Remember, this is the best they've got. Really. Trust me on this.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Jonathan Wells proves that life must have been created by gods
This YouTube video is described as "The most ignorant 82 seconds you'll ever see." I don't know about that. I been around IDiots for quite a long time. It may not be the "most ignorant" but it's surely in the top ten.
Remember, this is the best they've got. Really. Trust me on this.
Remember, this is the best they've got. Really. Trust me on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
46 comments :
Yes, the origin of life is an unsolved problem. But does he REALLY not know anything about micelles, molecular self-organisation, adsorption on surfaces, and minerals that laminate? And he's got a Berkeley bio PhD, albeit collected at Sung Myung Moon's sayso: http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm
Larry, your goose is cooked-- all you damn sexualists. By "sexualists" I mean, of course, those who believe that babies are produced by the natural, mechanical process of sex, rather than being brought supernaturally by the magic stork.
But you "sexualists" say babies are not brought by the magic stork?
Oh yeah? Consider this: if you put a baby in a lovely, fluffy crib, and then stab it until all its insides spill out, the parts do not spontaneously re-assemble. Moreover, no scientist on Earth can put the baby back together again. Since no scientist can put the parts back together, that proves that no natural process could ever explain how babies are formed. So much for your atheistic "sex" hypothesis!
Only possible alternative: babies are brought by magic storks in a puff of smoke and sparkly glitter. "Sex" is only a theory, and not at all what the Bible says.
Checkmate, materialists.
So apparently scientists are now claiming that if you go back far enough, eggs are made by - get this - CHICKENS. Have you heard of anything so stupid? OK, scientists, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CHICKEN COOKING SCRAMBLED EGGS? No. You haven't. And if scrambled eggs are really made from eggs, then let's see a scientist take some and turn it back into an egg.
SEE?!!
Atheist scientists are now claiming that paint on the wall comes from a liquid in a jar. Have you ever seen a scientist peel paint off a wall, and turn it into a liquid and put it in a jar? No? Therefore, paint was put there by a genocidal Middle Easter war deity. No other explanation possible.
Guess the author:
"Imagine that on the early Earth, a complete system of catalytic and information- bearing molecules happened by chance to come together in a tide pool that was sufficiently concentrated to produce the equivalent of the contents of our flask. We could model this event in the laboratory by gently disrupting a live bacterial culture, subjecting it to a sterilizing filtration step, and adding the mixture to the flask of nutrient broth. No living cells are present, but entire bacterial genomes are available, together with ribosomes, membranous vesicles, ATP and other energy-containing substrates, and thousands of functional enzymes. Once again, would a simple living system arise under these conditions? Although Kauffman might be optimistic about the possibilities, most experimentalists would guess that little would happen other than slow, degradative reactions of hydrolysis, even though virtually the entire complement of molecules associated with the living state is present. The dispersion has lost the extreme level of order characteristic of cytoplasm in contemporary living cells. Equally important is that the ATP would be hydrolyzed in seconds, so that the system still lacks a continuous source of free energy to drive the metabolism and polymerization reactions associated with life."
Same thought experiment (i.e., point) as Wells; entirely different philosophical outlook on the origin of life.
Really? What was Wells' point. I thought it was that a naturalistic origin of life was impossible. Was that this author's point, which he unaccountably neglected to state explicitly?
Oh, I see that the author's point is quite different from Wells', as he states in the very next paragraph: "The high degree of molecular order and energy metabolism characteristic of life could not spring full-blown into a primitive planetary environment. In- stead, a variety of chemical and physical processes could lead to relatively simple molecular assemblies that utilize available energy sources and were plausibly on the evolutionary pathway to the first living cells. Part of the argument here is that certain components of the prebiotic mixture of organic molecules could form microscopic compartments bounded by membrane- like structures and that the compartments could capture en- ergy and make it available for encapsulated systems of repli- cating macromolecules. If so, it follows that living systems did not necessarily precede membrane encapsulation but would have had access to cellular microenvironments from the begin- ning of life on Earth." Or is that what Wells meant?
No, Paul Nelson, the quote miner of six, yes 6 scientists who were all infuriated at how you quoted them out of context when informed of how you "paraphrased" them-- no sir, even if the "thought experiment" is the same, the crucial differences expose Wells as a charlatan:
1. God of the Gaps fallacy. Jonathan Wells, you, and other Discovery Institute hoaxers are invoking god of the gaps logic. You have no evidence that any non-human intelligent designer has ever mutated a single nucleotide in any genome of any species, ever. Without such evidence, it's god of the gaps all the way down.
2. Wells misrepresents OOL models, in particular RNA world. No OOL researcher today asserts that a complex living cell was formed by spontaneous assembly of its parts. Jonathan Wells, who lied through his teeth claiming that peppered moths never resting on tree trunks and that scientists faked all the photographs, and who stupidly claimed in 2004 that centrioles were tiny turbines and this claim could cure cancer, but which was experimentally disproven by electron microscopy and other methods by 2007-- and yet Wells' centriole turbine claim, by then discredited, was repeated by Stephen Meyer in "Signature in the Cell" in 2009 as a key prediction of ID-- Reverend Jonathan Wells is telling his church audience (not a scientific audience, he'd never go near them) that OOL scientists believe molecules spontaneously assemble to form modern living cells, which in fact no OOL scientists believe.
That's dishonest or ignorant. Which, Paul Nelson, would you choose?
Paul Nelson, young earth creationist, nobody cares what you think about anything. Srsly, dude, get another hobby.
I ate a banana, all its contents went to my stomach, but I don't get back the banana as a whole out from my system. Oh crap, bananas must have been assembled by an invisible being. ID -The Future.
What I think, Frank, is that you spend far too much time on ID and anti-ID websites. Not good for your blood pressure.
Deamer's point, John, is that cellular compartmentalization -- not the accumulation of biomolecules -- is a sine qua non of the living state (omnis cellula ex cellula). Wells would agree, of course, despite their differences in philosophical outlook.
Flawless logic!
No cells were harmed in the making of this movie
It reminds me that the coming Monday, 7 April, is Nelson Day (not to be confused with Trafalgar Day).
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2012/02/293-paul-nelson.html
Full ten years -- and counting!
Last time I grounded a rock to dust, it didn't just spontaneously reassemble. Nevertheless rocks do naturally form.
QED.
Now which ID websites would I comment on, Dr. Nelson? ENV, which permits no comments? Or UD, where I'm banned? The @DiscoveryCSC twitter feed, which deletes all my tweets? Perhaps the various ID Facebook pages which also banned me?
As for your comment about my blood pressure-- for once an IDer makes an accurate biological assessment!
Bill, calm down a bit. Nelson may be a YEC but he's one of the few (perhaps the only) IDer we've gotten to admit when he's made a mistake. A few years back Nelson misrepresented an argument by theistic evolutionist Keith Miller, regarding the definition of methodological naturalism-- Nelson had misrepresented Miller's definition to the point of making it sound really stupid-- but Dr. Nelson at long length apologized, sort of, which is more than we've gotten from the other IDers. So for that reason he's earned some respect. Which I don't say about the other DI fellows.
Dr. Nelson, I hope you realize that what makes the Discovery Institute and IDers in general insufferable to us is that they make countless errors-- and let's admit that everybody, including myself, makes big blunders sometimes-- but very few of the IDers ever admit to their factual falsehoods, no matter how elementary. We correct them, publicly, then they get on a plane and fly to a new city, new church basement where they give the exact same PowerPoint presentation with the exact same falsehoods that we already corrected.
You have surely seen the string of recent posts on Larry's blog where he argues with Sal Cordova and Vincent Torley on the topic of DNA evidence for common descent of humans and chimps, and no one at the Uncommon Descent website is capable of understanding neutral evolution or even the scientific method, no matter how much we dumb it down, even to the point of dumbing it down to the simplest multiplication problem we can conceive.
If you were us, Dr. Nelson, how would you
1. Attempt to correct the long string of elementary factual falsehoods coming out of IDers, such as the recent posts on DNA evidence for common descent of humans and chimps have exposed, and
2. Make it clear to non-scientist audiences that such long strings of inaccuracies are way below the standard of the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
If only he had waved around a jar of peanut butter I would have been convinced.
If that was Wells' point, he didn't make it. Are you sure he wasn't just trying to claim that natural processes couldn't result in life? As for "differences in philosophical outlook" did you refer to the fact that one of them is strongly committed to creationism while the other is a real scientist?
Reminded me of this interesting TED talk on 'protocells':
http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life
Well, an amusing way to 'unscramble and egg' is to feed them to a chicken. Wait a couple days, and it will produce intact eggs.
Boys!
You forgot about one very important thing: evidence... I'm getting very impatient with all of you here pretending to be scientists....I have brought up this issue several times and all we get is personal attacks.. Is at least one of you fakers a scientist who can provide some scientific evidence here...? Johnny Harsh admitted this not his shit...but he still pretends to be an expert....
Quest, you keep bringing it up. But that is irrelevant wrt the theory of evolution. Don't you know that? Why not put some meat on the only arument you need: That differential reproductive success is not the key to evolution and evolution is impossible. Ergo, goddidit.
I recommend you learn to understand the theory of evolution before you go for the origins of life. Fact is: nobody knows, do you know with certainty that natural causes can be ruled out. Please tell how you know.
It says a lot about you when you stoop down to silly arguments like "pretending to be scientists." Who are you to say that? For the record: I am not a scientist. I won't comment on how I rate you wrt me.
There we go, a violation of the supposedly inviolate second law of thermodynamics...do arrogant scientists know anything?
2. Make it clear to non-scientist audiences that such long strings of inaccuracies are way below the standard of the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Don't expect much help with that problem from the ID community. This is a culture war, not a science war. And for ID, any hope of winning the culture war depends upon a scientifically illiterate and religion-enthralled general population.
Paul Nelson Day! Has it been 10 years? What has PN been doing for a decade?
But, I'm being to harsh and critical with old Paulie. Actually, he's done us a big favor in the past 10 years working quietly and steadily at the Disco Tute. They've gone from a pseudo-scientific scam to a full-blown openly creationist scam! Well done, Paul! That is an achievement.
No need to really try to engage Quest with serious responses. He's sort of like the pause-clown, you engage him to laugh at him making fart noises.
We should also be aware that ole Jonathan, in addition to being an evolution denier, is also an HIV/AIDS denier and a global warming denier. He is also a fraud as he was awarded his PhD at UC Berkeley on false pretenses.
I had not heard about any false pretenses. Tell me more.
Paul Nelson is YEC, so the obvious scientific concussions have to be or they must be... wrong.... Yeah... I like PN because of how he explains s..t. He is good at it... If he really is a YEC.....he should be given a chance to explain his stand... His is not a stupid guy.... but he must have some reason to believe what he claims to believe...
I want the truth not bullshit from both sides.... This is me....
Too bad, too bad..... Dionogenes....
I'm going to have to step in again and explain what the reality is...
You see guys....
Larry wrote that:
"This YouTube video is described as "The most ignorant 82 seconds you'll ever see." I don't know about that. I been around IDiots for quite a long time. It may not be the "most ignorant" but it's surely in the top ten.
Remember, this is the best they've got. Really. Trust me on this."
As you can clearly see, prof. Moran is asking you to trust him on this one... Why..? Why is prof Moran asking to trust him and not the ID's... Why is he pretty much begging...?
If you don't trust me just analyse his post... again, and again, and again... Now try to find any, any evidence whatsoever against Wells' claims... Where is it...? Larry is asking to trust him based on what... ??? What is his logic or trail of thinking...? How did he infer that ID's claims are invalid....? How...? Can anyone see Larry's links to scientific literature based on scientific experiments that refute Wells' claims...?
Unfortunately... no... Larry doesn't even bother to propose his theory of metabolism first, because he very well knows that it is bullocks or bullshit in the NA version... and I will be all over it...
What Larry is asking for from you is sympathy... for his beliefs that are not scientific that he chose to believe in and the army of his followers I don't have to mention because they embarrassed themselves enough above...
BTW: If anyone wants to have a discussion with me on this subject... let him present the evidence first.... I'm going on vacation and I don't expect any evidence when I get back....
Paul Nelson; What do you think...?
I'm sure you can add something to the above... :)
"Paul Nelson is YEC, so the obvious scientific concussions"
Yes, that is an accurate description of the Discovery Institute's output.
Paul Nelson, you are a christian YEC, correct? If so, you believe and assert that the so-called 'God' you believe in and worship created the entire universe in 6 days, and did so about 6,000 or so years ago. You also must believe that 'God's word' in the bible is infallible, which of course means that you believe everything in the bible to be accurate and true. So, tell me about the scientific evidence that you or anyone else can provide that shows the Universe and Earth are not billions of years old, that a serpent can talk, that the biblical characters Adam and Eve ever existed, that a man can live inside a fish or whale for days and come out alive, that dead so-called saints can and did get out of their graves and walk around, that the biblical character 'Jesus' ever existed and did all of the things attributed to him in the bible, that 'Jesus' was/is the son of your so-called 'God', that anyone or anything has ever performed miracles, that the biblical character 'Noah' ever existed, that the biblical flood occurred and that all of it was as described in the bible, that angels and demons have ever existed, that 'sin' was caused by the biblical characters Adam and Eve eating 'forbidden' fruit, that the so-called Garden of Eden ever existed, that heaven and hell exist, that praying to your so-called 'God' actually works, that your so-called 'God' is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and perfect, that the bible (and which version?) is the word of your so-called 'God', that goats and sheep ever did have or ever could have striped/spotted offspring because they looked/look at striped sticks while mating, that Satan exists, that the biblical character Moses ever existed and did all of the things attributed to him in the bible, that a woman can be and was turned into a pillar of salt, that a woman can be and was made from a man's rib, that your religion is right and all others are wrong, and that your version of your religion is right and all others are wrong.
There's something that you and other science and reality denying religious people obviously won't accept. Even IF the Universe, Earth, and life were created by some sort of being, there is absolutely NO scientific evidence that supports your so-called 'God' as that being. In fact, it's impossible for your so-called 'God' to be that being since your religion is based on impossible, contradictory, ridiculous fairy tales.
If it were discovered and thoroughly verified that a being pr beings other than your chosen, so-called 'God' created the Universe, the Earth, and life, would you accept it and discard your religious beliefs?
If or when it's discovered and thoroughly verified that no being was/is responsible for the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and life, would you accept it and discard your religious beliefs?
Will you be honest and admit that no amount of evidence would convince you to discard your religious beliefs?
Oops, "being pr beings" should be being or beings.
Re Diogenes
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he was accepted into the PhD program at UC Berkeley under false pretenses. He has admitted that his purpose in entering that program was to acquire the credentials to "bring down Darwinism".
http://goo.gl/xSkszv
@Quest:
"How did he infer that ID's claims are invalid....?"
I have considered a few ways of demonstrating the absurdity of Well's claim: That the inability of a complex organism to spontaneously reassemble itself after death proves that abiogenesis is impossible and thus by inference that evolution is also false and thus all life was instantaneously created by God.
The shortest demonstration I can think of is to use one Kant's standard methods and consider how the argument could be framed if the opposite were true; if Larry could spontaneously reassemble himself after being cut in two by a defender of the faith. In that case Christians could argue that God had created beings that had an ability (spontaneous regeneration) that could not have arisen by natural processes.
Using Well's like arguments, all *possible* facts become evidence for ID and against the gradual formation of life from simpler replicating structures.
I'd love to see how the ID/Creationist community envisage 'their' process for creating what they think is 'minimum-spec life' (though I doubt any even makes the attempt). You have a bunch of molecules that, if placed in a particular configuration 'by intelligence', would become alive. So grab one and try and move it. You need to move them all, and you have to be really quick about it. They are hellish resistant, and many explode on contact with more electronegative atoms. Try and 'build a cell' without them following their thermodynamic gradients and reacting as they pass close to billions of other molecules on their way to their desired place. Like the old gag about the bumpkin asked for directions, "I wouldn't start from here".
How would that be false pretenses? Nobody ever asked me why I wanted to get a graduate degree, and I suppose nobody ever asked Wells either.
Re Harshman
It is generally assumed that someone entering a graduate program in any scientific field is not doing so for the sole purpose of obtaining credentials to attack the basis of knowledge in the subject. By doing so, Wells denied a slot in that graduate program for someone who was legitimately interesting in learning something, which Wells clearly was not.
I don't believe that's true. That isn't a general assumption because nobody ever considers that it might be happening. I agree that Wells' slot could have been better used by someone else. But that didn't involve false pretenses. Again, nobody ever asks why you want the degree.
Bravo!!! You guys have not disappointed me.... again.... lol...Thank you!!!
I have won the bet.. as usual... What a crowd!!!! Nobody even bothered to try to connect the dots of the obvious... Hmmm.... Even Johnny Harsh, who was so mouthy with PaulN, but with me...???. NickM and Dionogenes probably hate me because they believe that I try to destroy their god-science.... lol...
No boys.... If you think that, you are wrong.... I make a pretty good living of science... So...??? The only difference is that I sleep really well because I don't have to worry about someone smarter than me telling me that my science is based on faith... That's the difference.... which some of you, by now should understand....lol
@Quest:
"How did he infer that ID's claims are invalid....?"
"I have considered a few ways of demonstrating the absurdity of Well's claim:"
Really...? You must've done this deep s..t thinking while ridding your bike in your toooo tight helmet or you come from an area in Canada where smoking of ...say oregano is accepted... Because I can't find any other way to even try to explain your ...how should put incomprehensible thinking....I have tried but I can't... I have learned one thing on this blog; If you have no evidence, you may as well become a creationist or an abiogenesis like moron Trolley or Dino-genes.... You 2 make a perfect couple... I don't trust.... I will tell you why tomorrow...
Rolf, showing evolution is possible is an extremely low bar. No wonder there are mountains and mountains of evidence for this position.
The key to evolution is the rate of reproductive success. And that rate is designed into each organism. That is why each organism has a different rate of reproductive success; to align with its relationship to its niche, position in the food chain.
Roaches reproduce in the thousands to keep hundreds, snakes produce hundreds to keep several, rabbits produce several to keep a couple.
Design make a whole lot more sense than 'genetic variation is random with respect to need' since we know that is not true.
If it is so stupid, then what is your explanation. Also, what is the starting observation required by the scientific method for non-life to life naturalistically? Why do we take the highly sophisticated DNA life and then immediately dismiss this as the original life? Because it would be impossible for it to have happened without Intelligent Design. So laugh if you want, but the Scientific method seems to favor our observation. You have invented evidence - the simple life that self-assembled - and it is nothing but a narrative. Even though we have rock markings of a complete bacterial eco-system 3.5 billion years ago, there are no markings of a simpler form of life, there is nothing extant that is left over from this simple form of life, there are no transitional forms of the simple protobiont life, and no self-replicators can be created in the lab to make the whole narrative plausible. And now a strong signal of "Intelligence:" has been found by SETI researchers in our genetic code -- irreducible to natural origin -- and this is peer reviewed research. See The WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code. So I think his assessment is hardly ignorant, but is highly relevant.
Diogenes, I hope you end up seeing this but I don't know how the notification system works here, and I doubt you'll be regularly checking this ~2 year old thread!
You mentioned Wells' hypothesis about the centrioles acting as turbines, and how it had been experimentally debunked in 2007 - would you mind pointing me in the direction of that study, or otherwise explaining to me how it's been falsified?
Thanks.
Post a Comment