The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[JimBowie1958]

You are confused:

No, you are skipping important information.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

For instance, "it's possible that life didn't begin with DNA and proteins like we see today—it may have begun with something much, much simpler," he said.

Bah, they did not create self-generating DNA, no matter how you spin it, Oro.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. So don't even try floating there.

Lol, and bombast proves nada, dude.

State your case or shut up and go away like a little whooped school girl.

By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".

No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.

 

[orogenicman]

No, you are skipping important information.

Bah, they did not create self-generating DNA, no matter how you spin it, Oro.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. So don't even try floating there.

Lol, and bombast proves nada, dude.

State your case or shut up and go away like a little whooped school girl.

I'm not the one sinking in denial.

By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".

No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.[/QUOTE]

That's "Nazi", not "NAzi".

 

[JimBowie1958]

Denial is not a river in Egypt. So don't even try floating there.

Lol, and bombast proves nada, dude.

State your case or shut up and go away like a little whooped school girl.

I'm not the one sinking in denial.

Yes, you are. You don't even know what your own damned article says, lol.

By the way, the word is "metaphysical", not "metapysical".

No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.

That's "Nazi", not "NAzi".

Lol, you keep going all grammar Nazi while totally fucking up the attributions. roflmao

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, and bombast proves nada, dude.

State your case or shut up and go away like a little whooped school girl.

I'm not the one sinking in denial.

Yes, you are. You don't even know what your own damned article says, lol.

No, shit, Sherlock. It's called a typo, Grammar NAzi.

That's "Nazi", not "NAzi".

Lol, you keep going all grammar Nazi while totally fucking up the attributions. roflmao

I wouldn't have posted it had I not known what was in the article. And you are wrong, Jimbo. Try again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not the one sinking in denial.

Yes, you are. You don't even know what your own damned article says, lol.

That's "Nazi", not "NAzi".

Lol, you keep going all grammar Nazi while totally fucking up the attributions. roflmao

I wouldn't have posted it had I not known what was in the article. And you are wrong, Jimbo. Try again.

Then prove it; explain where I am misreading the article.

I have quoted from it, cut and paste while you merely continue to keep making vague generalizations like the above.

You don't know jack shit about the article is my suspicion and you continue to reaffirm it.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.

oh lord was he really stupid enough to claim that?.....

 

[MaryL]

OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this thread is ,where it is leading to, or implies. People misuse religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this thread is ,where it is leading to, or implies. People misuse religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?

Science uses and depends on the veracity of methodological Naturalism, i.e. that everything influencing/determining the behavior of an object is natural and repeatable.

Anything that is an unnatural event, like a miracle or witchcraft, etc, or natural events that are not repeatable are not within the scope of science to address. It cannot prove or disprove such things. So the miraculous is outside the scope of sciences reach to ever prove or disprove.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a philosophical point of view that says there is NOTHING outside of the natural and nothing that gives us actual knowledge other than science. This is totally wrong as there are many fields of knowledge outside of science. But more specifically, this Metaphysical Naturalism is used to destroy and attack faith. Some use science to imply that the debate between naturalism and religion has somehow been settled with scientism the declared winner.

Nothing could be further from the Truth; Christianity is experiencing an explosion of growth in the Third World. And it is largely because the evidence today is so strong in support of a belief in God. Metaphysical Naturalists reject any such evidence out of hand as they assume that there cannot be any God that lives outside of our universe.

 

[MaryL]

I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts, 2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts, 2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.

You are missing the point. Science is not a threat to metaphysical Naturalism. It is actually the other way around; Meta Naturalism is a threat to the public's acceptance of science, as most prefer to keep their faith and Meta Naturalism creates an artificial antagonism between religion and science.

Metaphysical Naturalism has NOTHING to do with science and does not logically derive from it or have any real coaction to it. But people opposed to religion use science as a way of slipping Metaphysical Naturalism into the discussion by sleight of hand. You may have a discussion on evolution, and think you are talking only science, but if the person starts saying things like 'Evolution makes God unnecessary' or 'Evolution shows us that the universe is not made for life' these are not scientific statements but philosophical statements drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism, not science.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this thread is ,where it is leading to, or implies. People misuse religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?

Science uses and depends on the veracity of methodological Naturalism, i.e. that everything influencing/determining the behavior of an object is natural and repeatable.

Anything that is an unnatural event, like a miracle or witchcraft, etc, or natural events that are not repeatable are not within the scope of science to address. It cannot prove or disprove such things. So the miraculous is outside the scope of sciences reach to ever prove or disprove.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a philosophical point of view that says there is NOTHING outside of the natural and nothing that gives us actual knowledge other than science. This is totally wrong as there are many fields of knowledge outside of science. But more specifically, this Metaphysical Naturalism is used to destroy and attack faith. Some use science to imply that the debate between naturalism and religion has somehow been settled with scientism the declared winner.

Nothing could be further from the Truth; Christianity is experiencing an explosion of growth in the Third World. And it is largely because the evidence today is so strong in support of a belief in God. Metaphysical Naturalists reject any such evidence out of hand as they assume that there cannot be any God that lives outside of our universe.

Christianity, and probably Islam as well, is experiancing an explosian of growth in the third world. The cynic in me would respond, that is where most of the really ignorant people are.

As far as evidence for a Diety, anyone's Diety, I just do not see such. Could be a problem with my perception, however, no one has shown anything I would consider as evidence for a Diety.

 

[orogenicman]

I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts, 2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.

You are missing the point. Science is not a threat to metaphysical Naturalism. It is actually the other way around; Meta Naturalism is a threat to the public's acceptance of science, as most prefer to keep their faith and Meta Naturalism creates an artificial antagonism between religion and science.

Then how do you explain the fact that most Christians accept evolution, accept plate tectonics, accept the scientifically established ancient age for the Earth, for the universe, and accept the big bang?

Metaphysical Naturalism has NOTHING to do with science and does not logically derive from it or have any real coaction to it. But people opposed to religion use science as a way of slipping Metaphysical Naturalism into the discussion by sleight of hand. You may have a discussion on evolution, and think you are talking only science, but if the person starts saying things like 'Evolution makes God unnecessary' or 'Evolution shows us that the universe is not made for life' these are not scientific statements but philosophical statements drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism, not science.

They would not be scientific statements if there were no valid evidence to support them. But there is plenty of scientific evidence to support those conclusions. The fact that the vast bulk of the universe is completely uninhabitable is evidence against the notion that the universe is made for us.

In addition:

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, I am an idiot. I don't understand what the gist of this thread is ,where it is leading to, or implies. People misuse religion, science or anything else. But facts are facts. So?

Science uses and depends on the veracity of methodological Naturalism, i.e. that everything influencing/determining the behavior of an object is natural and repeatable.

Anything that is an unnatural event, like a miracle or witchcraft, etc, or natural events that are not repeatable are not within the scope of science to address. It cannot prove or disprove such things. So the miraculous is outside the scope of sciences reach to ever prove or disprove.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a philosophical point of view that says there is NOTHING outside of the natural and nothing that gives us actual knowledge other than science. This is totally wrong as there are many fields of knowledge outside of science. But more specifically, this Metaphysical Naturalism is used to destroy and attack faith. Some use science to imply that the debate between naturalism and religion has somehow been settled with scientism the declared winner.

Nothing could be further from the Truth; Christianity is experiencing an explosion of growth in the Third World. And it is largely because the evidence today is so strong in support of a belief in God. Metaphysical Naturalists reject any such evidence out of hand as they assume that there cannot be any God that lives outside of our universe.

Christianity, and probably Islam as well, is experiancing an explosian of growth in the third world. The cynic in me would respond, that is where most of the really ignorant people are.

Ignorant of what? The latest episodes of Walking Dead?

The Third World is not as full of ignoramuses as you might think. Their governments go to great pains to make sure that as many can get an education as is profitable for the party ruling the country. But some are still despotisms that see none but relatives of the ruling clique getting much education at all, but those are very rare these days.

Actually, I think the education levels of US citizens are exaggerated. We don't teach kids to think so much any more as teach them to pass standardized tests, which is an entirely different sort of education; rote memorization and shallow grasp.

The Third wirld is the future of humanity, not the West, not any more.

As far as evidence for a Diety, anyone's Diety, I just do not see such. Could be a problem with my perception, however, no one has shown anything I would consider as evidence for a Diety.

What definition of 'Deity' do you use pertaining to this search?

Knowing what you are looking for is 80% of actually finding it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think you are creating a straw man here. Metaphysics goes with science like oil and water. Religion is faith based, science is based on earthy facts, 2 +2=4 , logic gates/circuits. Science may have it's flaws, but it isn't any threat to Metaphysics or religion by a long stretch.

You are missing the point. Science is not a threat to metaphysical Naturalism. It is actually the other way around; Meta Naturalism is a threat to the public's acceptance of science, as most prefer to keep their faith and Meta Naturalism creates an artificial antagonism between religion and science.

Then how do you explain the fact that most Christians accept evolution, accept plate tectonics, accept the scientifically established ancient age for the Earth, for the universe, and accept the big bang?

Because it is true, and the damage being caused by Metaphysical Naturalism is growing but was mostly limited to conservative Protestant sects. Now it is poisoning the whole generation of Westerners, as mass media via Pop Culture is making the herd think that science and religion are not only incompatible but hostile to each other.

Metaphysical Naturalism has NOTHING to do with science and does not logically derive from it or have any real coaction to it. But people opposed to religion use science as a way of slipping Metaphysical Naturalism into the discussion by sleight of hand. You may have a discussion on evolution, and think you are talking only science, but if the person starts saying things like 'Evolution makes God unnecessary' or 'Evolution shows us that the universe is not made for life' these are not scientific statements but philosophical statements drawn from Metaphysical Naturalism, not science.

They would not be scientific statements if there were no valid evidence to support them.

Yes, true, and there is no scientific evidence that proves or can a purely philosophical contention.

But there is plenty of scientific evidence to support those conclusions.

No, there is not.

The fact that the vast bulk of the universe is completely uninhabitable is evidence against the notion that the universe is not made for us.

Again, that is like saying that since most of an airplane is not capable of seating passengers that therefore the airplane is not made for passengers which is absurd.

There is nothing about ratios of primary function to support function that disproves an object cannot have been designed for the primary function. In fact the support functions almost are always bigger, more numerous and costly than the primary functionality itself in ANYTHING DESIGNED.

In addition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY

Another libtard posing as an authority on philosophical issues when he is doing nothing more than giving his own weak shallow opinion. People like him do enormous damage to the reputation of scientists and the scientific community.

As to his point of damage to the brain showing that the brain controls the mind, that is like saying that removing a cars steering wheel and making the car unsteerable proves that the car steering wheel steers the car.

The car has instrumentation that allows the driver to control the car, by interfacing between driver and car. Damaging that instrumentation does not prove that the instrumentation controls the car. Similarly, the human mind controls the brain, and the brain is the interface between the mind and body. Damaging the brain does not prove that the brain controls the body instead of the mind.

The ass hat speaking in the video is without a fucking clue, and totally absurd. He has a philosophical conclusion he wants to arrive at and so he pulls anything out of his ass he can to support it when it is plainly nothing about science at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too many Christians are arguing for a metaphysical naturalism that accepts as "facts" of events that are not verifiable objectively and positively.

Thus such a person would argue the Bible by itself or a personal testimony of a revelation is factually acceptable.

As any true believing Christian would say, "I don't need a 'whomever' to overturn the laws of logic in order to believe in Christ. First, faith, then hope, finally charity."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Too many Christians are arguing for a metaphysical naturalism that accepts as "facts" of events that are not verifiable objectively and positively.

No, no Christians are arguing for Metaphysical Naturalism, stupid shit, as the two are mutually exclusive.

Thus such a person would argue the Bible by itself or a personal testimony of a revelation is factually acceptable.

No such person exists except in your drug damaged mind.

As any true believing Christian would say, "I don't need a 'whomever' to overturn the laws of logic in order to believe in Christ. First, faith, then hope, finally charity."

lol, yeah, only Christians that think their faith cant be proven are true Christians, roflmao.

Starkey, why don't you go sober up then try again?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dipshit, when you claimed:

I posted research refuting that claim, and your response was, predictably, more unsupportable bullshite. Hence your epic fail!

So? It's not abiogenesis at all, not even close. It's the stuff of biochemical engineering, directed by an intelligent designer. I cover that in my article, by the way.

I never said it was abiogenesis. My point was that self-replicating molecules can be synthesized. And if stupid ole man can do it, then nature can do it. No gods required.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Let's get real. Man does not synthesize self-replicating molecules from scratch. He can't. He begins with the pertinent precursors harvested from extant living cells. Out of those he synthesizes the former. If natural intelligence can't create the precursors, let alone direct them without a blueprint (not designed by man, but extrapolated by man) and a pristine environment not found in nature, how do you figure mindless nature can?

Nature is not doing this replication that you talk about; intelligence is doing it. The only thing natural about it is that which occurs after intelligence front-loads the process with extant biotic material and with a preordained goal in mind. Chance variation and happy coincidence is nowhere to be found in Operation Replicate.

*crickets chirping*

Mere chemistry does not produce life; only complex structures produce life.

. . . The self-ordering chemical properties of nature are monomeric dead ends. Nature can form some amino acids and nucleobases; it can form some biotic phosphates as well as some abiotic sugars and fatty acids in calcified forms. Where does it ever form proteins or nucleosides (let alone nucleotides) outside living cells? And beyond living cells and the in vitro experiments conducted under laboratory conditions, where does nature ever polymerize and replicate complex compounds?

. . . A nucleoside is formed when a ribose sugar is added to a nitrogenous base (nucleobase). While the purine nucleosides adenosine and guanosine can be synthesized by adding a ribose, the reaction will not occur in water. But, of course, this reaction is performed in laboratories by biochemists using ribose sugars derived from extant organisms. In the prebiotic world, the reaction would not have occurred in dry environments either. But even if ribose had been available to the primordial soup, the phosphate in biological systems is an ester of phosphoric acid, not a salt. It could have only maintained its composition in deep waters, where ribose can't go, beyond the reach of ultraviolet light. The pyrimidine nucleosides uridine, cytidine and thymidine require both ribose and phosphate to form. Ribose sugars will not bond to the pyrimidine bases without phosphate. Hence, the maturation of the pyrimidines proceeds from nucleobase to nucleotide in one step.

But even if nature could manage the synthesis of nucleotides, their mixtures would invariably be racemic. Worthless. They'd have to be purified, and after that, concentrated and activated before the polymerization phase could begin. And a template? (Whose got the friggin' template?) Well, polymerization would just have to start without one. Besides, the forces of molecular chemistry would supposedly sort things out: even if pyrimidines won't polymerize without a template and even if the significance of organic information doesn't reside in the nucleobase "letters" or even in the condon "words", but in their sequence. All of these things and more would have to occur—from molecule to compound, from aggregation to polymerization, from replication to recombination, from transmutation to realization—in a contaminate-invested environment incessantly pushing the process in the wrong direction. —M.D. Rawlings

Do you see where the indispensable, pre-biotic precursors are in the above? Hint: they're nowhere in sight before the existence of a living cell. Do you see where replication is on the list in the above on the road to a living cell? Nature never gets to that point by itself, not even close.

They worked with preexistent paradigms and tools and materials suspended in midair, as it were, relative to origins. They can pound on the roof all they want, that's not going to resolve the clearly insurmountable problems of prebiotic logistics and polymerization for those notions that are predicated on the processes of accumulative chemistry. Whether they be strictly natural occurrences or not, the only reasonable explanation for the origins of the building's foundation and walls entails some kind of instantaneously synchronous event or another, at some point in time or another, as several abiogenists themselves have acknowledged in exasperation. So in spite of the hype—the political speak of research funding—none of this is new in the sense that it would lead to anything more than recycled adumbrations about the events that produced the extant biochemistry on which these researcher's endeavors are unequivocally based.

Are they going to back peddle to the very same monomeric dead ends that have already been thoroughly illustrated by others? —M.D. Rawlings

Sorry, orogenicman, but you really don't have a handle on the matter at all.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.


Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492

But they haven't, under controlled laboratory conditions, managed to get self generating RNA or DNA in any kind of string.

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

And again, no they have not.

Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.

I just think it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.

But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let me guess. You didn't read the paper, did you?

I read the article and I quoted directly from it. All the adaptations were FORCED by the experimenters.

lol

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

They have not generated DNA from scratch, but an artificial XNA instead.

And, they don't generate the XNA from nothing, they generate it with existing DNA.

All of XNA'S actions are "completely controlled by experimentalists—it's 100 percent unnatural," study co-author Chaput noted.

(ahem) But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said.

Not unguided evolution, but guided evolution.

It is hilarious that I quote directly from the article and you say I didn't even read it.

It is apparent that you merely skimmed it off a Google search and copied the link without having read it yourself.

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

They can ask, but the answer they're going to get every time is intelligent design.

 

[orogenicman]

(ahem) "But such control means that scientists can "use [XNA] to ask very basic questions in biology," such as about the origins of life, Chaput said."

Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.

You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.


Here is the exchange.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492

Actually, they have.

Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own

And again, no they have not.

Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.

I just think it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.

But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.

What research demonstrates that life cannot arise from natural processes and mechanisms? Life itself is a natural process. So why couldn't it arise by natural processes?