Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…4445474950…101

Comments

  • #1382
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    mickrock wrote: »
    ...I'm not disputing evolution, just the unquestioned assumption that it has all happened by blind, unintelligent means. ...t

    What does (un)intelligent mean in the context of a chemical reaction?

    Whenever I see this type of argument I always think that we are seeing a rehash of the Fred Hoyle commentary. It is too improbable to happen. That is really what this argument is about. Statistics.
    The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

    This is quite well dealt with here.

    The funny thing is that creationists love the Hoyle analogy and yet Hoyle himself was using it as an argument for panspermia and not a designer God! A fact I have always found rather ironic.


  • #1383
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm not disputing evolution, just the unquestioned assumption that it has all happened by blind, unintelligent means. There's no evidence to back this up whatsoever.
    If your competing hypotheses are that chemical compounds were created by the laws of physics or that chemical compounds were created by something outside the laws of physics, I don't think it's the former that suffers from a lack of evidence.


  • #1384
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    It always amazes me when posters make claims for science that science itself would never make.

    And it never amazes you that you make scientific claims that are based on quite literally no science whatsoever?

    Weird.

    Like your attempts to apply definitions of "intelligence" to "evolution" for example?

    Or your seriously comedy of errors from which you ran away really quickly to try and substantiation the idea of reincarnation?

    Your attempts to pass off the linguistic abilities of a single subject in the billions of people alive on this planet.... as evidence of reincarnation..... really is "one of the most baffling statements of scientific illiteracy I have ever read on any internet forum, but I suppose belongs on this thread, specious nonsense indeed."

    I really struggle with you not to trot out cliche "pot and kettle" type comments. I really do.


  • #1385
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Bellatori wrote: »
    I would point out that more recent experiments on early earth conditions have produced RNA strands... Even more importantly was an important step to understanding the RNA-> DNA issue here

    The arguments for abiogenesis are getting whittled down to - it happened here...

    I agree, it happened here on earth. There is little doubt in my mind that life emerged on earth via natural causes and that we will eventually discover the mechanisms involved. What we have currently are a large number of competing hypotheses, the article above misuses the word theory imo, as abiogenesis is still in its infancy and not at the stage of scientific theory. It is an incredibly difficult area of research, if it were simple we could obviously synthesize a basic unicellular organism in the laboratory.

    Although certainly plausible, I find panspermia much more unlikely as an explanation for how cellular life first emerged on earth. Perhaps some of the raw materials, even complex organic compounds, arrived via meteorites or comets, but even very primitive unicellular organisms much more unlikely.

    For some reason, and gaynorvader touched on this, some people have difficulty separating the topics of science and scientific evidence from religious beliefs and the evidence (or lack of evidence) for such beliefs. I have been around scientists all my working life, of all flavors, religious and non religious, all flavors of religion, and the one thing they have in common is they do not insert their beliefs, or lack of beliefs for that matter, into their work. Those that are religious have no problem being scientists and being religious, and those that are non religious or atheist have no issue with their colleagues who are religious.

    The noise in the debate is between a tiny subset of scientists and more typically non scientists who seek to invoke science as an argument against belief in God and the personal value of religion, and a small subset of religious who want to lay claim to science, typically not having much clue of the subject matter. For example, the great majority of Christians worldwide have no issues at all with the theory of evolution, and why would they, the father of genetics which is the most solid evidence based pillar supporting evolution was an Augustinian friar. George Lamaitre, a Catholic priest, first proposed the big bang theory and Ken Miller a noted Cellular Biologist and professor at Brown University, who happens to be a Roman Catholic, testified against ID at the Dover trial.

    The science versus religion debate is largely trash talking garbage, with a serious lack of understanding of the opponents subject matter on both sides.


  • #1386
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    mickrock wrote: »
    {...}
    I'm not disputing evolution, just the unquestioned assumption that it has all happened by blind, unintelligent means. There's no evidence to back this up whatsoever.

    Intelligence is ruled out from the outset, just because it's seen as unappealing and has too much baggage, and everyone ends up clinging to the blind-and-dumb explanations because that's all that's left

    I think you may not realise what the "debate" (used loosely) on this thread is about. It is more evolution vs young earth creationism (the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs existed up until about 5000 years ago, etc) than evolution vs God.

    Even if scientists were to prove conclusively tomorrow exactly how the universe and life on our planet came about, it would still leave room for a creator God, who set those events in motion. Belief in such an entity may not be rational, but humans aren't, by nature, particularly rational beings.


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Belief in such an entity may not be rational, but humans aren't, by nature, particularly rational beings.

    Humans are both rational and irrational, and often at the same time :)

    I know many people who appear completely rational when it comes to certain subjects, and absolutely irrational when it comes to others (those of us who follow sports are especially prone to irrationality. Liverpool will of course win the league next year, and in actual fact won it in April.. before losing it mysteriously in May. I have a few friends who are Liverpool fans and they are still in complete denial and claim that the league was somehow unjustly stolen from them by Chelsea who had the appalling cheek to beat them unfairly by refusing to concede goals :D). One of the most common areas where people are completely irrational is how they see themselves, which is very often diametrically opposed to how others see them, hence one of the most valuable aspects of introspective analysis is to reflect on who you are and more importantly why you are the way you are.

    There are rational theists and irrational theists when it comes to their beliefs and their justification for these beliefs. If someone says their religion and religious practice provides them with a positive outcome such as reduced anxiety or increased happiness in their lives, then I find this completely rational and who the hell am I to question them. If however someone tells me there is no evidence for evolution because of what humans believed 4,000 years ago, then I find this completely irrational. If an atheist tells me they find no reason to believe in God or participate in religion I find this completely rational, if however they tell me that all religious people are irrational because they base their religious beliefs on conditioning due to life experience and cultural factors, I tend to find this irrational as they are forgetting or ignoring that their own life experience and cultural factors lead to their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs.

    It is a non trivial question and there is no easy answer. Humans seek both truth and happiness to varying degrees, and there is no easy path to accomplishing both.


  • #1388
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    ...Even if scientists were to prove conclusively tomorrow exactly how the universe and life on our planet came about, it would still leave room for a creator God, who set those events in motion...

    Really? In the end there are two possibilities.

    1. Universe-> Univers as an auto boot... something from nothing
    2. God-> Universe A divine intervention.

    Of the two we DO have some evidence that something can come from nothing viz positron electron pairs CAN appear from 'nowhere' but we have zilch evidence for God. Occam's Razor says go for the simplest and therefore we go for one as there is no evidence for two AND it requires us to invent additional unsupported features.


  • #1389
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Bellatori wrote: »
    Of the two we DO have some evidence that something can come from nothing viz positron electron pairs CAN appear from 'nowhere' but we have zilch evidence for God.

    How does you define "nowhere"? Positron electron pairs no more come from nothing, than annihilate to nothing when they collide. When a positron and electron collide they are annihilated as mass carrying particles BUT they produce photons. The reverse is also true, photons interacting give rise to matter / antimatter particle pairs.

    This has been discussed previously on other threads, but the "nothing" that physicists refer to is not the absence of everything we refer to as matter, it is the absence of mass carrying particles. I am no expert in this field but there are a still a lot of open questions in QFT.

    As far are we currently know with respect to our observed universe, "nothing" (as in the absence of anything) does not exist. What was thought of previously as the vacuum of empty space has mass carrying particles constantly popping in and out of existence, but just as they are produced as positive and negative pairs like positrons and electrons, they seemingly are produced by positive and negative energy sources.


  • #1390
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Humans are both rational and irrational, and often at the same time :)

    I know many people who appear completely rational when it comes to certain subjects, and absolutely irrational when it comes to others (those of us who follow sports are especially prone to irrationality. Liverpool will of course win the league next year, and in actual fact won it in April.. before losing it mysteriously in May. I have a few friends who are Liverpool fans and they are still in complete denial and claim that the league was somehow unjustly stolen from them by Chelsea who had the appalling cheek to beat them unfairly by refusing to concede goals :D). One of the most common areas where people are completely irrational is how they see themselves, which is very often diametrically opposed to how others see them, hence one of the most valuable aspects of introspective analysis is to reflect on who you are and more importantly why you are the way you are.

    There are rational theists and irrational theists when it comes to their beliefs and their justification for these beliefs. If someone says their religion and religious practice provides them with a positive outcome such as reduced anxiety or increased happiness in their lives, then I find this completely rational and who the hell am I to question them. If however someone tells me there is no evidence for evolution because of what humans believed 4,000 years ago, then I find this completely irrational. If an atheist tells me they find no reason to believe in God or participate in religion I find this completely rational, if however they tell me that all religious people are irrational because they base their religious beliefs on conditioning due to life experience and cultural factors, I tend to find this irrational as they are forgetting or ignoring that their own life experience and cultural factors lead to their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs.

    It is a non trivial question and there is no easy answer. Humans seek both truth and happiness to varying degrees, and there is no easy path to accomplishing both.
    You are quite correct that all Humans are potentially both rational and irrational.
    The irrationality ususally accompanies something with which they have a deep emotional attachment. For example sports fanatics have a deep emotional attachment to their chosen team ... and they are often irrational in their assessment of situations involving their team.
    Equally, Theists may hold their faith with deep emotional attachment ... and therefore may not be receptive to logical arguments in relation to particular aspects of their faith.
    ... but such emotional attachement is also not exclusively confined to Theists .... Atheists can be equally emotionally attached to their belief in the non-existence of God ... and therefore may also not be receptive to rational arguments in relation to particular aspects of Atheism.


  • #1391
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,546 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    J C wrote: »
    ... but such emotional attachement is also not exclusively confined to Theists .... Atheists can be equally emotionally attached to their belief in the non-existence of God ... and therefore may also not be receptive to rational arguments in relation to particular aspects of Atheism.
    Presuming they are part of the subset of atheism that this belief is part of...


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Presuming they are part of the subset of atheism that this belief is part of...
    ... it could also be something that Atheists and other people have a deep emotional attachment to as well.
    It could even be something that some Atheists and some Creationists are emotionally attached to .. and are both equally irrational about, as a result.


  • #1393
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    An emotional attachment to something you don't believe in... I suspect there is a flaw in that idea somewhere. I don't have an emotional attachment to not believing in fairies. I actually have an emotional attachment to fairies I don't believe in.


  • #1394
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bellatori wrote: »
    An emotional attachment to something you don't believe in... I suspect there is a flaw in that idea somewhere. I don't have an emotional attachment to not believing in fairies. I actually have an emotional attachment to fairies I don't believe in.
    We can be emotionally attached to both beliefs in favour of and against ideas.
    For example, sports fanatics are often just as emotionally attached in favour of their own team as they are against the opposing team. They find it equally difficult to rationally accept any good points about the opposition as they do to rationally discuss any negatives about their own team.
    Neither Theists nor Atheists are immune from such potential irrationality.

    The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.

    I would content that Abiogenesis doesn't even have the potential to Create any Complex Functional Specified Genentic Information (CFSGI) to say nothing about the immense quantities of CFSGI observed in living organisms.

    However, if you're an Atheist then your follow-on belief is that life must have created itself by purely natural non-intelligently directed processes ... and if you're a Christian, your follow-on belief is that life was Created by God. Indeed the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both proclaim such a belief.

    These follow-on beliefs can be held with considerable emotional investment by both parties ... because the negation of either follow-on belief has potentially serious implications for the validity and ability to continue to hold the primary Atheist or Christian belief going forward.


  • #1395
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.
    Do feel free to offer any evidence for such a claim.
    I would content that Abiogenesis doesn't even have the potential to Create any Complex Functional Specified Genentic Information (CFSGI) to say nothing about the immense quantities of CFSGI observed in living organisms.

    You're referring to both abiogenesis and evolution with what you have said. Abiogenesis doesn't have to create all variations, evolution does that.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1396
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Do feel free to offer any evidence for such a claim.
    There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread (and others) ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.

    SW wrote: »
    You're referring to both abiogenesis and evolution with what you have said. Abiogenesis doesn't have to create all variations, evolution does that.
    ... and they're both equally evidentially and logically challenged.
    BTW, when I refer to 'Evolution', I'm talking about the supposed 'evolution' that can 'evolve' pondkind into Mankind by creating all of the CFSGI that separates Mankind from Pondkind by selecting mistakes along the way ... which isn't logically or scientifically supported!!!

    I'm not talking about the Natural Selection that can select Grey Moths from Dark Moths ... and visa versa ... and which is an observed fact.


  • #1397
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    J C wrote: »
    We can be emotionally attached to both beliefs in favour of and against ideas.
    For example, sports fanatics are often just as emotionally attached in favour of their own team as they are against the opposing team. They find it equally difficult to rationally accept any good points about the opposition as they do to rationally discuss any negatives about their own team.

    Hmmm... but both teams exist whereas fairies don't unless, of course you are being rude about the opposition.

    J C wrote: »
    The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.
    Well, of course, MAGIC is always a useful explanation when you don't understand the science.
    J C wrote: »
    However, if you're an Atheist then your follow-on belief is that life must have created itself by purely natural non-intelligently directed processes ... and if you're a Christian, your follow-on belief is that life was Created by God. Indeed the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both proclaim such a belief.

    However I tend to look at the evidence rather than simply applying wishful thinking. Recent experiments have shown that RNA can form under early earth conditions and work recently at the University of East Anglia has demonstrated that such chemicals are auto catalysing and produce both protein and DNA but hey stick to MAGIC as the answer.

    J C wrote: »
    These follow-on beliefs can be held with considerable emotional investment by both parties ... because the negation of either follow-on belief has serious implications for the validity and ability to continue to hold the primary Atheist or Christian belief going forward.
    ...and this is where you really go wrong because generally Atheists follow the evidence and new evidence can be a game changer. Theism has a history of finding new science very difficult to deal with. The difference is the emotional investment that Theism requires of its followers which Atheism does not.


  • #1398
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.
    No evidence for creationism then.
    ... and they're bot equally evidentially and logically challenged ... and when I refer to Evolution, I'm talking about the supposed 'evolution' that can 'evolve' pondkind into Mankind by creating all of the CFSGI that separates Mankind from Pondkind by selcting mistakes along the way!!!
    I'm not talking about the Natural Selection that selects Grey Moths from Dark Moths ... and visa versa.

    I know you're unwilling to accept the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. There was no confusion about your erroneous position.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1399
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    J C wrote: »
    ... without much evidence to show for it.

    I have to agree but please bear in mind that without much evidence is a whole galaxy away from the alternative for which there is NO evidence and that is formed by MAGIC.


  • #1400
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread (and others) ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.

    Bellatori
    I have to agree but please bear in mind that without much evidence is a whole galaxy away from the alternative for which there is NO evidence and that is formed by MAGIC.
    I agree with you as well ... but please bear in mind that the alternaive hypothesis isn't that it was formed by 'MAGIC' ... but that it was Created by an intelligence (or intelligences) of God-like proportions.
    ... unlike magic, we can test for the actions of intelligence ... and the tests are indicating statistical certainty that life was intelligently created.


  • #1401
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    J C wrote: »
    I agree with you as well ... but please bear in mind that the alternaive hypothesis isn't that it was formed by 'MAGIC' ... but that it was Created by an intelligence (or intelligences) of God-like proportions.
    ... unlike magic, we can test for the actions of intelligence ... and the tests are indicating statistical certainty that life was intelligently created.

    As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.

    I can hardly wait and will certainly be at the Nobel Prize ceremony where the author of this paper gets his handshake, medallion and citation.

    On a more realistic plane, claiming ID on the back of no evidence whatsoever (lets face it ID is simply souped up creationism for the gullible) and carried out by an invisible friend (do you talk to him and hear voices?) is simply an appeal to MAGIC.

    Wow... :D


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bellatori wrote: »
    As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.
    Don't go there.

    308441.gif


  • #1403
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bellatori wrote: »
    As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.

    I can hardly wait and will certainly be at the Nobel Prize ceremony where the author of this paper gets his handshake, medallion and citation.
    Anything with odds against its occurrence greater than 10^100 is regarded as a statistical certainty that it didn't occur.
    The odds against a specific 100 amino acid chain occurring spontaneously is 10^130.
    The estimated number of electrons in the Known Universe is only 10^80.
    Bellatori wrote: »
    On a more realistic plane, claiming ID on the back of no evidence whatsoever (lets face it ID is simply souped up creationism for the gullible) and carried out by an invisible friend (do you talk to him and hear voices?) is simply an appeal to MAGIC.
    ID is based on scientifically established tests for intelligent activity.

    I don't hear voices ... but I know that God exists and Created life, just like I know that intelligent Human Beings made my car ... and not some kind of spontaneous non-intelligently directed process.


  • #1404
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Don't go there.

    308441.gif
    Yes Robin ... everyone is skeptical about something.;)

    ... and some people, like myself, are more skeptical than others.:)


  • #1405
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    J C wrote: »
    I don't hear voices ...

    But you've seen things, right? Like extra terrestrials?


  • #1406
    Bellatori
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    robindch wrote: »
    Don't go there.

    Loved the image... Looked at the post you referenced. It is just a variant on the Hoyle Jumbo Jet from a Junkyard fallacy.

    The post references statistics that simply do not relate to the actual problem and the recent research shows that RNA capable of making both DNA and proteins can be formed which again suggests that the statistics do not reflect the actuality. As Feynman said 'If the results (in this case stats calculated) do not match the experiment (U of EA RNA formation) then the theory is wrong. That's it'



    The stats do not match the experiment so the model he is using is wrong as the Hoyle fallacy shows.

    I have no wish to revisit some cod statistics. It is also an example of the Lottery Winner fallacy - it is too improbable so it cannot have happened.

    You never see a lottery winner handing back the cheque though do you on the basis that he cannot possibly have won :)

    As for
    ID is based on scientifically established tests for intelligent activity.

    Why do I never see any peer reviewed papers for ID in any reputable journal I wonder?


  • #1407
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bellatori wrote: »
    Why do I never see any peer reviewed papers for ID in any reputable journal I wonder?
    Because reputable journals generally avoid publishing rubbish?


  • #1408
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Because reputable journals generally avoid publishing rubbish?
    ... it could also be because of an a priori commitment to only publish evidence that doesn't allow explantions that involve God.

    This materialistic attitude is typified by Dr Richard Lewontin's frank admissions in this regard:-
    "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
    ... sounds like ID wouldn't get much of a 'look in' under such a worldview - indeed any evidence for ID would be ruled inadmissable a priori ... and without ever being evaluated.

    ... and this a priori commitment to materialism isn't a new phenomenon ... here is what James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed in 1785, before examining the evidence:-

    ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added).

    ... all of which is fair enough, if you are a committed Materialist ...

    ... but this also means that Creation Scientists and ID proponents have a definite role to play in examining the physical and circumstantial evidence for the actions of God in the Universe.

    Somebody has to do it ... and we certainly cannot expect Materialists to do so - and I have no issue with them for not wishing to do so -and I fully accept that "it's not their cup of tea".

    ... just please stop claiming that materialistic science has any interest in objectively evaluating the evidence for the existence of God ... because it doesn't ... and indeed it rules out on principle and a priori any such evaluation.
    This is fair enough ... it is materialistic science, after all.


  • #1409
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gordon wrote: »
    But you've seen things, right? Like extra terrestrials?
    Me ... and millions of others - from the US Air Force down!!!

    I have seen their technology also and it's quite impressive.

    You guys keep looking for Alien life in the far reaches of the Universe ... shouting 'Eureka!!' at traces of amino acids on meteorites and other equally ambiguous and ephemeral evidence ...
    ... but when somebody tells you that alien life and its technology has turned up on his doorstep ... ye start to scoff.:eek::)

    ... it's almost like ye think it's is too good to be true or something.:D

    ... an "I can't believe it is butter" moment ... if you will!!

    ... or refusing what you have earnestly wished for ... when it suddenly turns up.

    ... its like a Christian running away ... when Jesus returns to rapture him/her.:eek:

    ... or a man running away when the woman of his dreams kisses him!!!:D

    ... even the Pope is getting ready to baptise Aliens ... but from what I know about them, this may be a 'non-runner'!!!:eek:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/pope-francis-would-baptise-aliens-3537835

    ... 'get with the programme' .... guys and gals!!:D


  • #1410
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Bellatori wrote: »


    "If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong" ... fair enough ... and a very good point by Prof Feynman.

    ... so please cite even one experiment that shows a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information (which is the type of information found in living organisms) ... without an input of intelligence.


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    "If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong" ... fair enough ... and a very good point by Prof Feynman.

    ... so please cite even one experiment that shows a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information (which is the type of information found in living organisms) ... without an input of intelligence.
    So JC, since you are well versed in biology, science and statistics, can you explain to us precisely what this would be?

    What sort of change in genes specifically would constitute a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information.

    Please detail what we should be able to see in a lab in such an experiment should evolution be true.


Advertisement