Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[bhsmte]

If I had made that official proclamation of abiogenesis as fact by atheist scientists claim I would defend it.
But since I haven't......

What I do notice-however, is that abiogenesis, though technically not officially pronounced as an indisputable fact, is nevertheless treated as if it were indisputable undeniable fact.

Goldilocks zones on exo-planetary star systems are touted as being more likely to
nurture life because they are far more likely to foster abiogenesis.

Calculations about the numerical presence of life are smugly proposed based on the likelihood of abiogenesis.

The presence of water is proclaimed to be essential for the existence of life anywhere in the universe because without water abiogenesis is extremely unlikely if not outright impossible.


So no official proclamation is really necessary. Just treat it as if it were indeed a fact and Voila!

Then please, provide us with examples, of scientists claiming abiogenesis, is an indisputable fact.

We will wait patiently.

 

[Radrook]

So how do you justify your conclusions?

That has been repeatedly pointed out and the response has always been :

"I caint see!"

 

[Radrook]

Then please, provide us with examples, of scientists claiming abiogenesis, is an indisputable fact.

We will wait patiently.

You have a long wait since I never made that exact claim.
That is a misunderstanding of how I describe the certainty with which the concept is portrayed and conveyed.

 

[Radrook]

That doesn't give me the inductive argument that leads to the conclusion of an ID.

It provides the person with the essential knowledge required to fully understated what is being proposed. Definition of terms is required in order to avoid talking past each other or committing fallacy of equivocation. If we don't really appreciate the terms being used-then we will inevitably be arguing against imaginary propositions which is a waste of time.

 

[Freodin]

That has been repeatedly pointed out and the response has always been :

"I caint see!"

Just for my sake: do it again, please. Or, if you don't want to do that, point me to your posts where you "pointed that out" and received this answer.

This might be a little work for you... but certainly it isn't too much to ask. Consider, this way you could prove to at least one of us pesky atheists that you aren't just bluffing.

And to show you how it can be done: my showing your that your usage of inductive reasoning is faulty.

Post #465

But that is the point that you avoid like the plague: in your "life only from life" inference, you keep ignoring the necessary starting point. Where does the "first life" come from?

Observation might not help you a lot here, but logic might.

- The "first life" cannot have come from "life"... it wouldn't be "first" life.
- Thus "first life" is extempt from the rule that "life only comes from life".
- "First life" is still "life". Thus the rule "life only comes from life" is not universal.

Thus we would have to adjust the rule "(current / higher) life only comes from life. (Original / basic) life must have come from something different than life, especially (current / higher) life."

 

[bhsmte]

You have a long wait since I never made that exact claim.
That is a misunderstanding of how I describe the certainty with which the concept is portrayed and conveyed.

I cant say i am shocked at your ability to deny what you just wrote, but this is entertaining.

 

[Radrook]

You are still doing it; not reading what people actually write and redefining the same.

This typically happens, when someone is in serious defensive mode and has nothing to support their claims.

Wrong! I am carefully reading what people write and am responding in accordance to what they write. In that case I notice that here is a lack of understanding of exactly how inductive reasoning relates to the scientific method and am suggesting a familiarization with it before proceeding any farther in order to avoid time-wasting equivocator.

 

[Radrook]

I cant say i am shocked at your ability to deny what you just wrote, but this is entertaining.

I am also greatly entertained by your vehement insistence that I expressed those exact views as you understand them despite my repeated clarifications that I meant no such things as you imagine. Insistence that a person means what he explains that he doesn't mean is rather peevish and really has no legitimate status in any discussion. In fact, it can be understood as tantamount to heckling and in order to annoy. Fortunately, I am merely amused by the constant and very possibly unintentional display of irrationality.

 

[Freodin]

Wrong! I am carefully reading what people write and am responding in accordance to what they write. In that case I notice that here is a lack of understanding of exactly how inductive reasoning relates to the scientific method and am suggesting a familiarization with it before proceeding any farther in order to avoid time-wasting equivocator.

That is a bold faced lie!

Case in point:

The fact that you can't show the inductive reasoning that leads to the conclusion of an ID demonstrates that there is no such reasoning.

Your response:

Now inductive reasoning doesn't exist? Just as I suspected. Please google the subject of inductive reasoning and add the term scientific method.

(My emphasis, in both quotes)

You just declared a specified statement as denying a generality. Either you did not understand what you read, or you don't care.

 

[Radrook]

Just for my sake: do it again, please. Or, if you don't want to do that, point me to your posts where you "pointed that out" and received this answer.

This might be a little work for you... but certainly it isn't too much to ask. Consider, this way you could prove to at least one of us pesky atheists that you aren't just bluffing.

And to show you how it can be done: my showing your that your usage of inductive reasoning is faulty.

Post #465

You have misunderstood my usage of humor as a literal reference to how the response was written.
It is merely an abridged way of depicting the essence of the responses I receive.

BTW
Please show me how reaching a conclusion based on a repeated pattern violates inductive reasoning.
Also show me how inductive reasoning was NOT involved in the inference that Dark Matter exists.

This should be very interesting to behold!

Thanks!

 

[Radrook]

That is a bold faced lie!

Case in point:

Your response:

(My emphasis, in both quotes)

You just declared a specified statement as denying a generality. Either you did not understand what you read, or you don't care.

Please note that I consider an accusation of being habitual liar a very serious insult.
Nevertheless I will ignore it.

Yes I do care. Why else would I be investing my valuable time in a discussion?

You are misunderstanding my statements and giving them an unintended twist. The person claimed that my argument did not exist. I replied that it is tantamount to saying that inductive reasoning doesn't exist because that is what my argument was based on. Nothing more.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I already provided links and a video.

Lol! CYBERBORISjohnson isn't a physicist, and his misquoting of Hawking's 'The Grand Design' demonstrates it. Nowhere in that book does Hawing talk of life in other dimensions (other universes, yes). And the dimensions Michio Kaku talks about are the dimensions of String Theory, and the life is possible life in other universes; as usual, the portentous voice-over has it wrong in several places. It's frankly naive to think these are remotely authoritative links about physics.

Are you jumping into this discussion without having even read what has been previously been posted and making assumptions?

No, I've read it all; and unlike some, I address only what people say, and make no other assumptions.

Very bad idea. It leads to false accusations that are easily proven bogus.

You mean like your false accusations about me: "griping about some deity spying on you when you are naked", and others? I would have thought that, as a Christian, that would give you pause.

It also raises suspicions on whether you really are aware of the facts but are attempting to misrepresent anyway.

Project much?

 

[Freodin]

You have misunderstood my usage of humor as a literal reference to how the response was written.
It is merely an abridged way of depicting the essence of the responses I receive.

As I notice a prominent habit of misinterpreting others in your posts, I doubt the existence of this "essence"... and your unwillingness to provide evidence does nothing to support your claims.

BTW
Please show me how reaching a conclusion based on a repeated pattern violates inductive reasoning.

Any form of inductive reasoning that ignores the - observed or logically inferred - existence of contrary arguments is necessarily flawed. That is basic logic.

Also show me how inductive reasoning was NOT involved in the inference that Dark Matter exists.

This should be very interesting to behold!

Thanks!

Neither I nor anyone else here have made the argument that inductive reasoning - correctly used - isn't used in the infereence of Dark Matter. You should have noticed that, instead of erecting a strawman.

 

[Radrook]

Assuming that scientists approve of videos that go completely contrary to their beliefs is a rather flimsy argument. Scientists are very careful in how they are represented on TV in programs such as Discovery and they are consulted before the voice-over is employed in order to assure accuracy.

 

[bhsmte]

You have a long wait since I never made that exact claim.
That is a misunderstanding of how I describe the certainty with which the concept is portrayed and conveyed.

Best you take a gander at your post number 499, the first paragragh.

Let us know what that first paragragh states.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I do notice-however, is that abiogenesis, though technically not officially pronounced as an indisputable fact, is nevertheless treated as if it were indisputable undeniable fact.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."--The Dude

 

[Loudmouth]

That has been repeatedly pointed out and the response has always been :

"I caint see!"

You have repeatedly asserted it, but have yet to substantiate it.

 

[The Cadet]

Bickering over an ID's nature means non-belief in an ID.

I made no such claim. I simply pointed out that while there is some non-trivial consensus that something must have created the universe among laypersons (not, as we will shortly see, among experts), there is fairly extreme disagreement over what that something is, what qualities it has, and more.

Scientists who disagree over the nature of gravity aren't denying the existence of gravity-are they? Or those who might bicker concerning the nature of dark energy or dark matter aren't placing their existence in any doubt0-are they?

First of all, could you cite these disagreements? I'm not entirely sure you're referring to. Secondly, I don't know much about dark matter, but I can point to one significant difference between intelligent design and gravity: I can demonstrate gravity trivially, while demonstrating intelligent design may in fact be fundamentally impossible due to its unfalsifiable nature - or could you show us what a universe your god couldn't design would look like?

The exact nature of the ID and religious bickering over its identity are totally irrelevant because the only thing I am pointing out is that they conclude an ID.

They conclude intelligent design, sure. They also conclude that it must have been their god that did it. Which means that clearly, somewhere, something has gone wrong.

I haven't proposed anything that isn't justified by what your physicists suggest and acknowledge.

Almost all cosmologists (you know, the guys whose data people like Craig rely on for their arguments to demonstrate god) are atheists. I've heard figures as high as 80%. There is a strong correlation between level of education and atheism, with the people who discover the data you wish to use to demonstrate god overwhelmingly going in the other direction. Ask any physicist whether they think that physics proves god, and you're unlikely to get a positive response.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe your gripes are better directed on your own physicists:

Michio Kaku said:

“Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg likens this multiple universe theory to radio. All around you, there are hundreds of different radio waves being broadcast from distant stations. At any given instant, your office or car or living room is full of these radio waves. However, if you turn on a radio, you can listen to only one frequency at a time; these other frequencies have decohered and are no longer in phase with each other. Each station has a different energy, a different frequency. As a result, your radio can only be turned to one broadcast at a time.Likewise, in our universe we are "tuned" into the frequency that corresponds to physical reality. But there are an infinite number of parallel realities coexisting with us in the same room, although we cannot "tune into" them.

Although these worlds are very much alike, each has a different energy. And because each world consists of trillions upon trillions of atoms, this means that the energy difference can be quite large. Since the frequency of these waves is proportional to their energy (by Planck's law), this means that the waves of each world vibrate at different frequencies and cannot interact anymore. For all intents and purposes, the waves of these various worlds do not interact or influence each other.”
― Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18800.Michio_Kaku

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe your gripes are better directed on your own physicists:

Michio Kaku said:

Mention of a deity is where again?