the_classicist said:
::: What I have said is that life (as in a cell, the simplest unit of life) cannot come about by chance
:: I.e., a cell cannot come about by chance. Now, if you actually meant to say that a cell cannot come about through a sequence of chance steps, that would be another kettle of fish. But I'm not a mind reader.
: By simply saying that life cannot come to be by chance means that life cannot come into being by any means of chance including "one fell swoop" or "a sequence of chance steps." It's rather simple.
But you denied saying that, ya twit! You said:
::: Wait a minute, I never said cells evolved in "one fell swoop by chance."
Which is it? Remember that I, not being drunk or high, replied:
:: First, no one is claiming that cells evolved in one fell swoop by chance. Rather, origins scientists today generally propose that the earliest life was far simpler, probably based on unknown but simple protein sequences.
:: Upon which you've failed actually to comment.
:: I know plenty about ID, having read many books pro and con, and having followed it since the 1991 publication by Phillip Johnson of Darwin on Trial, which kicked the whole thing off. You've already clearly stated that all you've "heard about ID is that life is irreducibly complex and it couldn't have come about by chance." Sounds to me like you haven't done any homework, but have only been chugging along on hearsay. If your statement was, well (What's the right word? Hypobole as opposed to hyperbole? Well, you get the idea.), highly understated, then you need to learn to communicate clearly.
: Well, I don't spend much time on it at all
That's pretty obvious, as you've already admitted and as I've pointed out. Then how is it that you feel qualified to comment on something you know almost nothing about?
Oh, wait. You've answered it below. You don't like it that ignoramuses are beaten down by facts. So you're a crusader for the downtrodden.
: as in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things to waste my time on.
I agree. Such as drinking good Canadian beer whenever possible. I tend to drink fine local microbrews, though, which are at least as good as the finest Canadian brews. And being local, they're easy to obtain in large quantities of when necessary, such as when my apostate Norwegian friends visit.
: In all reality, I could indeed study for hours and hours over popularized books like Dawkins.
Dawkins is usually entertaining and instructive, but I get most of my information from more technical sources. I've offered to give you a list, but you've declined by your silence. Why?
: But then, I would never really *know* anything indepth, although I may be able to make it appear that way.
I'm glad you reject Last-Tuesdayism.
: I take exception to the naturalists smug, smegheaded attitude.
Ooh, I like that. "Smegheaded". A double entendre.
But you really ought to look closely at attitudes that are similar, but far more exaggerated, in the Fundamentalist Christians you seem to like to defend.
: In all seriousness, if you all had a lot more tact and indifference, I might actually agree with you.
Really! So then, your objectiveness is linearly determined by our subjectiveness! I never!
: You see, when you get someone like me who's pissed off all the time
I can suggest a shrink, if you like.
: and sees extremely rude and biased attitudes beating down on people who can't defend themselves,
So you admit that creationists can't defend themselves. The obvious next question is: do you think this is because they're stupid, or because their beliefs are inherently indefensible?
: that makes me even more pissed.
Why? Note that I'm playing Eliza here.
: When I see people who are so blinded by their dogmatic acceptance of one way of looking at things as absolute truth, I feel the need to step in.
I see. I also see that you seem to have been partaking copiously of that fine Candadian beer I'd like to get my hands on. You ought to come to Fort Collins sometime and let me introduce you to some fine Colorado beer. Then we can get drunk together and argue in person. Much better that way!
: I know that for tetra, at least, biology has become his ground in reality by which he explains life.
Explaining life is a bit too heavy for me. I tend to just go with the flow these days.
: This leads him to dogmatically accept Darwinism and attack and ridicule those who don't accept his dogmatic view of the truth.
There's a lot to be said for that, when all creationist ideas boil down to blind faith.
::: Second, actually, I'm trying to argue from agnosticism.
:: Knock me over with a feather!
: It would have to be a rather large feather (perhaps one from a goose, as they're large and relatively sturdy), but, if got drunk enough, then fine.
How about an ostrich feather? They raise them around here, so I've heard, for good meat. Maybe we should get together and drink some good beer and whack each other with goose or ostrich feathers. Take your pick.
:: Um, no. Science never proves anything, and all scientists worth their salt admit this. Science only comes up with explanations that have varying degrees of probability, ranging from nearly zero to nearly certain. Scientists who argue against the precepts of ID mainly argue that its claims are simply not science, or that specific arguments made by ID claimants are wrong for very specific reasons. Of course, if you'd do your homework rather than relying on hearsay, you'd know this.
: We may have trouble with semantics, but science has proven lots of stuff.
Only within the sort of probabalistic bounds that I mentioned. Can you prove that the universe wasn't created, all our memories in place, last Tuesday? What is proof, anyway?
: An hypothesis comes forward, and it gets proven (providing that it can be).
Nope. Hypotheses only get confirmed to such a degree, paraphrasing Stephen Jay Gould, that only a twit could disagree.
: Of course, this is not expandable readily to the larger ideas, but, yes, science has proven things in the past, like if you mix an acid and a base, you'll get salt and water. You may say this is fact, but someone had to prove (demonstrate) it at one time.
This is a very good example of what I'm saying, and of why you truly don't understand science. Sure, every time scientists and everyone else has mixed an acid and a base they've gotten some sort of salt and water. Does that mean that in the future, in every time, place and circumstance, the same results will occur? Of course not. This is the way that science works: reasonable generalizations lead to reasonable conclusions, always with the sure knowledge that sometime, someplace, there might be an exception.
:: Better men than you or me have tried, and failed.
: You're completely right. I am a fool. I'm such an idiot that I am not worthy of life. And I'm not even being sarcastic.
No, you're just drunk. And a depressed drunk at that. I'm glad that when I get drunk, I'm a happy one and positive about everything. Except, perhaps, my ex.
::: Science today says that we cannot create life or even reproduce the mechanisms that supposedly created life.
:; Correction: can't do it as of today. A century and change ago, "science said we couldn't fly because no one could do it." Your claim is demonstrably silly.
: That's what I said, unless you don't have a proper command of the English language (for all I know, it could be your second) for I said, "science today."
Clearly, being drunk, you don't know what you're talking about. And I forgive you, having been in the same place often enough. Saying that "science today says that we cannot do blah blah blah" is quite different from saying that "science says that we cannot today do blah blah blah." Perhaps tomorrow, when you sober up, you'll understand.
You know, I have to say that playing word games with an intelligent but drunk guy like you is a lot more fun than dealing with the ignoramuses on this thread.
AlanF
