New thought about Pascal's Wager

↑

gradyll said:

. you have no evidence for the contrary, so I don't feel inclined to do your homework.

Click to expand...

So you agree that Monton is not an atheist. OK

Dmitri Martila said:

If God probably non-existent, then we are probably fools. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

No.

Dmitri Martila said:

How you can put God in doubt by fictitious cloud?

Click to expand...

How can you believe in a fictitious god?

gradyll said:

first of all peer review has major flaws, and is snobby.

Click to expand...

And most importantly, doesn't allow special pleading for one's pet beliefs make it to the level of actual published research.

I believe I have access to about 12 of them.

Click to expand...

Is this kinda like believing that Jesus died for your sins, or is this a belief based on reality?

This kind of claim would be a lot more interesting if you just posted links to the papers rather than claiming some vast conspiracy theory.

Dmitri Martila said:

The cloud is by fact the fictitious, but God is not. If you reject this statement, you have the "mind" attached to satan.

Click to expand...

The christian god, satan, the Hindu gods, the Roman gods, the gods of the Sioux, the Greek gods. All are equally real or all are equally fictitious. If you had been born in India your beliefs would probably be different.

The god you believe in and your Eastern-Orthodox beliefs about him are rooted in where you were born and who raised you. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dmitri Martila said:

You used word "God", why? Because you know, He exists. Otherwise you are mind-less robot, as the Hawking sees the things. The engine of atheist is not the freewill and reason, but the sick instincts, including rejection of hated God.

Click to expand...

Quotemining and changing quotes is a form of lying.

Wasn't there some christian commandment against such behaviour?

ecco said:

The basis for the beliefs of the three IDers is religion. Like most other people like them, including yourself, they try to poke holes in science instead of just saying GodDidit. This is especially true if they are discussing their views in a somewhat scientific setting. Each of the three IDers presented their views. Scientists addressed each of their points. Here is part of one response to Behe my emphasis:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. ... However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.​

You really should take the time to read the entire exchange, but I doubt you will.


"



Where did you get "survive billions of years"? The stuff that becomes comets may originate in the Ort cloud or the Kuiper Belt. It can be out there from the early days of our solar system. But that doesn't mean it has been in a cometary path, (coming close to the sun and going back out) for billions of years.


Halley's comet for the layman:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet

In 1989, Boris Chirikov and Vitaly Vecheslavov performed an analysis of 46 apparitions of Halley's Comet taken from historical records and computer simulations. These studies showed that its dynamics were chaotic and unpredictable on long timescales.[42] Halley's projected lifetime could be as long as 10 million years. More recent work suggests that Halley will evaporate, or split in two, within the next few tens of thousands of years, or will be ejected from the Solar System within a few hundred thousand years.[37] Observations by D.W. Hughes suggest that Halley's nucleus has been reduced in mass by 80–90% over the last 2000–3000 revolutions.[14]​

It's interesting that you state that no evolutionist has been able to explain it to you in ten years. It took me just a few minutes to show your argument is based on a serious lack of understanding of the nature of comets.

Maybe you should look beyond...

http://www.thekingsforum.com/index.php?topic=3465.0

... to get your scientific knowledge.

Click to expand...

I believe I already addressed the hypothetical unobserved oort cloud.

again with out obeservation, it fails to be science.


science on a hard core sense, requires observation.

it's impossible to have a hypothesis on something unobserved, and resultantly a theory.

so we have proven that the oort cloud is unobserved and therefore tossed out of science.

so the only other option is that the commets lasted billions of years, which is impossible for a chunk of melting ice.

KCfromNC said:

And most importantly, doesn't allow special pleading for one's pet beliefs make it to the level of actual published research.



Is this kinda like believing that Jesus died for your sins, or is this a belief based on reality?

This kind of claim would be a lot more interesting if you just posted links to the papers rather than claiming some vast conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

so as I mentioned rosyln jallow's peer review were pet beliefs and her nobel prize work?

simply because peer review is not hip on new R&D, doesn't mean that it's true simply because it's snobby toward new things.

gradyll said:

first of all peer review has major flaws, and is snobby.

second it's not kind toward new innovation.

hence the resistance to ID.

but the peer reviews are in the dozens at the moment,

I believe I have access to about 12 of them.

more or less.

two or three are excellent, the others are more generalized and speak of some type of design,

2-3 are directly correlated to design as it relates to intelligence behind it.

Click to expand...

Do you know what tends to break down resistance?

EVIDENCE.

gradyll said:

like this one

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Paperback)
by Bradley John Monton

Click to expand...

Isn't it beautiful, people can choose to write whatever kind of book they want.

Dmitri Martila said:

You used word "God", why? Because you know, He exists.

Click to expand...

I've also used the words Atlas, ‎Aphrodite, Apollo and Zeus. They don't exist.

Dmitri Martila said:

The engine of atheist is not the freewill and reason,

Click to expand...

It is with reason that one can observe that most religious people have the beliefs of their parents, other relatives and the people of their geographic origins. It is with reason that one can conclude that religious belief originates more from early childhood indoctrination than from rational thinking.

Dmitri Martila said:

but the sick instincts, including rejection of hated God.

Click to expand...

How often must religious people be reminded that atheists do not hate god? Do you hate Atlas, ‎Aphrodite, Apollo or Zeus? Do you hate the Hindu god Shiva? Do you hate Kanati a Cherokee god?

Atheists do not hate gods. We dislike that people try to insert their religious views onto society. As an example, those who would push Creationism into our schools do so by denigrating science and in so doing, turn many bright young minds away from science.

In the OP you stated "Our freedom (ie, God's non-coercion) is not the absence of logical proofs of God. After all, I have such proofs". Eighteen pages later you have yet to show your proofs.

gradyll said:

I believe I already addressed the hypothetical unobserved oort cloud.

again with out obeservation, it fails to be science.


science on a hard core sense, requires observation.

it's impossible to have a hypothesis on something unobserved, and resultantly a theory.

so we have proven that the oort cloud is unobserved and therefore tossed out of science.

so the only other option is that the commets lasted billions of years, which is impossible for a chunk of melting ice.

Click to expand...

Your reply completely and conveniently, for your argument, ignores the Kuiper Belt. Do you also consider it to be hypothetical and unobserved? Can you present any arguments that the Kuiper Belt does not exist? If not, then everything else I stated about comets stands, and your views and those of your copy and paste source...

http://www.thekingsforum.com/index.php?topic=3465.0


... are false. Interestingly enough, you failed to address them.

ecco said:

I've also used the words Atlas, ‎Aphrodite, Apollo and Zeus. They don't exist.


It is with reason that one can observe that most religious people have the beliefs of their parents, other relatives and the people of their geographic origins. It is with reason that one can conclude that religious belief originates more from early childhood indoctrination than from rational thinking.


How often must religious people be reminded that atheists do not hate god? Do you hate Atlas, ‎Aphrodite, Apollo or Zeus? Do you hate the Hindu god Shiva? Do you hate Kanati a Cherokee god?

Atheists do not hate gods. We dislike that people try to insert their religious views onto society. As an example, those who would push Creationism into our schools do so by denigrating science and in so doing, turn many bright young minds away from science.

In the OP you stated "Our freedom (ie, God's non-coercion) is not the absence of logical proofs of God. After all, I have such proofs". Eighteen pages later you have yet to show your proofs.

Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of the fundy types, that claim they can read minds and atheists hate God.

Kinda hard to hate something you don't believe exists, but I understand the fundies psychological need, to claim atheists hate God.

gradyll said:

I believe I already addressed the hypothetical unobserved oort cloud ... for a chunk of melting ice.

Click to expand...

In your response, you failed to address...
As I said, you probably wouldn't and didn't read the exchanges between your IDers and scientists. Are you really afraid to learn because it might put an element of doubt into your religious views?

bhsmte said:

Do you know what tends to break down resistance?

EVIDENCE.

Click to expand...

there is evidence,

take for example the peer review on the intelligent design of the avian wing.

yet birds and dinosaurs share common ancestry?

hardly.

ok, I will give you one:

"1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could

not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would

absolutely break down.” ...

"Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection

creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the

Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would

necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales

but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half

a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway

house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the

problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to

birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely

to survive anyway."

above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an

atheist.

Avian feathers are one example of irreducible complexity and more specifically specified complexity:

a peer review article details it for us:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian

Respiration

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:

Peer-

Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

bhsmte said:

Isn't it beautiful, people can choose to write whatever kind of book they want.

Click to expand...

you comment does not add any new information to the debate, nor does it support your premise or mine.

just so you know.

ecco said:

Your reply completely and conveniently, for your argument, ignores the Kuiper Belt. Do you also consider it to be hypothetical and unobserved? Can you present any arguments that the Kuiper Belt does not exist? If not, then everything else I stated about comets stands, and your views and those of your copy and paste source...

Click to expand...

I noticed you did not debate the oort cloud was unobserved, so victory there.

now moving on.

next point.

"Short-Lived Comets

A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But, once each orbit, a

comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and

dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly

reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.

Two other mechanisms can destroy comets — ejections from the solar system and collisions with

planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the

planets’ gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the

first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.

Given the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few

million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few

thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two

sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets

(comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets

(comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past 20 years,

astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be

the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the

difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."

above section from :

-Ken Ham, The New Answer Book #4, copy write 2013, master’s books

Yet another Creationist book expands on this problem:

The Facts Are .....

"(1) The problem for evolution is that if short period comets only last about 10,000 years, and the solar

system is 5 billion years old, then there should not be any of these comets left in existence. As

short-period comets have been visible this century (eg Halley's comet), the solar system must be

considerably younger than the date assigned to it by evolutionary theory. [based on logic]

(2) The belief in a 5 billion year old solar system has led to a hypothesis that these comets must be

resupplied from outside the solar system - an example of a preconceived idea determining scientific

belief. A vast shell of 100 billion comets, called the 'Oort Cloud' is theorized to exist at the outer edge

of the solar system. Passing stars are supposed to disturb the cloud enough to knock a comet into an

inner orbit. This is a theory that is not based on any observed facts. Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol."

31, 1974

p:385-401 IBID.

"(3) The facts about the Oort cloud are:- (1) It has never been observed, and should be regarded as an

evolutionary prediction; (2) The calculated motions of comets do not match well with any predictions

based on the Oort Cloud; and (3) Cometary evidence does not support the existence of an Oort cloud.

Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, 1974 p:385-401

(4) Some researchers believe that if the Oort theory is true, then some comets from our solar system

should have escaped. Likewise, we should have seen about six comets over the past 150 years from

other star systems. Science Frontiers, May-June, 1990 p:1; Sky & Telescope, Vol. 79, 1990 p:254

(5) As the Oort Cloud has not been discovered yet, new theories are rising to explain the existence of

short-life comets. The latest theory is that "Halley's comet comes from a second much closer belt of

millions of comets just outside the solar system left over as debris and junk when the outer planets

formed 5 billion years ago". This theory is spoken of in a factual manner, yet is not based on fact. The

Advertiser (Adelaide), May 14, 1988 p:20

(6) A theory put forward for the origins of short-period comets states that they are belched out of

volcanoes, most probably on Jupiter. But, (1) the theory is not supported by observation; (2) there is

no planetary mechanism that would impart the force needed to expel the comets; (3) the physical

makeup of comets does not match this origin; and (4) the comet would need to be travelling at over

700 Km/sec to escape a large planet, a speed which would cause it to vaporize in the process. Harold S.

Slusher, "Age of the Cosmos: ICR technical Monograph #9", Institute for Creation Research: San Diego,

1980 p:49

(7) The evidence of life on comets is based on infra-red analysis of Haley's Comet which indicated that

organic matter was pouring out of its head and tail. A study of the data, however, suggests that these

organic molecules are not the kind associated with living organisms. The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3,

1986 p:2”

Unmasking Evolution – Laurence D Smart, copy write 2000.



In conclusion:

The Oort cloud is unobserved. And the Kuiper belt has huge comets, nothing the size of what we see in

the universe as considered short term. That is the only thing observed! You literally have no other

answer for short term comets other than the kuiper belt, secondly you have no other answer for long

term comets! As the Oort cloud was something completely fabricated in order to explain for the

existence of flying comets in an "old" universe- (that’s cold) but also in a universe that is constantly

tearing the ice from the comet! As you can tell the tails on the comets are ice trails! Meaning every

comet is literally falling apart at the seams! (generally speaking). Basically flying ice should not last

billions of years. Maybe a few million at best, maaaayyybbee. And short term comets most likely tens of

thousands of years maaaayyybbeee.

gradyll said:

you comment does not add any new information to the debate, nor does it support your premise or mine.

just so you know.

Click to expand...

Books, they are plentiful.

Do you disagree?

ecco said:

In your response, you failed to address...

The basis for the beliefs of the three IDers is religion. Like most other people like them, including yourself, they try to poke holes in science instead of just saying GodDidit. This is especially true if they are discussing their views in a somewhat scientific setting. Each of the three IDers presented their views. Scientists addressed each of their points. Here is part of one response to Behe my emphasis:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. ... However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

You really should take the time to read the entire exchange, but I doubt you will.
​

As I said, you probably wouldn't and didn't read the exchanges between your IDers and scientists. Are you really afraid to learn because it might put an element of doubt into your religious views?

Click to expand...

why read exchanges, when I debate them here.

I have debated more than one astronomer on this forum regarding this, and they had no answers.