The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So how may peer reviewed articles have you written on the topic that have been published in scientific journals?

None. I am not a researcher.

And what are your academic qualifications relative to his.
A couple of Harvard courses in basic genetics and the relevant biology. But my qualifications are irrelevant because I do not make claims based on 'authority' or my qualifications. Feel free to verify or disprove my claims by studying the relevant subjects for yourself or looking it up online. It really isn't that hard.

This is quite rich coming from the same person who claimed to be an ignoramus on the matter a short while ago.
I claimed no such thing. You may not have noticed, but the topic under discussion right now is not abiogenesis at all. Sonship utterly failed to come up with something on abiogenesis so he has switched the topic to one of cell biology and the evolution of genes - which is something I am at least partially knowledgeable about. Clearly more knowledgeable than the author of the book he quoted.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Why is my fairy tale of the origin of humanity "sarcasm" but your fairy tale isn't?

Certainly "Goddidit" and "ZaZaudidit" are equally valid theories?

This is a side issue. But in my "fairy tale" of the Bible there are thousands of real places mentioned and scores of people verified by historians as people who actually lived.

For example, aside from Jesus who is confirmed outside the Bible and by secular historians, many people surrounding His story are confirmed as to their historicity.

Could you mention one person or place in connection with your ZaZau lampoon ?

You know? Some place paralleled with Jerusalem, Assyria, Egypt or many of the hundreds of geographic places mentioned in the Bible.

Can your fairy take put forward anyone like history's Pontius Pilate, Herod, Aggripa, Gameliel, Tiberius Ceasar, James, or any number of other names mentioned in the New Testament confirmed to have lived by historians like Josephus ?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk to twhitehwad
So how may peer reviewed articles have you written on the topic that have been published in scientific journals?

If this old chestnut doesn't work for you, why not try saying something snotty about his chess rating?

Originally posted by sonship
Before you "go further" I would like to locate the legitimacy of what you have so far accused.

Well, I am waiting. Instead you went off on a tangent about Richard Dawkins.

So in which year do you plant to actually address my concern? 2051 perhaps?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I read the text leading up to and surrounding the bit you quoted.
Now are you going to just continue with your stupid claims that I didn't read enough, or are you going to address my points?

Maybe you're projecting.

I am re-reading the chapter/s trying to get a deeper understanding. And i am trying to locate your problems and see if they are legitimate. If I find one or more points that I agree are legitimate (according to my limited knowledge) I will tell the Forum so.

You are the one who challenged to "DISCUSS it "
So we're going to discuss it.
I don't promise perpetual back and forth.
And I reserve the right to suggest you need to read more of the text.

You have the same right.

So far you have totally ignore the points I have made and instead pretended over and over that I didn't read the necessary bits.

I am not pretending anything.

Whether I read the necessary bits is irrelevant if my point is valid.

A FRAUD challenges to DISCUSS and then looks for excuses not to.

I want to discuss the book. If you continue this line of paranoia you will appear to be bluffing me about discussing the possible errors in the book.

The absolute best way to debunk what you don't like in the discussion, I think, is to QUOTE it.

You apparently have access to a version that can be copy/pasted. Go ahead and copy paste the full two pages.

I DO NOT ... have ANYTHING to cut and paste. I am carefully as I can, re-writing the text. And I am indicating WHERE it can be verified by examining what online version there is.

I can highlight and underline a book easier than some computer file.
Do you have yet another excuse ?

me:
My first pass over this portion leads me to think that it should convince any reader that the models proposed are generous, lenient and making unrealistic favourable assumptions to evolutionary theory.

Incorrect. The models are absolute utter nonsense.

OK you did the EASY part. you RETORTED that they are nonsense.
Why won't you quote the nonsense so I can see it as nonsense?

I can't just take on your confident assertion and a wink and nod that it is nonsense.

And he makes the false assumption that I have mentioned multiple times already and that you have ignored:
He claims to know what proteins or DNA sequences are necessary for life.

So far no quotation yet. You could much more effectively convince me with your quotation.

So you are saying it is USELESS to take what limited knowledge we have and construct some statistical models with that in mind ? Incomplete knowledge of any area of biology renders useless any predictive modeling ?

I don't think you're doing the Science enterprise any favors if that is what you are implying. You seemed not to be insisting on infallibly accurate representations but as you wrote "a reasonable scenario".

Are you saying with statistical probability analysis no "reasonable scenario" is POSSIBLE?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well, I am waiting. Instead you went off on a tangent about Richard Dawkins.

So in which year do you plant to actually address my concern? 2051 perhaps?

You are acting like a FRAUD.

Would anyone else like to step into twhitehead's role and discuss the possible errors of the models proposed to do probability analysis concerning Evolutionary concepts in the book - The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder?

I want to be provided with the quotations of areas under serious question.
I am not just going to assume someone's viewpoint has to be taken and trusted on word.

Originally posted by sonship
You are the one who challenged to "DISCUSS it "
So we're going to discuss it.

Yet all I see so far is waffle.

And I reserve the right to suggest you need to read more of the text.
Well suggest it when you have reason to believe I haven't read something important. So far, you have tried to suggest that I need to read more without any actual evidence that doing so would make any difference ie you used it as nothing more than a delaying tactic.

A FRAUD challenges to DISCUSS and then looks for excuses not to.
I am waiting to discuss it. Ready when you are. Calling me a FRAUD in all caps for supposedly looking for excuses is hilarious given your behaviour so far.

I want to discuss the book.
Ready when you are. I kicked it off by pointing out an important error made by the author. So far there has been nothing whatsoever from you.

The absolute best way to debunk what you don't like in the discussion, I think, is to QUOTE it.
Read all of Pages 107 and 108 here:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=J_iOFzYE6ycC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+Science+of+God"+"Schroeder"

OK you did the EASY part. you RETORTED that they are nonsense.
Why won't you quote the nonsense so I can see it as nonsense?
Read all of Pages 107 and 108 here:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=J_iOFzYE6ycC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+Science+of+God"+"Schroeder"

So far no quotation yet. You could much more effectively convince me with your quotation.
Read all of Pages 107 and 108 here:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=J_iOFzYE6ycC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+Science+of+God"+"Schroeder"


So you are saying it is USELESS to take what limited knowledge we have and construct some statistical models with that in mind ?
No. I am saying that it is USELESS to construct statistical models based on false assumptions.

Incomplete knowledge of any area of biology renders useless any predictive modeling ?
No.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Well suggest it when you have reason to believe I haven't read something important. So far, you have tried to suggest that I need to read more without any actual evidence that doing so would make any difference ie you used it as nothing more than a delaying tactic.

I am not. I am out on a limb asking you to show me precisely where your problem is by quotation.

Your accusation of what he said does not jump out to me from the pages as I look them over. I need to what your talking about and the context.

I don't want to go get the online version. Just give me one sentence of quotation.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I am waiting to discuss it. Ready when you are. Calling me a FRAUD in all caps for supposedly looking for excuses is hilarious given your behaviour so far.

So some limited knowledge about all proteins makes any models to discuss a reasonable scenario of probability invalid ?

Yes or No ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Ready when you are. I kicked it off by pointing out an important error made by the author. So far there has been nothing whatsoever from you.

Are you claiming all the models proposed in those chapters are utter nonsense ?
Yes or No ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

No. I am saying that it is USELESS to construct statistical models based on false assumptions.

When in the mathematicians and biologist met to discuss probability in evolution was that a nonsensical meeting ?

He talks latter in the book about such a conference. Models were probably proposed at that time. Perhaps all of them had some amount of assumption based on incomplete knowledge.

Were these biologists and mathematicians all talking utter nonsense on general principle?
Yes or No ?

Originally posted by sonship
I am not. I am out on a limb asking you to show me precisely where your problem is by quotation.

Read all of Pages 107 and 108 here:
https://books.google.co.za/books?id=J_iOFzYE6ycC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+Science+of+God"+"Schroeder"

Your accusation of what he said does not jump out to me from the pages as I look them over. I need to what your talking about and the context.
I have been very clear what I am talking about.

I don't want to go get the online version. Just give me one sentence of quotation.
I am not talking about one sentence. I am talking about the whole argument starting on page 107.

Originally posted by sonship
So some limited knowledge about all proteins makes any models to discuss a reasonable scenario of probability invalid ?

Yes or No ?

No.

How many times must I answer this same question?

Originally posted by sonship

Ready when you are. I kicked it off by pointing out an important error made by the author. So far there has been nothing whatsoever from you.

Are you claiming all the models proposed in those chapters are utter nonsense ?
Yes or No ?

Yes.

Originally posted by sonship
When in the mathematicians and biologist met to discuss probability in evolution was that a nonsensical meeting ?

If they used false assumptions, yes. I was not in the meeting, nor do I know what was discussed, so I cannot comment further.

He talks latter in the book about such a conference. Models were probably proposed at that time. Perhaps all of them had some amount of assumption based on incomplete knowledge.
Perhaps so.

Were these biologists and mathematicians all talking utter nonsense on general principle?
Yes or No ?
No. Without knowing what they discussed I can make no such conclusions.

Now, are you ever going to get around to discussing the actual issue?