to hide from them. If you don't want to participate, Mike, then why are you here? You won't answer my questions and now you won't answer Jon's. It appears that MIke wants a forum where he can poison the well of evil "anti-theists," blame science for his woes, and perpetuate dishonest ideas about any number of scientific topics. There are better places to do that if you don't want to be challenged.

IMO, Mike doesn't deserve any addition conversation in this forum. He isn't here to engage people in conversation or answer any pointed questions. It appears he is only here to promulgate his fundamentalist dogma and misrepresent and distort science to match his own warped ideology.

I recommend Jack creates a "Rubbish" thread where all posts that are not related to the actual topic are moved. This way we can concentrate on actual discussion of each topic and if someone is interested to participate in the offshoot discussions they can go and have fun there. I think this thread already exists, Jack may not have enough time to watch this.

If you, Jack, would like some help with this, please, let me know. I'll be glad to be a co-moderator and help you with the burden to move irrelevant posts there.

Yup. He just doesn't have the stones to support or retract his ignorant and insulting claims.

So, do you think Dagny should be answering my questions? If not, why am I held to some different standard?

But as to you, O Henry, I will just say this one more time. You are well aware that you made a vicious accusation against me that was blatantly false and that you have never withdrawn.

Until that time, I do not believe you are worth discussing anything with.

Don't like that answer? Tough.

Dagny, you have run away from virtually all my questions. And I find this puzzling, since you continue to respond to ABO and Gary, and in fact make a point of talking around me and about me but not to me.

Then I realized what is going on. We have met before.

But you have made your agenda clear. Why are you still pretending otherwise?

Well. AFAIK you haven't answered Dagny's questions, and Dagny hasn't answered yours.

But I've answered the questions you directed at me, but you have not answered the questions I directed at you.

So nobody's being held to a different standard, but you are not discussing in good faith.

Just published in Science Magazine. Coupled with John Szostak research on lipid bilayers I presented the other day, this is piece demonstrates how mechanical forces of waves can continue playing separating roles and how evolution may continue using the same mechanism that has worked and filled the niche.

Turbulence, Cleavage, and the Naked Embryo: A Case for Coral Clones
Science 2 March 2012:
Vol. 335 no. 6072 p. 1064
DOI: 10.1126/science.1216055

ABSTRACT
After mass spawning events, coral embryos, lacking the protective capsule of other metazoans, are directly exposed to the environment at the ocean surface. Here, we present evidence that modest turbulence disrupts the integrity of these embryos, which fragment into totipotent cells that develop into proportionately smaller functional larvae. The level of turbulence required to fragment coral embryos can be generated from small wind-generated waves, which occur frequently during coral spawning on the Great Barrier Reef. The formation of planktonic coral clones, through natural embryo fragmentation of broadcast spawn, is a previously unknown mode of reproduction in the animal kingdom.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6 ... 4.abstract