Original Research--join In

[EternalDragon]

Given how many planets exist and how much of the universe is unexplored, I think it is statistically more likely that there are planets with life on them other than our own than not. However, I seriously doubt we've had any alien visitors.

I find it kind of strange how you have faith and belief in something not
proven as yet, but not faith or belief in God. Which is probably that
alien life you think exists out there. Seems kind of ironic.

 

[florida2]

I find it kind of strange how you have faith and belief in something not
proven as yet, but not faith or belief in God. Which is probably that
alien life you think exists out there. Seems kind of ironic.

Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.

She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.

Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?

It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.

She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.

Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?

It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.

Basically this ^. Saying something is statistically likely is not the same as asserting something. Heck, I even apply the same premise to deities. It is statistically highly unlikely that any given religion is right. However, to not get into complicated philosophical and highly subjective observations, I just personally keep the possibility that deities in general exist at 50% and leave it at that.

To be honest though, there was a period of time in which I believed in ghosts and other crap like that. I was in a weird place mentally.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Analyzing the statistical likelihood of alien life? I suppose a reasonable start to that endeavor would need to start with a guess, or a premise, or a hypothesis as to whether that life relied upon complex genomes using DNA or RNA. This thread was begun with a challenge regarding research which almost anyone can replicate--trying to form genes of certain lengths while considering what the natural occurrence of stop codons does.


Loudmouth persists in missing the point and instead posting naked assertions about unobservable past events. He claims to have met my challenge by producing a hypothetical genome with a small collection of genes 100 codons long (along with a vast amount of pure junk, of course). And he gives no reasonable assessment of the likelihood that simply not having a stop codon in the middle would automatically confer a usable quality to the sequence. LOL. Look up the calmodulin gene--notice how much leeway exists for mutations (essentially none--it had to have been designed perfectly from the start).

Show me any kind of independently living reproducing life-form that has as its longest gene, 100 codon lengths. Get real! I proposed this example only to start the conversation and the math with a number which was easily accessible. As I stated earlier, the next step is to consider an average length gene of around 500 codons (i.e. in bacteria and archae, etc.) and the next step is to do the math on a gene with 2500 codons (no stops in the middle). This is still significantly shorter than the longest genes in bacteria!

If anyone is brave enough to do the math instead of posting silly diversions, naked assertions, circular reasoning and straw men, etc., you should find that the mathematical data reveals a very very interesting conclusion--you don't have enough molecules on this earth to fund the search for such long genes. Not only that, but genomes would contain far far greater amounts of junk than they could withstand. Do the math, please.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Loudmouth posted:
"Also, RNA genes and enzymes would not be affected by stop codons to begin with since they are never translated into protein."

You are glibly referring to wildly speculative ideas about early life--i.e. the RNA world or protein world hypotheses, the latter including the random generation hypothesis (obviously not your favorite) and the starter-set hypothesis. Please follow such ideas out step by step and do some molecular accounting. Saying that stop signals are not relevant is nothing but hand-waving. Any system of reliable information transmittal requires recognizable start and stop signals. It is thus extremely relevant to consider what their natural frequency of occurrence would be under any hypothesis. You cannot escape the numbers by simply making glib references to magical mechanisms which no one has seen in operation.

And please, face the reality that so-called nested hierarchies only support your theory when you choose the ones that support your theory! These supposed similarities provide no clue as to causal mechanisms. Similarities and associations do not equal causation. Focus on the necessary mechanisms and do the math.

Tell me where on the imagined abiogenesis-evolution continuum that complete metabolic independence (i.e. ATP generation and usage cycles or anything similar) as well as consistent dependable information-passage to future generations via reproductive capacity began. How many chemical processes were likely involved? How many molecules would have been consumed in the random search for such a collection? Appealing to completely nebulous ideas that defy laws of chemistry and entropy simply puts you in the same category of people you ridicule so easily--those who believe in the unseen!

 

[WisdomSpy]

I’m curious: it seems obvious that evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws to preserve an essentially atheistic paradigm—even straws with virtually no evidence. Why? Darwin himself may have given us a clue. He made at least one clear statement revealing his consternation with religious doctrine or dogma of the day. And those ideas were not about creation per se. Any ideas? I am curious as to whether today’s evolutionists are put off by the same religious doctrine or dogma.

Let me pose a multiple-choice question: Which of the following ideas most bothers you (evolutionists)?

1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?
2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?
3. The idea that this being claims to be “related” to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?
4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?
5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beings—concerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in “evil”.
6. Bewilderment over why He doesn’t intervene more directly and frequently to prevent “bad things from happening to good people”.
7. The idea that eventually, all “souls” will be resurrected and required to “give an account” of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?
8. The idea that “hell” has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?

 

[bhsmte]

Let me pose a multiple-choice question: Which of the following ideas most bothers you (evolutionists)?

1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?
2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?
3. The idea that this being claims to be “related” to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?
4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?
5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beings—concerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in “evil”.
6. Bewilderment over why He doesn’t intervene more directly and frequently to prevent “bad things from happening to good people”.
7. The idea that eventually, all “souls” will be resurrected and required to “give an account” of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?
8. The idea that “hell” has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?[/QUOTE]

I am not put off by any of the above and "bother" is not the right word to describe a believer declaring any of the above being true, beyond them believing so on faith in regards to their own personally held faith beliefs.

If a believer claims any of the above being true as a matter of fact and or objective evidence, then you would expect to be questioned to provide that evidence. I have never seen any evidence to support any of the above, but if you want to believe it on faith, knock yourself out.

In the end, believe what you like, just don't be shocked if others disagree, if you can not provide any objective support for what you believe.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.

She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.

Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?

It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.

I don't see much of a difference although my side of the coin does
have more evidence, whether you accept it as evidence or not.

 

[Zosimus]

Well, this evolutionist is of the opinion that all DNA based life has a common ancestral single celled origin; and the ability to use DNA as the unit of heredity actually evolved in earlier, simpler cellular life. This does not rule out multiple starts for life of differing nature that just never caught on for the long haul.

Yes, I realized that you were a neo-Darwinist a long time ago. However, I have yet to hear a compelling reason for accepting your point of view.

 

[Zosimus]

Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.

She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.

Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?

It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.

All right, let's start with a simple argument for the existence of God.

Postulate 1: There are an infinite number of possible universes.
Postulate 2: Although God must seem very unlikely, surely he must exist in one of those universes.

Conclusion: It is not surprising that God exists or that we live in the universe in which he does. The Weak Anthropic Principle fully supports this idea.

 

[Split Rock]

I’m curious: it seems obvious that evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws to preserve an essentially atheistic paradigm—even straws with virtually no evidence. Why? Darwin himself may have given us a clue. He made at least one clear statement revealing his consternation with religious doctrine or dogma of the day. And those ideas were not about creation per se. Any ideas? I am curious as to whether today’s evolutionists are put off by the same religious doctrine or dogma.

Let me pose a multiple-choice question: Which of the following ideas most bothers you (evolutionists)?

One thing that bothers me is people like you conflating atheism with acceptance of the theory of evolution.

1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?

Probably true.

2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?

Not very likely, but possible.

3. The idea that this being claims to be “related” to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?

Again, not very likely, but possible.

4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?

I don't know of any such claim by such an individual. I know that people have made such claims on the behalf of such a being, however.

5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beings—concerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in “evil”.

This being is sure inconsistent with applying such intervention. Where was he during WWI and WWII? How about Cambodia? Its almost as if there wasn't any difference between a scenario where such a being intervens against evil people and another where there is no such being.... hmmm.. I wonder why...

6. Bewilderment over why He doesn’t intervene more directly and frequently to prevent “bad things from happening to good people”.

See above.

7. The idea that eventually, all “souls” will be resurrected and required to “give an account” of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?

I doubt this, but I don't have a problem with it.

8. The idea that “hell” has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?

A right relationship, according to who?.... you?

 

[florida2]

I don't see much of a difference although my side of the coin does
have more evidence, whether you accept it as evidence or not.

You clearly have trouble with simple comprehension.

She said that extraterrestrial life might exist and that using what we know via evidence of astronomy it is statistically more likely than not that there is some sort of life somewhere else in the universe, though she is not saying it is certain and is likely open to the possibility that there isn't. There is a lack of evidence thus far so the jury's out on that one.

Your belief in God is 100% certain and purely on faith.

Can you now see the difference?

 

[florida2]

All right, let's start with a simple argument for the existence of God.

Postulate 1: There are an infinite number of possible universes.
Postulate 2: Although God must seem very unlikely, surely he must exist in one of those universes.

Conclusion: It is not surprising that God exists or that we live in the universe in which he does. The Weak Anthropic Principle fully supports this idea.

Firstly, my post had nothing to do with whether God exists or not. (You'll notice I'm a Christian).

Postulate 1: There might be - we don't know. We don't know if there are other universes. There are ideas about multiple universes but they are purely on paper at the moment.

Postulate 2: Why does God have to exist in any of them? Is the existence of God down to mere probability?

 

[florida2]

I’m curious: it seems obvious that evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws to preserve an essentially atheistic paradigm—even straws with virtually no evidence. Why? Darwin himself may have given us a clue. He made at least one clear statement revealing his consternation with religious doctrine or dogma of the day. And those ideas were not about creation per se. Any ideas? I am curious as to whether today’s evolutionists are put off by the same religious doctrine or dogma.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution - to claim otherwise shows either ignorance or denial.

Let me pose a multiple-choice question: Which of the following ideas most bothers you (evolutionists)?

1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?

I'm a Christian so doesn't bother me.

2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?

I accept evolution and the other processes as evidenced by science.

3. The idea that this being claims to be “related” to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?

I don't think evolution would claim that God is related in any way to man, so it's an odd question.

4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?

It would be a pretty pathetic or uninterested deity which didn't know those things. It would be strange to think otherwise.

5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beings—concerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in “evil”.

It seems odd that God wouldn't intervene every time, otherwise it raises questions about the all-loving and all-powerful claims.

6. Bewilderment over why He doesn’t intervene more directly and frequently to prevent “bad things from happening to good people”.

I find that very puzzling. Again, it raises the question of whether God really can be all-loving and all-powerful.

7. The idea that eventually, all “souls” will be resurrected and required to “give an account” of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?

If, as you propose, God lets bad things happen to people (see the tsunami 10 years ago) it would be interesting to hear him give an account of how he uses his gift of onnipotence.

8. The idea that “hell” has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?

The nature of hell is much debated. The threat of eternal damnnation was a useful tool of social control with a largely uneducated and illiterate population in the days before modern science and thought. I accept that there may well be a hell though the idea has certainly been used powerfully by religions over the centuries.

 

[WisdomSpy]

florida2 posted: “There is plenty of evidence for evolution - to claim otherwise shows either ignorance or denial.”

That’s an old argument that wears thin quickly when you take the time to define your terms. Failing to distinguish between macro- and micro- mechanisms only continues confusion, not clarity.

florida2: “I accept evolution and the other processes as evidenced by science.”

This may be where some clarity can be injected. You equate “evolution” with “process”. You, as with many others, have confused cause and effect. You speak of “evolution” as a causal mechanism. That is technically, ideologically, scientifically and philosophically incorrect. When you realize that “evolution” is only describing the effect of a cause, you should then zero in on clearly defining the options for that cause.

Mutations and natural selection certainly do cause some changes to occur. However, making the huge leap of faith to say that these things caused everything in nature to have arisen is ludicrous. That reasoning is like saying that because you see a young calf jumping around playfully, that given enough time, evolution could cause cows to jump over the moon!

The key to discovering the cause of original life on earth, and of the major steps between classes of organisms, is to study the cell biology and chemistry. Then, use a tool which detectives often use—the process of exclusion. Once you do the kind of research I have done and you honestly grapple with the logical conclusions, you cannot go on glibly saying that “evolutiondidit”, as if it represents an unlimited causal mechanism. Denying that mutations and natural selection have distinct limits is...well,... an example of stubborn allegiance to one's presuppositions, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[WisdomSpy]

Split Rock: "A right relationship, according to who?.... you?"

Not at all. If I were designing the "rules", I might say that it is right and natural to lie to others when it benefits me, to be self-centered and pursue my own pleasure and pride above all else. History testifies to the fact that evolutionary indoctrination has frequently supplied the rationale for this kind of thinking and the devastating political/social consequences. The Devil's Delusion by Berlinski is a good read on this. Vox Day's book; The Irrational Atheist is also good (extremely deep). He also provides a contemporary analysis of why God doesn't use omnipotence and omniscience all the time.

 

[WisdomSpy]

florida2: "If, as you propose, God lets bad things happen to people (see the tsunami 10 years ago) it would be interesting to hear him give an account of how he uses his gift of onnipotence."

O.K., that's a natural place to begin. But follow it out by posing rational "what if..." questions. What if God continually intervened to bless believers and punish unbelievers. At a certain point, wouldn't you think Him inconsiderate of our freedom of choice, perhaps even manipulative of it? God as a micromanager is not what I read from the Bible.

The Father in the Prodigal Son parable did not chase his son into his chosen land of defiance. He tried to teach him how to live and how to avoid the natural consequences of bad choices. When men refuse to listen and essentially thumb their noses at God, He respects their freedom to choose. When the majority of the world's inhabitants are essentially thumbing their collective noses at God, isn't it silly to expect Him to intervene in ways that we might like or even dictate?

To understand the logic behind events of the past 2000 years, from God's perspective, you would need to ask first what He promised. He never promised us a rose garden. He never promised to nullify the natural consequences of men's defiance towards Him. Read Romans chapter 1-2. It says; "the wrath of God is revealed..." and it follows with none of the Greek Mythology-based stories of hell. Instead, it says that God "gives them up..." to their own desires and the natural consequences thereof.

In multiple verses the Bible indicates that God is withholding His desired intervention, until something important comes to fulfillment. I believe the key to this is the verse that predicts that this world will come to the place of total implosion... except that God will then step in to miraculously save a portion of humanity. The earth itself, however, is destined for a cosmic "clean-up" (II Peter chapter 3 and elsewhere). After this, God's plans are seen in Revelation chapter 21-22.

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock: "A right relationship, according to who?.... you?"

Not at all. If I were designing the "rules", I might say that it is right and natural to lie to others when it benefits me, to be self-centered and pursue my own pleasure and pride above all else. History testifies to the fact that evolutionary indoctrination has frequently supplied the rationale for this kind of thinking and the devastating political/social consequences. The Devil's Delusion by Berlinski is a good read on this. Vox Day's book; The Irrational Atheist is also good (extremely deep). He also provides a contemporary analysis of why God doesn't use omnipotence and omniscience all the time.

So, there was no lying or self-centered behavior before "evolutionary indoctrination?" Also, are you seriously referring to something written by Vox Day.. and calling it "extremely deep"?????

This Vox day?

"Also, there were probably those who considered that preventing women from getting college degrees was part of the "culture" back then, and that giving women the same oportunities as men would be an example of "cultural collapse"."

Not an example, a necessary causal factor. Women destroy every institution they enter, so it should come as no surprise that their involvement outside the family is a good metric for cultural collapse.

I was laughing at the GoodReads winners selections. You only had to look at the covers to see that women voted for them. And still people wonder why so much literature is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and book sales are in decline.​

The evil myth of racial equality in America could only survive so long as vibrants were a mostly segregated minority, whose predilections and general dyscivicism were hidden from the white college students who only ever came across the vibrant best and brightest. The Civil Rights movement, which some conservatives still foolishly lionize, was a disaster for the USA; not as historically cataclysmic as the Immigration Act of 1965 or the combination of no-fault divorce and legal abortion, but a disaster nonetheless.

England is beginning to come to terms with the fact that Enoch Powell was right. I expect that America will eventually come to terms with the fact that Bull Connor and George Wallace were right as well. But the segregationists made one serious mistake. "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" is just a rhetoric. The more convincing argument, and the historical reality, is this: "Segregation now or elimination tomorrow."​

FSTDT Search

You're not really a creationist... are you?

 

[florida2]

florida2: "If, as you propose, God lets bad things happen to people (see the tsunami 10 years ago) it would be interesting to hear him give an account of how he uses his gift of onnipotence."

O.K., that's a natural place to begin. But follow it out by posing rational "what if..." questions. What if God continually intervened to bless believers and punish unbelievers. At a certain point, wouldn't you think Him inconsiderate of our freedom of choice, perhaps even manipulative of it? God as a micromanager is not what I read from the Bible.

The Father in the Prodigal Son parable did not chase his son into his chosen land of defiance. He tried to teach him how to live and how to avoid the natural consequences of bad choices. When men refuse to listen and essentially thumb their noses at God, He respects their freedom to choose. When the majority of the world's inhabitants are essentially thumbing their collective noses at God, isn't it silly to expect Him to intervene in ways that we might like or even dictate?

To understand the logic behind events of the past 2000 years, from God's perspective, you would need to ask first what He promised. He never promised us a rose garden. He never promised to nullify the natural consequences of men's defiance towards Him. Read Romans chapter 1-2. It says; "the wrath of God is revealed..." and it follows with none of the Greek Mythology-based stories of hell. Instead, it says that God "gives them up..." to their own desires and the natural consequences thereof.

In multiple verses the Bible indicates that God is withholding His desired intervention, until something important comes to fulfillment. I believe the key to this is the verse that predicts that this world will come to the place of total implosion... except that God will then step in to miraculously save a portion of humanity. The earth itself, however, is destined for a cosmic "clean-up" (II Peter chapter 3 and elsewhere). After this, God's plans are seen in Revelation chapter 21-22.

It still doesn't address the question of why and all-powerful and all-living God would allow terrible tragedies to happen.

Parents do anything they can to help and protect their children. If they had th epower to prevent something bad happening they will. God always has that power yet often nothing happens (just look on the news any day).

We read that the love we should feel towards God is so much greater than any love we can towards humans - in fact our feelings towards humans should be like hate when compared to the level of love of God. However, thousands of men, women and children - plenty of them Christian - die every year in terrible disasters and accidents when God has the power to stop every single one of them.

I'm not saying anything about freedom of choice. I'm talking about the freedom not to be killed in an earthquake, or struck by lightened, or drowned in a flash flood, or killed in a car accident etc etc.

 

[SkyWriting]

It still doesn't address the question of why an all-powerful and all-living God would allow terrible tragedies to happen.

That would be in Heaven, not here.

God has no physical impact on this world.
Originally eternal man walked with God in
the garden.

Man has been BANISHED from that place.
God does not walk here.
There is no tree of life here,
no tree of knowledge here.

This is not heaven.

The god of this earth is Satan.

The only power God has here is Spiritual power.
But that is quite a thing. Spirit led people can
accomplish much that lost souls can not.

In fact God is not concerned about you being
alive here. You life here is temporary and not
with Him. He is only concerned about your
eternal soul and wishes you to voluntarily come
to Him on you own.

God prefers the company of those who choose
to be with Him and not wanting to force anybody
to be with whom they reject.

If you reject the eternal Father, then you are
gifted with not being with Him.



Glad to help clear that up! - Sky