323d
@kellyjay saidWhere's the insult? He calls himself a scientist, then attributes everything to supernatural causation, without providing any scientific reason why his particular god is better than any other particular god. Science and faith, two sides of a coin, and never the twain shall meet; if you and he can't see that, then it's not my problem.
I quoted him, and you've insulted him without addressing the points brought up. You pretend you know how life didn't begin while not being able to say how it did. You cannot give a positive reason for accepting mindlessness was the driving force behind life, while dismissing all of the positive reasons to accept one was behind it. I have tried to keep this limited to what ...[text shortened]... you want to discuss God and gods go to the Spiritual forum, I'll be happy to take up the discussion.
Your second sentence refers; life did begin, what are you talking about? I and others have given you so many reasons for accepting 'mindlessness' as the 'driving force', you just aren't reading them, or perhaps you're not understanding them, which again is nobody's problem but yours.
Your repeated attempts to pretend that we aren't discussing faith (you know, spirituality) , and escape to the Spirituality Forum are becoming increasingly desperate. As for 'what we know', do we know that snakes can talk?
322d
@indonesia-phil saidThe talk wasn't about any particular god, so you make things up on the fly and complain about things not even said. You bring up spiritual topics and you complain that I am here, also not true. I'll respond to things but the bottom line it is your logic and science I'm asking about and you can only complain about things not said or done until you say them.
Where's the insult? He calls himself a scientist, then attributes everything to supernatural causation, without providing any scientific reason why his particular god is better than any other particular god. Science and faith, two sides of a coin, and never the twain shall meet; if you and he can't see that, then it's not my problem.
Your second sentence refers; li ...[text shortened]... y Forum are becoming increasingly desperate. As for 'what we know', do we know that snakes can talk?
321d
@kellyjay saidWe have already established a long time ago that your pretend scientist is a Christian, and in any case the point is made, regardless of whichever god he happens to believe in. The whole of this is a 'spiritual topic', and you brought it here; as you well know you have no wish to discuss the science, which has already been explained to you innumerable times, you merely wish to say "Look, here's a really clever scientist who believes that god did everything so it must be right." It's intellectually weak, to say the least, and the day that you respond honestly to any question put to you will be a day to remember.
The talk wasn't about any particular god, so you make things up on the fly and complain about things not even said. You bring up spiritual topics and you complain that I am here, also not true. I'll respond to things but the bottom line it is your logic and science I'm asking about and you can only complain about things not said or done until you say them.
Let's try this one again as a case in point: By what scientific means has your scientist concluded that his god (you know, the Christian god) as opposed to any other god has created life on earth? This is a scientific question, to which we await an honest response.
320d
@indonesia-phil saidThe fact you keep calling him a pretend scientist show you do not know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.
We have already established a long time ago that your pretend scientist is a Christian, and in any case the point is made, regardless of whichever god he happens to believe in. The whole of this is a 'spiritual topic', and you brought it here; as you well know you have no wish to discuss the science, which has already been explained to you innumerable times, you merely ...[text shortened]... god has created life on earth? This is a scientific question, to which we await an honest response.
320d
@kellyjay saidYou can just type “ass” KellyJay.
The fact you keep calling him a pretend scientist show you do not know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.
319d
@kellyjay saidWell there you go, then. If this is what you've been reduced to, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
The fact you keep calling him a pretend scientist show you do not know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.
319d
1 edit
@indonesia-phil saidReduced too, lol, you insist on belittling a man's credentials with more under his belt than your whole life and you think my calling you out on that is lowering the discussion? You cannot engage in the discussion using logic or science, you attack a man who is a world-class chemist, and your whole side of this discussion is talking snakes, and I'm the one lowering this? Go away until you can actually speak to the topic using logic or science without talking snakes because your input is seriously lacking any proof you understand the questions let a lone be able to offer an answer to them.
Well there you go, then. If this is what you've been reduced to, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
319d
@kellyjay saidHave you read the “logical” and “scientific” pubmed paper in the link I have provided for you several times?
You cannot engage in the discussion using logic or science
@kellyjay saidLet us know when you’ve got a mind detector. That is how science works. We look at the stars with telescopes and we detect organic molecules in deep space. We look at cells with microscopes and we detect chromosomes. Then we postulate a theory which connects them. It’s been explained to you and you reject it.
I can give reasons for why a mind is a better explanation, you can’t do the same with mindlessness.
So, give us your theory how a transcendental mind manipulated organic molecules and chromosomes, and show us your mind detector to prove it’s really happening as your theory predicts. Then we can continue this discussion.
But, please, don't tell us again about error checking. There is no such thing as an erroneous chemical. Therefore there is no such thing as error checking in nature. It's just not happening, so there is no need to invoke a mind to explain it; there is nothing there to explain, because it's not happening. Like retro-grade planetary motions, it's not happening, so there's nothing to explain.
319d
@moonbus saidLook at language, there are senders and receivers who both can hear and see what is being communicated through understanding the symbols and sounds involved. It is even possible to recognize symbols and sounds that are not understood due to their arrangement of them setting them apart from pure background noise. We can map and read DNA, we recognized the patterns they carry meaning they are not meaningless which sets them apart from a meaningless product.
Let us know when you’ve got a mind detector. That is how science works. We look at the stars with telescopes and we detect organic molecules in deep space. We look at cells with microscopes and we detect chromosomes. Then we postulate a theory which connects them. It’s been explained to you and you reject it.
So, give us your theory how a transcendental mind manipulated o ...[text shortened]... ot happening. Like retro-grade planetary motions, it's not happening, so there's nothing to explain.
You don't want to look at error checking that is because your head is somewhere not engaged in the genetic instructions within life, those types of things are forward-thinking in their execution both in how they start and end. You ignoring them only shows how far you are willing to go to blow off evidence that doesn't support your views. You make up a story about how it may have happened, but it doesn't impress correct! Your stories do nothing to explain the complex nature of life in its genetic arrangement so that form and function occur, you merely postulate at a very high level ignoring the details, repeatedly.
@moonbus saidA story goes and some thoughts about how it may have happened are spoken and you expect me to go, "Ah, yes, that is possible.", but your stories do not address the issues involved.
Let us know when you’ve got a mind detector. That is how science works. We look at the stars with telescopes and we detect organic molecules in deep space. We look at cells with microscopes and we detect chromosomes. Then we postulate a theory which connects them. It’s been explained to you and you reject it.
So, give us your theory how a transcendental mind manipulated o ...[text shortened]... ot happening. Like retro-grade planetary motions, it's not happening, so there's nothing to explain.
Oh my, our telescopes detected a molecule in space, so what? To move step by step towards life, several things all have to be true, all of the necessary products have to be in the same area, at the same time, in quantities that can react properly, in a life-friendly environment, with nothing there that would hinder the proper reactions, then they must react properly against all of the competing possible reactions. Step one, and the task moves on, and if it breaks start over.
Endless time is removed due to these facts, with a limited amount of material no matter how large isn't limitless by definition, everything has to be on a limited surface also removing unlimited time, and then the actual reactions if necessary products don't occur it doesn't help. Material and possible occurrence are limited by the material, and the number of possible occurrences limitless time does not alter that.
318d
1 edit
@KellyJay
So we are supposed to believe a renowned scientist touting creationism up front as real science?
He has an agenda to push totally outside the ballywack of science and runs it right into the anti Popper idea if a hypothesis cannot be falsified it is not science.
I don't think you fully understand that idea about science.
If he goes over all the science and then just has an opinion that it must have come from some god or other and we know good and well just which god he is talking about, it cannot be proved and it cannot be disproved and right there it is not science any more but just opinion.
He doesn't know EVERYTHING about life and life origins and he just makes up the proposition there was not enough time and so forth when he knows good and well that is an unprovable hypothesis. So yes, it is NOT science and your guy is touting creationism pure and simple and Christian creationism at that.
We know full well you will refuse to accept that analysis since you also have an agenda of the unprovable creationist story, which BTW I have said several times here the Christian creation story is plagiarized, paved over creation story thousands of years older in Egypt, 7 day tale and all.
318d
@sonhouse saidYou should look at the science and see if it is solid. I find it very hypocritical of you and others here who spend all of your complaining about spirituality instead of using either or both reasoning and science for a cause.
@KellyJay
So we are supposed to believe a renowned scientist touting creationism up front as real science?
He has an agenda to push totally outside the ballywack of science and runs it right into the anti Popper idea if a hypothesis cannot be falsified it is not science.
I don't think you fully understand that idea about science.
If he goes over all the science and then ...[text shortened]... ory is plagiarized, paved over creation story thousands of years older in Egypt, 7 day tale and all.
You can check those who get Nobel prices in science and see a very large numbers of Theists whose scientific achievements rate such awards.
You avoid addressing the science or even reasoning and apply your disdain for all things spirituality. Simply because it’s possible science and religion can run in parallel on topics don’t mean if they do a total rejection is required where the evidence leans for an agreement between the two.
Rejecting the possibility out of hand only shows that you are unwilling to even admit it is possible that they could agree, so you ignore it all without causes that actually exist using reasoning or science. Difficult to justify the non-existence of evidence when as soon as some may be true shows up you reject it all out of hand.