How are people like this getting elected?

[buckshot24]

That isn't evolution.

It's clearly something you believe it can accomplish. I didn't say it was evolution, yet another misrepresentation? Maybe take a nap?

Again, that isn't evolution. Get. A. Fucking. Education.

Again, didn't say this was all there is to evolution but it definitely is a part of your dogma, the part I'm directly challenging.

Yes, we do.

No.

You are mistaking your wanton ignorance of the evidence for somebody else's ignorance. I repeat: We know, but you don't -- more appropriately: you don't want to.

I'm not suffering from confirmation bias like you are. Darwinists like you are like conspiracy theorists.

How what is the what? What do you think "life" is? Submit your most rigorous definition.

Don't be an idiot. Take any part of any bacteria and explain how those parts naturally form together into the arrangement within that bacteria. If you can't then this point is completely off the mark. There are no inherent properties of the molecules that make up living things to make them arrange in the way we find them.

Meaningless gainsaying.

Yes, your original comment was meaningless and wrong.

I don't think anyone believes that, but you just keep on lyin' fer Jesus like we know you will...

I don't care what you think of me.

Oh, my feelings. So much hurt. :'(

Not the intent of my comment.

I must repeat my question from earlier: What origin?

Intellectual dishonesty. Life has not been here eternally and biological complexity hasn't either.

A highly dubious claim without any evidence from a demonstrated scientific ignoramus.

There are no known properties of these molecules that make them want to form into the systems we find in living things. Period.

And...?

And living things aren't in the arrangements they are because of the internal properties of the molecules that make them. Horrible analogy.

If the above were true, then you would not make some of the silly claims you've already made. But of course, you would suggest that you are more scientifically literate that you are in reality -- it fits perfectly in your dishonest, bluff and bluster character.

You've either delusionally or intentionally misrepresented what I've written. Are you a lying hack of simply incompetent?

Oh poor widdle buckwheat. :'(

You're the one misrepresenting me. Either incompetence or deceit.

Nobody is buying that.

Where is your data on that point? It also doesn't matter if you buy it or not, it is the truth.

Irrelevant to the point.

It's your analogy mate, you say I don't think adding enough times can make a big number. Addition is linear. If my point is irrelevant then how crap is your analogy?

Completely and totally false. Evolution simply reconfigures things that were already here. No "new stuff" at all.

That is simply idiotic.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot, I have a question for you.
How did life come to be?

I don't think it happened by blind chemistry.

 

[Monk5127]

I don't think it happened by blind chemistry.

That's great, but what do you think?

 

[buckshot24]

That's great, but what do you think?

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

 

[spacejamz]

Does this thread apply to the likes of Roy Nagin and the ex-mayor of Detroit who is currently in jail for corruption as well as most of Chicago's elected officials, etc???

 

[cliftonite]

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

Any evidence/proof of this?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

ok, well it's not my thread, but the premise stands.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

{snip}

Not that what I believe has anything to do with your claims.

But it does. Science is all about the best working model currently available. Evolution works whether or not you think the evidence is adequate, and since your preferred belief is not supported by any evidence and doesn't work, we have answered your question about why you are a moron for being a creationist.

The problem with this is that I am not the one saying what I believe about the origin of biological complexity is self evident and that one is a nut for not believing it. That's all you guys. You claim to have mountains of evidence, I don't. I am holding you to your standard.

That's an outright lie. The standard is usefulness, and evolutionary theory works, creationism doesn't.

Have these self replicating things ever not existed? If so, how did they start to self replicate?

I know of no point in time when it can be said with certainty that they did not exist. That is precisely why abiogenesis is distinct from evolutionary theory.

Evolution comes in many flavors and chemical evolution is just another way to describe the origin of life.

What origin of life?

If I believed Daffy Duck made us all yesterday with our memories and a false history intact how does this make your claims about reality any more true? Your claims are your claims and must be evaluated on their own merits.
Why?
You'd make a perfect jury member for the prosecution.

I'll tell you what, I'll give you a bit of a break on this because I know sloppy language can give a uneducated person like yourself the wrong ideas.

Strictly speaking, science isn't the search for "truth." Science is about the development of useful models of reality. When two models are evaluated, and one is found less useful than the other, that increases our confidence in the usefulness of the other. That's the whole point of falsifiability. If both model A and B purport to represent reality, but evidence X shows B false but does not show A false, we have increased confidence in A.

That's why when you read articles like this one you see sections dedicated to potential falsification. The scientists themselves are constructing alternative models that would show their working model false. By showing that the evidence does not support the alternative model it increases their confidence in the working model.

So basically all of your bullshit lamenting about "lack of evidence" and such can be summarily addressed by a simple question:

"You got a better idea?"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's clearly something you believe it can accomplish.

Wrong.

I didn't say it was evolution, yet another misrepresentation? Maybe take a nap?

If you're not talking about evolution then you're not talking about an idea that I have any burden to defend.

Again, didn't say this was all there is to evolution but it definitely is a part of your dogma, the part I'm directly challenging.

No, it isn't.

I'm not suffering from confirmation bias like you are. Darwinists like you are like conspiracy theorists.

That has achieved new levels of irony I did not know were possible.

Please, do tell me what "conspiracy theory" you think anyone here has either implicitly or explicitly espoused.

Meanwhile I'll casually point out that it is creationists like yourself that suppose that the entirety of biological science -- both professional and academic across the entire globe -- are engaged in a coordinated effort to bolster an idea you believe to be and outright falsehood.

But yeah... the scientists are the conspiracy theorists. Pull the other one.

Don't be an idiot.

Don't be a disingenuous asshole. Define "life."

Take any part of any bacteria and explain how those parts naturally form together into the arrangement within that bacteria. If you can't then this point is completely off the mark.

Goalpost shifting.

There are no inherent properties of the molecules that make up living things to make them arrange in the way we find them.

Please tell me what the difference is between "inherent" properties and "non-inherent" properties.

Yes, your original comment was meaningless and wrong.

What part was wrong? Saying it's wrong is just talk. That's what "meaningless gainsaying" means, since it seems you couldn't gather it.


{snip}

Intellectual dishonesty. Life has not been here eternally and biological complexity hasn't either.

Baseless assertion. You can't demand that I explain something you can't show to exist. THAT is intellectual dishonesty.

There are no known properties of these molecules that make them want to form into the systems we find in living things.

You don't even know what "life" is, so you clearly do not have any basis with which to establish your claim.

And living things aren't in the arrangements they are because of the internal properties of the molecules that make them. Horrible analogy.

I'll remind you of the simple question it is your task to answer:

You got a better idea?

{snip}

It's your analogy mate, you say I don't think adding enough times can make a big number. Addition is linear. If my point is irrelevant then how crap is your analogy?

Your point is irrelevant because you have suggested there is something impeding the addition. Whether or not the changes are of equal measure doesn't support your suggestion.

That is simply idiotic.

And this is why you are derided as such an ignoramus. Please review the first law of thermodynamics. Do you not understand why living things must consume and metabolize in order to continue living?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

The question was "HOW did life come to be?" (emphasis added)

Your response does not answer that question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt needs elite status.

He truly is ATP&N's most successful idiot shepherd. You assume a thread is long dead; but no, here he is all this time, patiently corralling our greatest idiots for weeks at a time lest they pollute other threads.

Seconded.

I enjoy a good "Taxting".

BTW, thank you both for your comments. These topics hearken back to my forum days long before I wound up at Anandtech, and I do enjoy a chance to put all the many lessons I've learned during those years to work from time to time.

 

[kage69]

Cerpin Taxt needs elite status.

He truly is ATP&N's most successful idiot shepherd. You assume a thread is long dead; but no, here he is all this time, patiently corralling our greatest idiots for weeks at a time lest they pollute other threads.

He's got my vote.

Cerpin has shown us all that feeding the troll can also be done rectally. :biggrin:

I'd prefer the mods stamp out this asshattery and be done with it, but I guess page upon page detailing rocksalt's level of willful ignorance and dishonesty will get us to the same result, eventually.

 

[BxgJ]

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

When did this happen (how long ago)?

 

[WelshBloke]

Intelligent agency and I have bullshit reasons for what that intelligence is.

FTFY

Unless you want to explain the exact mechanism by which those mechanisms work.

 

[Jeff7]

ok, well it's not my thread, but the premise stands.

Not at all. The thread's title question has been very thoroughly answered.

Intelligent agency and I have religious reasons for what that intelligence is.

When did this happen (how long ago)?

And of course, there's always the unanswered question that should automatically follow along that line of thinking: What created the creator, one which is so advanced and sophisticated that it is able to specifically direct atomic and molecular processes on Earth, and possibly elsewhere, with the specific goal of producing numerous and highly-varied species?

 

[buckshot24]

FTFY

Unless you want to explain the exact mechanism by which those mechanisms work.

Goodbye.

 

[buckshot24]

But it does. Science is all about the best working model currently available. Evolution works whether or not you think the evidence is adequate, and since your preferred belief is not supported by any evidence and doesn't work, we have answered your question about why you are a moron for being a creationist.

No it doesn't. Your claims are either true or false. It doesn't matter what I believe.

That's an outright lie. The standard is usefulness, and evolutionary theory works, creationism doesn't.

How is that a lie? Because you're a hack? You don't have adequate evidence that mutation can do what you think it did so you go on with these red herrings.

I know of no point in time when it can be said with certainty that they did not exist. That is precisely why abiogenesis is distinct from evolutionary theory.

I note you're a bit more careful in the way you name it now, thanks for that. But I didn't ask you if you knew for certain that any particular time there existed no self-replicating living things. I asked if they ever not existed. Why can't you answer straight forward questions without this dishonest obfuscation? I know why, you're a hack.

What origin of life?

Hacking away....:\

Strictly speaking, science isn't the search for "truth." Science is about the development of useful models of reality. When two models are evaluated, and one is found less useful than the other, that increases our confidence in the usefulness of the other. That's the whole point of falsifiability. If both model A and B purport to represent reality, but evidence X shows B false but does not show A false, we have increased confidence in A.

I don't care about usefulness, I care about what is true.

 

[WelshBloke]

Goodbye.

So that would be a "No Welshbloke, I'm very sorry but I have no reasons that my ideas aren't bullshit given the level of proof that Ive demanded for everyone elses."

Also why goodbye? Are you anticipating going somewhere?

 

[BxgJ]

No answer to my question buckshot?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No it doesn't. Your claims are either true or false. It doesn't matter what I believe.

Look, just repeating your already-refuted claims without any argument that addresses my refutation is nothing more than meaningless gainsaying. Remember that from before? You're just closing your eyes real tight and covering your ears shouting "NUH-UH!!"

How is that a lie?

You claimed you were "holding us to our own standard." That's a lie. Our standard is usefulness, and I've explained why.

Because you're a hack?

Oh my poor feelers.

You don't have adequate evidence that mutation can do what you think it did so you go on with these red herrings.

I'm quite comfortable letting the readers-along evaluate whether or not my arguments are "red herrings."

I note you're a bit more careful in the way you name it now, thanks for that.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I've been perfectly consistent in my distinctions between abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.

But I didn't ask you if you knew for certain that any particular time there existed no self-replicating living things. I asked if they ever not existed.

I would be very interested in your attempt to explain how the former is semantically different from the latter.

Why can't you answer straight forward questions without this dishonest obfuscation?

I didn't obfuscate anything. I answered your question in the most complete way possible. Maybe you don't understand the response you were given.

I know why, you're a hack.

Hacking away....:\

Bucky, darling, you wound me.

But more to the point, your evasion has not escaped anyone's notice.

I don't care about usefulness, I care about what is true.

It is true that evolutionary theory is the most useful framework with which to understand terrestrial biology. It is true that there is no alternative framework with the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory. It is true that creationism does not even rise to the level of scientific validity, let alone feature any evidential support from any phenomenon in reality. It is true that you are dishonest in the utmost in your evaluation of evolutionary theory. It is true that you are the laughing stock of this forum, and I'd venture to guess elsewhere.

There ya go. There's some truth for ya. :thumbsup:

 

[buckshot24]

Wrong.

We agree then. Mutation and selection can't get to men and rhinos from microbes. Shall we call it a day now since we don't seem to have any disagreement?

If you're not talking about evolution then you're not talking about an idea that I have any burden to defend.

You're having a heck of a time here. Maybe it is my fault and you're not a dishonest hack or incompetent. Probably not but maybe.

No, it isn't.

So we're done? We agree.

That has achieved new levels of irony I did not know were possible.

Please, do tell me what "conspiracy theory" you think anyone here has either implicitly or explicitly espoused.

I said you were LIKE conspiracy theorists where any tiny bit of evidence is extrapolated out to grand stories, not that you were engaged in a conspiracy or espousing a conspiracy theory. haha. I'm cracking up here..

Meanwhile I'll casually point out that it is creationists like yourself that suppose that the entirety of biological science -- both professional and academic across the entire globe -- are engaged in a coordinated effort to bolster an idea you believe to be and outright falsehood.

Actually no, I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think scientists are honestly looking for the truth and that given their restraints are left with only one possible outcome. Something very much like your fairy tale must have happened if life formed itself without any creative input from any intelligence.

So wrong again, there isn't a conspiracy.

Don't be a disingenuous asshole. Define "life."

No.

Goalpost shifting.

That doesn't even make sense. How can one shift goalposts when you haven't even tried to kick the ball? The fact of the matter is we can explain the "complexity" of crystals by looking at the properties of the compounds that they are made of. You can't do that with any living system, at least not yet. This is why crystals as an analogy completely fail.

What part was wrong? Saying it's wrong is just talk.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Baseless assertion. You can't demand that I explain something you can't show to exist. THAT is intellectual dishonesty.

This is just pathetic. Completely transparent hackery, in other words par for the course.

You don't even know what "life" is, so you clearly do not have any basis with which to establish your claim.

You are hilarious. I have to hand it to you I've never come across this tactic before you tried to pull it on me a few months ago.

I think you should let all the labs trying to find a viable pathway to the origin of life, you'd save them millions in useless research.

I'll remind you of the simple question it is your task to answer:

You got a better idea?

If the only reason to believe mutation and selection actually put together your brain is that it is the best guess you have then I'm feeling pretty good that you know the evidence is weak.

Your point is irrelevant because you have suggested there is something impeding the addition. Whether or not the changes are of equal measure doesn't support your suggestion.

Forget about addition, that is your unsupported analogy. My suggestion is that the pathway for a microbe to change into people isn't linear and addition isn't the proper way to look at it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have a related question for buckwheat, that I expect will be like pulling teeth for him to answer, but I will ask it anyway, and then whether or not he answers I will explain the purpose of the question. The question is this:

Does Pluto orbit the sun?

 

[WelshBloke]

How can one shift goalposts when you haven't even tried to kick the ball?

LOL.

This sums him up well. "You're not winning, I'm just not really trying!"

Heres a hint, if you're not going to make an argument then stop flapping your gums, in the same way that you shouldnt stand in the middle of a football pitch shouting "I'M NOT LOSING! I'M JUST NOT TRYING!!!".


Seriously. GTFO and go work on your argument because all you are at the moment is cheap entertainment for bored people.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We agree then. Mutation and selection can't get to men and rhinos from microbes. Shall we call it a day now since we don't seem to have any disagreement?

Goalposts shifted.

You're having a heck of a time here. Maybe it is my fault and you're not a dishonest hack or incompetent. Probably not but maybe.
So we're done? We agree.

It isn't my problem that you have erected strawman effigies of evolutionary theory.

I said you were LIKE conspiracy theorists where any tiny bit of evidence is extrapolated out to grand stories, not that you were engaged in a conspiracy or espousing a conspiracy theory. haha. I'm cracking up here..

It is quite clear that you do not understand the scientific method at all. You've completely omitted the extensive testing, verification and falsification that continually whittles away the false ideas leaving behind a more and more accurate model of reality.

Actually no, I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think scientists are honestly looking for the truth and that given their restraints are left with only one possible outcome.

Please do tell us what those "restraints" are.

Something very much like your fairy tale must have happened if life formed itself without any creative input from any intelligence.

I don't know what you're talking about. Scientific theories are precisely the opposite of "fairy tales." You might as well suggest that gravity is a "fairy tale" because it omits "intelligent falling."

So wrong again, there isn't a conspiracy.

Yeah, right.

No.

Why not? You don't know what it is? Then how can you have any beliefs about it at all?

That doesn't even make sense. How can one shift goalposts when you haven't even tried to kick the ball?

You don't seem to understand what goalpost shifting is.

The fact of the matter is we can explain the "complexity" of crystals by looking at the properties of the compounds that they are made of.

I said we can explain the properties of the compounds by the properties of the atoms they are made of. You said that was wrong. Do you maintain that it is wrong, or are you just very confused?

You can't do that with any living system, at least not yet.

Of course you can. What in the world are you on about? You think we don't know why the proteins of DNA bond with eachother? It's because of the properties of the compounds that they are made of, which in turn have those properties because of the atoms which they are made of.

This is why crystals as an analogy completely fail.

Oh yeah, you're the expert here.

This is just pathetic. Completely transparent hackery, in other words par for the course.

Your inability to support your assertion is noted.

You are hilarious. I have to hand it to you I've never come across this tactic before you tried to pull it on me a few months ago.

It's pretty clear that you're just making excuses for your own inability to muster a rational response.

I think you should let all the labs trying to find a viable pathway to the origin of life, you'd save them millions in useless research.

Why would I do that?

If the only reason to believe mutation and selection actually put together your brain is that it is the best guess you have then I'm feeling pretty good that you know the evidence is weak.

I think everyone here has basically written you off as any kind of reliable judge of the merits of evolutionary evidence. The fact is there is no evidence which does not support evolutionary theory. So if by "weak evidence" you mean "the totality of natural phenomena" then sure, I guess.

Forget about addition, that is your unsupported analogy.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love to forget about it after having your ass handed to you.

My suggestion is that the pathway for a microbe to change into people isn't linear and addition isn't the proper way to look at it.

You can suggest anything you like. If you don't have any evidence to support your suggestion you can shove it right up your ass.

 

[WelshBloke]

So not living in the US and not actually meeting any people like Buckshot before is their standard operating procedure to just continually repeating the same stupid tropes over and over until everyone else ignores them then declare victory?