Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is quasi-religious because it is accepted on faith. While theoretically we could make falsifying observations of string theory models, we have absolutely no way of replicating the energies required to observe any of them (or let's say almost any, as a hedge). Not now, and not in the foreseeable future either. "Science" is in scare-quotes because I don't consider what they are doing science (though it can reportedly be quite beautiful mathematics).Quasi-religious? How do you figure that? And why is science in scare quotes?
Please try writing a response to me on a different theme from what appears to be virtually every post you make. I already know your theory, and I already know why it is falsified--and so do you, because you've been told it time and time again.
It's like having a discussion with a pamphlet. No matter how what you say to it, it will always espouse the same thing. Try something new or don't expect people to care what you have to say.
Dear JWGU, Thanks for explaining the Willful ignorance of Today's backward thinking scientists.
God told us we live in a Multiverse thousands of years ago, but all knowing, all seeing, mortal scientists have decided to ignore God for some 3k years now.
Do you think that today's ignorant scientists will ever read Genesis in order to learn something? Or do they wish to waste another thousand years in their rejection of God's Truth? in favor of their own ignorance?
What was my fallacy, again?Thank you for latching yourself to JWGU's fallacy after the rest of us pointed out why it's a fallacy.
What was my fallacy, again?
I don't think I am guilty of that... can you point specifically to where I said that if the multiverse variant were incorrect (and in any case I don't really care whether it is), God was the logical conclusion? My belief in God is entirely faith-based, but I do not pretend that it is the only possible faith-based belief, or that a God (or Gods, or whatever unfalsifiable theory you care for) must be posited for things to make sense. That being my actual stance, and not some hypothetical put-upon stance assumed to win an argument, I'd be fairly shocked if I said something that contradicted that, but if I have I'm prepared to own up to it.False dichotomy. QV lasthero's post.
I don't think I am guilty of that... can you point specifically to where I said that if the multiverse variant were incorrect (and in any case I don't really care whether it is), God was the logical conclusion? My belief in God is entirely faith-based, but I do not pretend that it is the only possible faith-based belief, or that a God (or Gods, or whatever unfalsifiable theory you care for) must be posited for things to make sense. That being my actual stance, and not some hypothetical put-upon stance assumed to win an argument, I'd be fairly shocked if I said something that contradicted that, but if I have I'm prepared to own up to it.
That's a false dichotomy. Even if ideas about the multiverse are shown to be complete bunk, god - and certainly not any particular version of god - does not win by default. If we have two competing ideas and one is shown to be false, we don't automatically assume the other idea is correct. You still have to build support for the other idea. If we have two suspects we think murdered someone, and we show that one of the suspects could not have committed the crime, we do not automatically throw the other suspect in prison simply because we can't imagine anyone else that could have done it. We still have to build a case against the other suspect. Such is the case, here.
What scientist ever said such a thing? Even if God does exist, the natural world is still a real thing that can be studied, so science has a place. On top of that, there are many, many religious scientists in all manner of fields, probably more so than there are atheistic ones.
Well, Science is quite happy to believe that little grey aliens seeded life on this planet
Well, Science is quite happy to believe that little grey aliens seeded life on this planet, but finds it ridiculous that a being could exist outside this universe and create it. I find that hard to understand. Why do you insist on building a case against the most plausible explanation?
Why do you insist on building a case against the most plausible explanation?
Actually, let me be even clearer. When people say "abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution" they do not mean "abiogenesis did not happen" or "abiogenesis probably didn't happen" or "aliens did it." They simply mean exactly what they are saying--that abiogenesis is not a fundamental tenet of the theory of evolution. When pressed, they would probably also admit that any number of other things are not fundamental tenets of the theory of evolution. The theory of gravity? Not a tenet of evolution, not required for bifurcated hierarchies. Brownian motion? Ditto. Conservation of angular momentum? Again, nope. That doesn't mean these things have no impact on evolution, it just means they aren't part of the theory.
In reality, abiogenesis happening here on Earth--by which I mean, life here on Earth not being descended from life that formed outside of Earth--is excessively more likely than any of the alternatives. Scientists have many, many falsifiable theories left to rule out before they will ever have to posit anything but Earthly abiogenesis. Not because the alternate theories are unfalsifiable--necessarily--just because as low as the odds are for many of those theories, they are orders of magnitude more likely than any theory of alien abiogenesis for life on earth, or at least any I have heard thus far that is falsifiable, distinguishable from non-alien theories of abiogenesis, and fits the available data. If you believe you have found one, please let me know.
Until then, or until some earthshattering discovery alters the laws of physics in hitherto unforeseen ways, I will remain comfortable with my assertion that with very high probability, assuming life on Earth originated here on Earth will accurately model reality. I can say that even though I am not strongly confident in any one explanatory theory.
But until you resolve Abiogenesis, surely the theory of evolution is at a high possibility of being flawed?
But until you resolve Abiogenesis, surely the theory of evolution is at a high possibility of being flawed?
Nope, not even close.The bible is full of them, take your pick.
Nope. The theory of evolutionary common descent is independent of the theory of earthly abiogenesis (I assume you mean earthly, since that's what I meant, but given how much less likely extraterrestrial biogenesis for earthly life is it doesn't meaningfully affect the argument anyway). Life need not have had genesis at all (that is, it could have existed for an infinitely long time) for the theory of common descent to accurately model the observed evidence. Similarly, earthly abiogenesis need not have resulted in the hierarchical pattern we observe, since it could have happened multiple times, creating more than one nested hierarchy, or perhaps even a "fused" hierarchy. However, without conflating the two concepts, I see no reason to pretend that there are other similarly plausible falsifiable alternative models that would explain the origin of life on Earth. Based on our current knowledge of physics, biochemistry, and the Earth's geological history, there aren't.But until you resolve Abiogenesis, surely the theory of evolution is at a high possibility of being flawed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?