Does abiogenesis require a multiverse?

[PsychoSarah]

You're probably as sick of hearing people quote Genesis, as I am of hearing about the 'successful predictions' of Gutheology.

To *overcome* their ignorance, one does have to invest some time in rounding up appropriate reading material. If they won't read it or respond to that material meaningfully however, it's not really a two way conversation, and we're not communicating. In that respect, it's really not any different in my experience. Willful ignorance is just willful ignorance, no matter who does it, what the topic might be, or what the motive might be.

Would you at least say that people that disagree with you in matters of physics make honest attempts to intelligently debate?

I hear "science can take a hike" (thanks for that AV -_-).

 

[Michael]

Would you at least say that people that disagree with you in matters of physics make honest attempts to intelligently debate?

I hear "science can take a hike" (thanks for that AV -_-).

I'd say it depends entirely on the person. SZ and his 'Poly claims that there is no peer reviewed work to support EU/PC theory" got pretty old too after awhile. I guess I've gotten used to people taking ignorant pot shots at ideas that the don't really understand, or know much about. It's never 'logical' behavior mind you, but it is "predictable" behavior in the sense that someone is bound to do it sooner or later, regardless of the topic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'd say it depends entirely on the person. SZ and his 'Poly claims that there is no peer reviewed work to support EU/PC theory" got pretty old too after awhile. I guess I've gotten used to people taking ignorant pot shots at ideas that the don't really understand, or know much about. It's never 'logical' behavior mind you, but it is "predictable" behavior in the sense that someone is bound to do it sooner or later, regardless of the topic.

Yes, but when it comes to evolution vs creation debates, the majority of my opposition doesn't seem to be knowledgeable about evolution. Some readily admit their ignorance but argue anyway, regurgitating stuff from blatantly biased sources and quote mining. There was even a time when someone quoted a "white power" racist site -_- . The Christians and others that do have extensive knowledge of evolution tend to support the theory or only have issues with small points in it. I really need a challenge of wits to make the constant challenge of my patience worth it. Even I can attack evolution better than my opposition most of the time, and I overall support the theory.

It is like playing a videogame in god mode; so easy it isn't even fun anymore, and all the inbetween dialogue loses its importance and becomes annoying.

 

[Michael]

Yes, but when it comes to evolution vs creation debates, the majority of my opposition doesn't seem to be knowledgeable about evolution.

Do you really think that I run into any opposition that can site an actual specific criticism of Alfven's published works?

Some readily admit their ignorance but argue anyway, regurgitating stuff from blatantly biased sources and quote mining.

How many unpublished websites about EU theory did SZ handwave at in his 'EU test' thread? How many times did I ask for a *specific* criticism of Alfven's work?

There was even a time when someone quoted a "white power" racist site -_- .

Ok, you got me there. That's never happened to me in EU vs. Lambda cage fight.

The Christians and others that do have extensive knowledge of evolution tend to support the theory or only have issues with small points in it. I really need a challenge of wits to make the constant challenge of my patience worth it. Even I can attack evolution better than my opposition most of the time, and I overall support the theory.

Well, again that would be due to the fact that you took the time and made the effort to *understand* the theory, so you do understand it's *real* strengths and weaknesses. That's also true of EU/PC theory however.

It is like playing a videogame in god mode; so easy it isn't even fun anymore, and all the inbetween dialogue loses its importance and becomes annoying.

Ya, some of my conversations at JREF just got annoying after awhile. Again however, I think it really depends on the individual and whether or not they want to 'learn' or just 'argue'.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Do you really think that I run into any opposition that can site an actual specific criticism of Alfven's published works?
How many unpublished websites about EU theory did SZ handwave at in his 'EU test' thread? How many times did I ask for a *specific* criticism of Alfven's work?
Ok, you got me there. That's never happened to me in EU vs. Lambda cage fight.
Well, again that would be due to the fact that you took the time and made the effort to *understand* the theory, so you do understand it's *real* strengths and weaknesses. That's also true of EU/PC theory however.
Ya, some of my conversations at JREF just got annoying after awhile. Again however, I think it really depends on the individual and whether or not they want to 'learn' or just 'argue'.

I don't think you hear criticisms of that one specific document, otherwise you wouldn't be constantly asking for them. However, you seem to be complaining mostly about 1 single person. I am starved for an intelligent evolution vs creation debate that isn't completely one sided when it comes to logically based evidence. I don't have to agree with evidence to find it logical, by the way.

Just for the heck of it, post a link to that paper of yours no one wants to directly attack, I'll see what I can do, even if I agree with it I'll try to give you a run for your money with a debate about it if I can. It'll be a nice intellectual exercise.

 

[Michael]

I don't think you hear criticisms of that one specific document, otherwise you wouldn't be constantly asking for them. However, you seem to be complaining mostly about 1 single person.

It's not like the criticism only applied to one individual. That was just a recent example.

I am starved for an intelligent evolution vs creation debate that isn't completely one sided when it comes to logically based evidence. I don't have to agree with evidence to find it logical, by the way.

That's almost exactly how I feel in terms of EU vs. Lambda-CDM conversations. They typically don't last long, they almost never involve anyone citing a specific flaw in Alfven's work, although I have no trouble at all picking out the specific flaws in their published works.

Just like with YEC, the opposition *never* produces *empirical physical* evidence. Instead it's one affirming the consequent fallacy after another with math, over and over and over again. They're constantly dressing up the supernatural pig with more math and piggybacking it to some other unrelated issue, just like abiogenesis.

Just for the heck of it, post a link to that paper of yours no one wants to directly attack, I'll see what I can do, even if I agree with it I'll try to give you a run for your money with a debate about it if I can. It'll be a nice intellectual exercise.

That sounds fun. I'll start a new thread for you and everything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I gladly await it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Given that we are talking about infinity, the chances of a possible occurance, not occurring become so small as to be effectively zero. Granted it may never quite be zero but it might as well be

To be fair not really, while posabilities are theoreticly infinite, there are some limits on things, limits on what even evolution can form as there would be constraints on them. Like how so many independant animals evolved the fish shape, and none of them evolved a cube shape for water use, because the nature and constraints of water prevent it from evolving as a streamline always be more efficient and therefore more likly to be chosen.

Same thing with a universe where planets are square, there have to be massive changes that may not be possible to allow for gravity to form squares rather then spheres.