Our universe contains 10 times more galaxies than we thought

[mzungu]

Since 95 percent of the universe is complete mystery to you, and the rest of your maths are based upon pseudoscience according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory, you'll pardon me for pursuing a path of knowledge that is likely to lead to some fruitful empirical lab results.

"Oh look, inelastic scattering actually produces photon redshift in the lab"!

Yawn, snore!

 

[Michael]

Yawn, snore!

Do you also dream of invisible stuff?

 

[mzungu]

Do you also dream of invisible stuff?

Better than dreaming of electric sheep (pun intended)

 

[Michael]

Better than dreaming of electric sheep (pun intended)

No way. Electric sheep are pretty.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+glow+in+dark&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[mzungu]

Th

No way. Electric sheep are pretty.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+glow+in+dark&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Those are Jellysheep!

 

[Radrook]

No one has even proposed a "theory of abiogenesis", unless you can actually demonstrate that it's impossible?

Your scientists are demonstrating that all the time by their repeatedly failed efforts at forcing it to happen in a lab.

 

[mzungu]

Your scientists are demonstrating that all the time by their repeatedly failed efforts at forcing it to happen in a lab.

Let us teach our children to always give up after the first failure.
Dear me!!

 

[Radrook]

Let us teach our children to always give up after the first failure.
Dear me!!

First? Are you making a joke?
You demanded demonstrations.
Well, you've got them.
That you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what these failures are indicating is irrelevant to the results themselves.

 

[mzungu]

First? Are you making a joke?
You demanded demonstrations.
Well, you've got them.

It never ceases to amaze me on how creationists jump on science when science has not yet succeeded at something.
Yes I was being ironic.

 

[Radrook]

It never ceases to amaze me on how creationists jump on science when science has not yet succeeded at something.
Yes I was being ironic.

Science isn't being criticized or attacked or rejected. Science has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue. Tagging anyone and everyone who disagrees with your wishful thinking as a creationist doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It falls under the category of name-calling.

 

[mzungu]

Science isn't being criticized or attacked or rejected. Science has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue. Tagging anyone and everyone who disagrees with your wishful thinking as a creationist doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It falls under the category of name-calling.

I was referring to this:

Your scientists are demonstrating that all the time by their repeatedly failed efforts at forcing it to happen in a lab.

 

[Radrook]

I was referring to this:

Scientists are not science.

 

[mzungu]

Science cannot exist without scientists.
When one attacks scientists in general for failling to get results then one is generally criticising science.
I know very well how the anti science lot word their arguments.

 

[Shemjaza]

Your scientists are demonstrating that all the time by their repeatedly failed efforts at forcing it to happen in a lab.

Like I said, we don't even have a theory of abiogenesis. We just don't know how it happened.

I'll accept that it's a mystery, but nothing about the chemical actions at the basis of life and biology has ever demonstrated a need for the or even evidence for the supernatural.

 

[Radrook]

Like I said, we don't even have a theory of abiogenesis. We just don't know how it happened.

I'll accept that it's a mystery, but nothing about the chemical actions at the basis of life and biology has ever demonstrated a need for the or even evidence for the supernatural.

There are many chemical reactions going on in the universe that are spontaneously occurring.
That doesn't prove that they led to abiogenesis. That conclusion requires a tremendous unscientific leap of blind faith. Worse yet, it demands that you ignore the compelling indications that point in the exactly the opposite direction. That modus operandi isn't scientific.

Now it's your turn to say:

""What compelling indications???""

 

[mzungu]

There are many chemical reactions going on in the universe that are spontaneously occurring.
That doesn't prove that they led to abiogenesis. That conclusion requires a tremendous unscientific leap of blind faith.

Wow! I suppose Biblical creation is not based on blind faith?
Like I said; attacking science because it has yet to answer to the origin of life is the only way creationists know.

 

[Shemjaza]

There are many chemical reactions going on in the universe that are spontaneously occurring.
That doesn't prove that they led to abiogenesis. That conclusion requires a tremendous unscientific leap of blind faith. Worse yet, it demands that you ignore the compelling indications that point in the exactly the opposite direction. That modus operandi isn't scientific.

Monomers, polymers, RNA and DNA are chemicals that function and form without the presence of the supernatural.

You keep typing as if I have some sort of certain form of abiogenesis in mind. I just don't. I just think making assertions and assumptions about whole new levels of complexity requires good evidence.

Now it's your turn to say:

""What compelling indications???""

Obviously. Do you have a point, or do you enjoy silly showmanship?

 

[Michael]

There are many chemical reactions going on in the universe that are spontaneously occurring.
That doesn't prove that they led to abiogenesis. That conclusion requires a tremendous unscientific leap of blind faith. Worse yet, it demands that you ignore the compelling indications that point in the exactly the opposite direction. That modus operandi isn't scientific.

Now it's your turn to say:

""What compelling indications???""

The most consistent trend I've seen with respect to atheists, and "blind faith" in the 'unseen' (in the lab), is that as long as the concept has nothing to an intelligent creator, they're all in. They'll put their faith into just about anything, from "dark energy", to multiple additional spacetime dimensions, to unseen particles, just as long as the idea doesn't involve an intelligent creator.

If you tried to suggest that even the first form of life could have been 'intelligently created' and "designed" to thrive in various physical environments, that's typically rejected with prejudice based on a perceived 'lack of evidence'. If however you "assume" it may have begun purely by an unusual arrangement of physical conditions here on Earth, that's typically fine by them, even without a demonstration of concept in the lab.

Most atheists I've met "assume" that 95 percent of the universe is controlled by "unseen" (in the lab) and invisible and "supernatural" forces. The only "supernatural" concept they outright reject, is anything that has to do with an intelligent creator.

It's the only common denominator in terms of their pattern of 'blind faith' that I've seen to date.

 

[Noxot]

science asks "how?". other spheres such as philosophy and religion ask different questions such as "why?"

 

[Radrook]

science asks "how?". other spheres such as philosophy and religion ask different questions such as "why?"

Genuine Scientific inquiry and methodology Science isn't what is being criticized. So that accusation is strawman.