The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Posted on by

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

1,212 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.”

  1. CharlieM: It’s just that I’m not all that interested if ATP bonds or the bonds they produce are called high energy bonds or not.

    Here’s the first definition I found searching for high/low energy bonds..

    Bond energy is the energy required to break a covalent bond between two atoms. A high bond energy means that a bond is strong and the molecule that contains that bond is likely to be stable and less reactive. More reactive compounds will contain bonds that have generally lower bond energies.

    So taking a simple example, acetylene. Acetylene used to be made commercially in a blast furnace from coke and lime, producing calcium carbide which will then give off acetylene on addition of water. The process consumes a high (heh) amount of energy. Burning acetylene mixed with oxygen releases a similarly high amount of energy.

    So, question…

    From the above, should we call the triple covalent bond between the two carbons in an acetylene molecule high energy or low energy?

  2. CharlieM: But it’s not just two molecules that need to come together. Amino acid, ATP, corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (a different one for each amino acid) and tRNA all have to be present and available.

    At the speed with which molecules are moving within the cell endoplasmic reticulum, it is inevitable that the “right” collisions will occur. There doesn’t need to be direction, just presence. Availability of reactants and removal of products will drive a reaction as thermodynamic equilibrium is prevented.

  3. Rumraket:
    CharlieM: In my opinion adding enzymes piecemeal to a much simpler system just would not work.

    Rumraket: What worth should we attach to your opinion?

    You would need to ask each individual that question. I’m not the one who can answer that.

    Rumraket: The vast majority of the people most qualified on the question of the origin of the translation system don’t seem to agree with you, and it gets worse for you once we consider the fact that we have evidence that the translation system, at least, used to be simpler than the one we have now, and that considerably fewer amino acids were encoded in the genetic code.

    Why would that be worse for me? Looking at life in the present there is a vast range of complexity. But there is no evidence of any living system below the level of the cell. Life builds according to its needs whether simple or complex.

    I could speculate that life has trimmed down the number of amino acids that are used in proteins. Living systems use more amino acids than those used in protein synthesis. As we are told here

    In addition to those in protein, over 300 additional amino acids have been isolated and characterized from plants. With the arrival of even more sensitive analytical techniques, this number is likely to increase. These amino acids may be present in low concentrations and play a vital part as an intermediate in a biosynthetic pathway, e.g., ornithine, homoserine, or cystathionine. In contrast they may act as a major storage form of nitrogen, e.g., canavanine in the seed of Canavalia ensiformis, or may be formed in high amounts in response to an external stress, e.g., γ-aminobutyrate.

    They are very versatile molecules.

    Rumraket: Heck, even the ribosome itself shows evidence of it’s own evolution, and that it ultimately derives from a single, duplicated RNA sequence that can catalyze peptide bond formation when it dimerizes. This was long speculated, and finally tested this year:
    Xu D, Wang Y. Protein-free ribosomal RNA scaffolds can assemble poly-lysine oligos from charged tRNA fragments. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2021;544:81-85. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.01.036 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33545497/

    RNA plays an important role in protein synthesis and given the amount of rRNA in ribosomes its not surprizing that RNA alone can make some progress on the path to building a protein. But this will only happen under pre-set isolated conditions in a solution loaded with molecules such as amino acids and magnesium. So we could say that this achievement of constructing a short polypeptide was a cooperation between humans and some of the rRNA derived from the ribosome. 🙂

  4. CharlieM: Why would that be worse for me? Looking at life in the present there is a vast range of complexity. But there is no evidence of any living system below the level of the cell.

    But that’s just false. I just described that evidence above. While we do not directly have a living system below the level of the cell, it is false to say there is no evidence of such a thing.

    Why do you state demonstrated falsehoods?

    I hope you are aware that it is possible to have evidence for a thing, without having the thing itself. This is such a basic thing I shouldn’t have to say it.

    CharlieM: I could speculate that life has trimmed down the number of amino acids that are used in proteins.

    You could speculate that, but it would be inconsistent with the evidence from phylogenetics and metabolic pathway synthesis of amino acids, which show the repertoire of amino acids used to make proteins and in the genetic code expanded over time from a smaller set to the 20 we see today. I already cited papers on that.

    Why are you ignoring evidence from phylogenetics and comparative biochemistry? What is your explanation for the consilience in the results of the different methods of inferring ancestral amino acid alphabets and the abiotic distributions derived from experiments in nonbiological chemistry and observed in carbonaceous chondrites? These are prima facie evidence that supports a physical chemical origin of life from simpler beginnings. And you have no answer. And should you deign to even attempt to provide one, wouldn’t that be speculation? What was your position on speculation again, Charlie?

    I’m tired of seeing you magic-thinking sycophants invoke life’s origins and complexity as if you have ANY fucking valid point to make on this. The fact is science is not just getting nearer explaining the origin of life every year by accounting for basic biochemical facts of life.

    Just this year we found a pre-biotic basis for why ATP is used as the universal energy currency of life:
    Why ATP? Abiotic chemistry provides an answer .

    So never mind all the things we can’t yet explain how originated, you guys can’t even explain ANY of the shit we already have explanations for. You just make shit up, literally.

    A wishing intending disembodied mind that can make shit appear into thin air did it. And this is somehow not “speculative”, or a “just-so story”?

    CharlieM: RNA plays an important role in protein synthesis and given the amount of rRNA in ribosomes its not surprizing that RNA alone can make some progress on the path to building a protein.

    Now this is a hilarious rationalization, given that up until this point every creationist I have ever debated the question of the RNA-world with, have made sure to insist and point out with exaggerated confidence that there was no evidence that ribosomal RNA alone could catalyze peptide bond formation without proteins around to help it.
    It is comical to witness this kind of historical change in response directly.

    So just to point out, this is also, again, prima facie evidence for the RNA-world hypothesis.

    CharlieM: But this will only happen under pre-set isolated conditions in a solution loaded with molecules such as amino acids and magnesium.

    Another vacuous rationalization. It only happens when the conditions that enable it’s occurrence are met, and doesn’t happen when they’re not. Yeah it also won’t take place inside the sun, or in a vacuum. I guess it can’t happen at all.

    Incidentally, iron can substitute for magnesium in the ribosome:
    Multiple prebiotic metals mediate translation.

    CharlieM:
    So we could say that this achievement of constructing a short polypeptide was a cooperation between humans and some of the rRNA derived from the ribosome.

    We could say a lot of things(some of which would be false), but it’s also a prediction of the RNA world hypothesis and therefore evidence for it. Humans being inventive does not predict that RNA should have certain catalytic capacities. The RNA world does.

  5. CharlieM,

    This process [translation] is fundamental and vital for living systems and no living cell could exist without it.

    Hey, you biologists, bet you dint know any of that didja? Bet you feel pretty dumb about denying something purposely shoving it all around now, don’t you?

  6. Rumraket,

    The most delightful finding of all was that the peptidyl transferase activity of the ribosome was catalysed by RNA. When RNA world was proposed, no-one knew about catalytic RNAs. Their discovery, most critically at the heart of protein synthesis, was a massive shot in the arm for the hypothesis. I don’t think people really appreciate how important it is for a theory to find evidence for it after, rather than in the facts it was coined in light of.

  7. Allan Miller: I don’t think people really appreciate how important it is for a theory to find evidence for it after, rather than in the facts it was coined in light of.

    I’m beginning to be swayed. 😉

  8. Allan Miller,

    I am particularly enjoying the “so I did a bit more reading up on translation and I discovered all these enzymes that charge tRNAs. Thought you should know about them…” aspect of Charlie’s presentation. It’s a recurring theme.
    The thing to remember is that he is not having a conversation. He is writing things that make him feel better.
    One of my favorites:

    I would say that this impedes the normal spontaneous molecular diffusion rate thus altering the stochasticity of the system. The random walks of tRNAs are significantly curtailed.

    Yeah, he would say that.

    Regarding peptidyl transferase, I vividly remember my mentor introducing me to what he referred to as the “bootstrap problem” with protein synthesis: if you need a protein to make a protein, how did the whole process get started?
    For added immediacy, the conversation took place in the lab where he and his colleague developed the rabbit reticulocyte lysate system for in vitro translation.

  9. DNA_Jock,

    For added immediacy, the conversation took place in the lab where he and his colleague developed the rabbit reticulocyte lysate system for in vitro translation.

    Go reductionism!

  12. Allan Miller: No, you need a bearded bloke to go ‘alakazam’ at it.

    Right, but you have no problem considering you might be part Of a complicated simulation run by alien computer nerds

  13. phoodoo: Right, but you have no problem considering you might be part Of a complicated simulation run by alien computer nerds

    I like how even considering a proposition is a big no-no to you.

  14. Rumraket: I like how even considering a proposition is a big no-no to you.

    So you don’t consider a bearded guy saying alakazam a ridiculous proposition then?

    Or maybe you even consider it highly likely, you know in the same way people like Tyson, Musk, Carroll, Greene and others consider it likely life is a simulation?

  15. phoodoo: So you don’t consider a bearded guy saying alakazam a ridiculous proposition then?

    Of course I do. Especially if he’s claimed to be able to exist and think, not to mention create stuff just by wishing it so, even in the absense of physical brains, arms, hands (and beard).

    But, unlike you, at least I am capable of considering alternative hypotheses and give logically coherent, sensible reasons for accepting or rejecting them. I can consider both the idea of bearded ghosts, and of simulators just fine without blowing a gasket.

  16. Rumraket: But, unlike you, at least I am capable of considering alternative hypotheses and give logically coherent, sensible reasons for accepting or rejecting them.

    Ok then, please, go ahead…

  17. DNA_Jock:
    CharlieM: Obviously they are not talking about the ATP bonds as these are long gone by the time elongation takes place and so cannot be the bonds under discussion.

    DNA_Jock: Actually, this is wrong too — the result of Charlie’s belief that it is not all random jostling. News flash Charlie: these reactions can potentially run in reverse. Charlie’s Columbia source notes [here’s a link to it that works]

    Deborah Mowshowitz and Lawrence Chasin from CSU: In other words, the AA~tRNA connection is a high energy bond. How it is formed at the expense of ATP is discussed below.

    DNA_Jock: If Charlie had kept reading, he would have got to the discussion below, viz:

    Deborah Mowshowitz and Lawrence Chasin from CSU:
    (rxn 1) tRNA + AA → AA~tRNA (+ water )
    (rxn 2) ATP (+ water) → AMP + PPi
    (rxn 3) Pyrophosphatase: PPi (+ water) → 2 Pi
    Rxn1 is uphill, so you must couple rxn (1) to hydrolysis of ATP (rxn 2).
    Net result of (1) + (2) = ATP + AA + tRNA → AMP + PPi + AA~tRNA
    Net result of (1) + (2) + (3) = ATP + AA + tRNA (+water) → AMP + 2Pi + AA~tRNA
    Δ Go for (1) + (2) is about zero, but PP ‘tase = pyrophosphatase removes product (rxn. 3) and pulls the overall reaction to the right (as in nucleic acid synth.). In other words, sum of Δ Go for (1) + (2) + (3) is negative. Now the AA~tRNA can be used in protein synthesis to provide free energy for formation of peptide bonds.

    DNA_Jock: TLDR version: the cleaving of that “long gone” pyrophosphate by water is what actually drives peptide synthesis forwards. It is entirely necessary part of the process because otherwise, the reaction could reverse itself.
    My complaint is with the use of the term ‘high energy bond’ to describe a bond whose cleavage is energetically favorable, those are low energy bonds; phosphate anhydride is merely the most famous example; aa~tRNA is the third most famous, after PEP.
    They have “high group transfer potential”

    I did continue reading and I knew about these reactions because they are basically the same as the ones discussed in the video I linked to previously.

    So the bond they were talking about was AA~tRNA and not the ATP bond as you had implied. I asked you for clarification which you supplied and you are free to take it up with Deborah Mowshowitz and Lawrence Chasin if they are still around but I’ll stay out of it.

    Arguing about bond energy is very interesting I’m sure but it is not that important for this discussion unless you want to add unnecessary complications. The fact is that the actions of the aminoacyl tRNA synthase in the process of tRNA charging is far from stochastic.

    And of course ribosomes themselves are also required to go through this process of assembly. So how do these complexes come together? Below I have attached a diagram of the location of known human ribosome genes.

    Here is a video showing an extremely simplified version of ribosome biogenesis. So so begin with each of the ribosome protein coding genes in the diagram must be transcribed into mRNA. The resulting mRNA makes its way out of the nucleus and into the cytoplasm where it will be translated. Once it has left the ribosome the polypeptide string has to make its way back into the nucleolus where, if is to become part of the large subunit, it along with all the other gene products including rRNA will be assembled into this unit. Then the completed subunit will travel back out into the cytoplasm where it will be ready to come together with a corresponding small subunit enclosing a string of mRNA which is ready to be translated.

    I’m relying on the experts here to inform me if my description of the process is accurate although admittedly very much simplified.

    Do all the products of all these genes shown in the diagram largely rely on stochastic movements to find their correct place in this amazingly complex structure that is the ribosome?

  18. Rumraket:
    CharlieM: But it’s not just two molecules that need to come together. Amino acid, ATP, corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (a different one for each amino acid) and tRNA all have to be present and available.

    They don’t have to be present literally simultaneously, amino acid can and will be phosphorylated before being charged to tRNA by the aaRS enzyme.

    I believe that all depends on which tRNA is being charged.

    Rumraket: Not that any of this implies intent is necessary for this to occur anyway.

    Quite. I like the way Ronald Brady put it when explaining Goethe’s use of the word, “entelechy”.

    Development in time does not proceed towards this whole, but rather expresses it. As I have already noted, the representative of a time-form must continually become other in order to remain representative. Any additional reasons are redundant.

    The same thing must be said with regard to the modern notion of design by “program” or “teleonomy” (Mayr, 1974). A program must pre-exist the process which it is to direct, and is in this sense external to it. Since the process of development, when understood as the expression of a time- form, is complete in itself, the addition of a directive program is unparsimonious.

    “Teleonomy” is the hypothetical reconstruction of organic form by mechanical means — it models the organism on the machine in general and the computer in particular. It is logically consistent and reasonably convincing, but in order to invoke mechanical means it must assume a separation between elements that appear to be inseparable in the phenomena of life — i.e. between object and power.

    As we can see from these applications, Goethe’s notion of “type,” “archetype,” “entelechy,” or as he would sometimes identify it, “spirit,” is not a speculative but a descriptive concept. He does not advance it as a theory that explains the phenomena, but a description that clarifies the same. There is a difference.

    There is no external force or being that has the intention of making these things occur.

    CharlieM: Only if the amino acid combined with AMP is appropriate for the anti-codon on the tRNA will the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase attach it to the tRNA. Once this in place it is ready to fill the “A” position of the ribosome complex which has been assembled round the mRNA strand. The ribosome must position itself at the correct point on the mRNA strand in order to accept a suitable charged tRNA to start peptide elongation. Then amino acids must be added in the correct sequence.

    Rumraket: And?

    It is a self-correcting process which ensures a high level of fidelity.

    CharlieM: When I was a kid I sometimes dug up lugworms to use as fishing bait. There was a stochastic element to which worms in the area went into my bait tin. But there was an overall intent to the process.

    Rumraket: Yeah yours, in your head you intended for something to happen. That’s where the intent was. It was nowhere else but an idea you had in your mind. That is to say, in your head. People without heads that contain thinking brains rarely come posting about their intents. I think that’s a hint.

    Yes, the intention of the organism (me), was integral to the organism (me). Various other organisms without a self-consciousness like ours, may not be aware of any preconceived plan, but, nevertheless a plan may be integrated into their living processes.

    CharlieM: I’m talking about any living cell that we can observe. Not some speculative precursor to known cells.

    Rumraket: And yet you go on to offer that very thing, a speculative precursor to known cells: their creation by a divine being. Something we do not observe and literally can’t be tested by any method.

    We already know that the precursor to any living cell was at the very least another cell. You claim that if this process of reproduction is followed back far enough then there will have been a time previous to the development of cells something life-like existed which was simpler than a cell. I am saying this origin of cells did not originate in simplicity, but the cells which are now visible to us have their origin in a condensation from cells that were of graeter complexity, even if they were of a much more refined form. This I would call the “etheric cell”.

    CharlieM: Why speculate on a simpler precursor to the cell? Because that is what is needed for the beginning of physical life to be a fortuitous blind search.

    Rumraket: No, because the entire history of life testifies to it’s origin from simpler and ultimately dead material things. Life is an emergent physical phenomenon that arose from non-living physical things. I’m sorry but it’s just ALL of science that supports this.

    That life is a physical phenomenon subject to natural law in both it’s constituents and functions(including both the fact that life reproduces and evolves physically), and the historical success of science in explaining the origins and functions of innumerable other physical phenomena relevant to life(including everything from growth and metabolism, to reproduction and behavior) supports the inference life’s origin will also be solved as another physical process eventually.

    Then there’s a broader context of natural history, into which life’s physical and chemical origin sits very well, beginning with the condensation of matter into atoms following big bang nucleosynthesis, producing stars, galaxies, and planets following the universe’s expansion and cooling, that stars churn out the elements of which life is made in large quantities, and that once life existed, it continued to evolve and diversify. This whole picture implies life’s origin is just another “step” or “event” in this extremely long process of physical change and increasing complexity of emergent physical phenomena. At some point the universe contained basically nothing more complex than hydrogen, helium, and beryllium nuclei, and before that it was basically a chaotic soup of subatomic particles. Billions of years later it contained stars, and planets with geology and atmospheres.

    Then there’s more direct evidence from life previously mentioned. Evidence for the existence of an RNA world which you seem to give no explanation for.

    Then there’s evidence in the form of the consilience between the distribution in the frequency of amino acid usage in the most ancient ancestral nodes in the phylogenetic trees of universally conserved proteins, and the kinds of amino acids most abundantly produced in abiotic organic chemistry experiments, and also observed in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. The further we go back in time, the more the proteins become like the “abiotic” distribution. This same abiotic distribution is also inferred from multiple different methods analyzing genetic code and translation system evolution. The genetic code appears to have begun by using the must abundant abiotically produced amino acids, implying they really were produced abiotically.
    Then there’s the sorts of functions these ancient proteins have (core metabolism, genetic replication, and translation/transcription), the sorts of co-factors they use (inorganic mineral clusters, metals that would be highly abundant on the early Earth, and nucleotide derivatives).

    All of this heavily implies living cells of the sort we see in the world today, originated and evolved through some physical and chemical process we still don’t understand, and at some point went through an RNA-world-like stage with RNA constituting the primary genetic material and being responsible for most catalytic functions.

    All of this supports and compels both the inference that life is an emergent physical phenomenon, and that it has much simpler origins than even the simplest current cells exhibit.

    You explain NONE of this actual evidence that really does exist, and really does cry out for explanation, by invoking this mysterious disembodied intent.

    I don’t have time at the moment to reply to the above argument. I might return to it once I have let all that you wrote sink in. But I did notice that you believe the universe around us has formed by a process of condensation.

    CharlieM: But what if it wasn’t a fortuitous blind search? There is no known active living systems that exist without the presence of cells.

    Rumraket: What if pigs could fly? There no known active disembodied intending mind wishing cells into existence either, and it doesn’t explain the evidence we already have for life’s simpler beginnings.

    So if you’re going to complain that my idea is not good enough because I can’t yet show you a simpler form of life, how am I to react to your complete fantasy with zero explanatory power compelled by literally no evidence at all?

    I have been providing evidence, but mostly it gets ignored.

    CharlieM:
    In prokaryotes we have the lowest level of complexity in which life is known to exist.

    Rumraket: This would be a much stronger point if we had reason to believe we had exhaustive (or at least nearly so) knowledge of what kinds of simplicity is possible.

    But we do not

    I do know that nobody has been able to produce life from manipulating dead matter.

  19. Alan Fox: CharlieM: It’s just that I’m not all that interested if ATP bonds or the bonds they produce are called high energy bonds or not.

    Alan Fox: Here’s the first definition I found searching for high/low energy bonds..

    Bond energy is the energy required to break a covalent bond between two atoms. A high bond energy means that a bond is strong and the molecule that contains that bond is likely to be stable and less reactive. More reactive compounds will contain bonds that have generally lower bond energies.

    So taking a simple example, acetylene. Acetylene used to be made commercially in a blast furnace from coke and lime, producing calcium carbide which will then give off acetylene on addition of water. The process consumes a high (heh) amount of energy. Burning acetylene mixed with oxygen releases a similarly high amount of energy.

    So, question…

    From the above, should we call the triple covalent bond between the two carbons in an acetylene molecule high energy or low energy?

    Maybe DNA_Jock would be interested in answering that question

    i did find this

    ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) contains high energy bonds located between each phosphate group. These bonds are known as phosphoric anhydride bonds.
    There are three reasons these bonds are high energy:

    The electrostatic repulsion of the positively charged phosphates and negatively charged oxygen stabilizes the products (ADP + Pi) of breaking these bonds.

    The stabilization of products by ionization and resonance. As the bonds are broken there is an increased stability due to the resonance of that product’s structure.

    The entropy increases. There is a greater stability in the products because there exists a greater entropy; i.e. more randomness. 1 mole of reactants has a higher energy than 2 moles of products. Disorder is favored over order according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    But it didn’t sound very convincing to me. and I’m sure it won’t convince DNA-Jock either.

  20. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: But it’s not just two molecules that need to come together. Amino acid, ATP, corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (a different one for each amino acid) and tRNA all have to be present and available.

    Alan Fox: At the speed with which molecules are moving within the cell endoplasmic reticulum, it is inevitable that the “right” collisions will occur. There doesn’t need to be direction, just presence. Availability of reactants and removal of products will drive a reaction as thermodynamic equilibrium is prevented

    Not all of these reactions take place within the endoplasmic reticulum.

    And what about the ribosome production that is constantly occurring in your cells as we speak? Will jostling molecules bring these complexes together?

  22. CharlieM: Maybe DNA_Jock would be interested in answering that question.

    It’s not a trick question. It’s simply a labelling convention. Bond energy is referring to the energy required to break a chemical bond.

  23. phoodoo: Right,but you have no problem considering you might be part Of a complicated simulation run by alien computer nerds

    Considered and rejected.

  26. Alan Fox,

    You tell me, how does it work that there are all these so called scientists who find the alien nerds scenario not only possible, but likely, but you all never seem to call them crackpots?

    Are they crackpots?

  27. phoodoo: You tell me

    Tell you what? I’ll remind you of what you wrote:
    Well, it certainly makes the bearded guy scenario seem much more plausible no?

    How does the “bearded guy scenario” work?

  33. phoodoo: Or maybe you even consider it highly likely, you know in the same way people like Tyson, Musk, Carroll, Greene and others consider it likely life is a simulation?

    I’m not really concerned about Elon Musk’s thoughts but I’d like to see where Neil de Grasse Tyson has said it is highly likely life is a simulation. Ditto for whichever Carroll and Greene you are referring to

  34. Alan Fox: I’m not really concerned about Elon Musk’s thoughts but I’d like to see where Neil de Grasse Tyson has said it is highly likely life is a simulation. Ditto for whichever Carroll and Greene you are referring to

    You never heard of life as a computer simulation, and you never heard of skeptics before.

    The only thing you ever heard of was the word niche. Your great grandmother used to sing it to you as a little boy.

    So since you never heard of anything, maybe I can converse with people who know about the topic.

  35. phoodoo: Well, it certainly makes the bearded guy scenario seem much more plausible no?

    Depends on what color his beard is .

  36. Here is what you can do first Alan. If you think the idea that the world is a simulation made by superior computer beings Is idiotic, and anyone who believes people who preach this possibility are idiots, then go with that. The followers of people like Tyson, idiots. Allan seems to agree. Rummy agrees. So that’s what, 50million science fans give or take who are idiots. I mean just in America of course. Of course many more idiots worldwide.

    Finally. Something we can all agree on.

  37. And here is the good news Alan. You don’t even have to accept my word that this is what he believes. You can just say, well yes IF he really believes that he and his followers are idiots. Make it conditional on if. Then if I need to show you that’s what he believes, we can save so much time confirming these people are idiots.

  38. phoodoo: The only thing you ever heard of was the word niche. Your great grandmother used to sing it to you as a little boy.

    Sounds annoying.

  40. phoodoo:
    And here is the good news Alan.You don’t even have to accept my word that this is what he believes.You can just say,well yes IF he really believes that he and his followers are idiots. Make it conditional on if.Then if I need to show you that’s what he believes,we can save so much time confirming these people are idiots.

    No one accepts your word. Maybe not idiots.
    “In an influential paper that laid out the theory, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities is true: 1) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the technological capacity to create simulated realities; 2) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity, none of them will bother to run simulations; or 3) advanced civilizations would have the ability to create many, many simulations, and that means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/10/18275618/simulation-hypothesis-matrix-rizwan-virk

  42. phoodoo: But what about the alien nerds-do you care what their facial hair is like?

    Not really, but a omnipotent, omniscient ,eternal Being choosing to be a bearded dude , is interesting . Color and style choices might make certain possible designers more plausible . Hard to know with an incomprehensible bearded guy.

  43. Neil Rickert:
    phoodoo,

    I think you have reached the brilliant conclusion that if these people are idiots, then these people are idiots.

    “ They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, ”

  45. velikovskys: Not really,but a omnipotent, omniscient ,eternal Being choosing to bea bearded dude , is interesting . Colorand style choices might make certainpossible designers more plausible . Hard to know with an incomprehensible bearded guy.

    I agree. That’s why the Discovery Institute doesn’t talk about the designers attributes. Just that they are a designer.

    Oddly, a lot of atheists complain that they don’t mention who the designer is.

  46. Neil Rickert,

    What do you mean Neil, Allan and Rummy have already dismissed the idea of alien simulators as nonsense, and Alan has never even heard of such a preposterous theory.

  48. In fact, using his logic, if he is an idiot in this world, if there are many other worlds he is probably an idiot in most of them as well.

  49. phoodoo: You don’t even have to accept my word that this is what he believes.

    Well, why would I? You are not a reliable source of facts. At. All.

  50. phoodoo: Alan has never even heard of such a preposterous theory.

    Wrong again. I have indeed heard of the idea that life experience is a simulation. It’s called solipsism and is indeed preposterous. You are attacking straw men again.

Leave a Reply