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.
Because of your intentional ignoring of scaling problems. Your lab is too small.I supposed it depends on the size of the model, and the size of the plasma chamber.How many galaxies can you fit into your lab? Is the number less that 2?
Is there any particular reason that you're intentionally ignoring the clear difference between 'scaling problems' and demonstrating actual cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation?
Still science.String theory is in the same section however.Show me some of your testimonies about gods books that have a place in the science section of the bookstore.
That would be a "yes" then.Er,Argument from popularity. Must you use fallacies?
You have just admitted that you cannot provide such a name.<snip irrelevant response>You have been asked to provide the name of anyone that would testify that they have had contact with what they would call "God" that can demonstrate that is it something outside of their imagination. If your response is anything other than that name, you are admitting that you cannot provide such a name.
No, but that doesn't stop both Christians and non-Christians from estimating the odds, anyway. After all, we're reconstructing not any possible scenario, but our own, which we're understanding better each year. In my thread about Dr. Koonin's multiverse hypothesis, he's quoted as estimating the odds against life at about 1:10^1,000. That's in the same ballpark that believers have been estimating for decades. Stymied, he turned to the multiverse to increase his odds, he claims, to 1:1.
So guess what: God did it, just as he has said. And is that so hard to accept?
Because of your intentional ignoring of scaling problems. Your lab is too small.
Right. Nothing like just "making up" extra dimensions of spacetime in your head. String theory is *the* religion for math geeks that can't stand any mathematical constraints, and cannot be bothered to limit themselves to "reality".Still science.
You apparently missed the name? Penrose.You have just admitted that you cannot provide such a name.
Not my problem. If you can't even fit our local cluster of galaxies into your lab, then it is your approach that has the problem.No, you're intentionally trying to ignore your cause/effect *physics* problem.
"Reality", as defined by a theist like yourself?Right. Nothing like just "making up" extra dimensions of spacetime in your head. String theory is *the* religion for math geeks that can't stand any mathematical constraints, and cannot be bothered to limit themselves to "reality".
No gods mentioned in that article. You again admit that you cannot provide such a name.You apparently missed the name? Penrose.
Not my problem. If you can't even fit our local cluster of galaxies into your lab, then it is your approach that has the problem.
"Reality", as defined by a theist like yourself?
No gods mentioned in that article. You again admit that you cannot provide such a name.
So where is this evidence for an eternal universe that you need for your macroscopic deities?My approach works just fine,
No, you use other fallacies, like the argument from popularity.and it's not based upon a 1001 affirming the consequent fallacies.
But that's not the Christian "God", is it?Well, even my "God" is 100 percent empirical, 100 percent 'visible'.
Yep. Not one name.Nope.
If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.[serious];65345614 said:I've got a shuffled deck of cards. Did God do that? You could have everyone on earth shuffle every deck of cards over and over and never get the result I have right here.
If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.[serious];65345614 said:Why would we expect to see it happen that exact way over again?
If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.
If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.
Researchers such as Koonin understand this, and are looking elsewhere. But crevo forumites haven't gotten the message yet.
You're a Christian, so I have to ask: why are you fighting so hard for a Godless belief (and that's what abiogenesis is) that has so little going for it?
So where is this evidence for an eternal universe that you need for your macroscopic deities?
No, you use other fallacies, like the argument from popularity.
But that's not the Christian "God", is it?
Yep. Not one name.
So now the universe is only 10,000 years old?Everywhere you look, and throughout human history. When was it ever described as not being there?
Even if I used fallacies, it would not excuse your use of them, would it?Apparently your primary favorite fallacy is an appeal to authority.
You inability to demonstrate a connection between the two.It's not? How do you know that?
You left out Deepak Chopra - is he not in your camp also?Besides Penrose and Hameroff you mean?
If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.
Read the original presentation again: (snipped to the scenario)If I'm understanding your example as you intend, that's the license plate analogy again. It's only valid when each of the combinations work. It's not valid in the case of chemical life, or we'd see life arising around us all the time.
If it were as common as unbelievers expect, we'd expect to see life of some kind arising all around us.
Researchers such as Koonin understand this, and are looking elsewhere. But crevo forumites haven't gotten the message yet.
You're a Christian, so I have to ask: why are you fighting so hard for a Godless belief (and that's what abiogenesis is) that has so little going for it?
[serious];65329569 said:It's like that deck of cards was in some order that let you win a game, the rules of which you don't entirely understand. Maybe every 5th card happens to be a prime when you picked them up and every 6th card is a spade and that's why you won this round. But is that the only way to win? You don't know. Now imagine you don't know how many people are playing that game. You don't see anyone one else in your room playing, but for all you know there could be 10 other people in the country playing. or 100,000 people. Or no one else playing. Now let's say you don't know how many countries there are. You are physically prevented from checking because of oceans you can't cross in the way. You haven't won since that first win, but you have amnesia up until the first win (which was cured as part of the reward for winning) so you don't know how many times you lost prior to it. So, how much does it mean that you haven't won since? Does that mean the deck of cards was put in a specific order by a supernatural being? does it mean that you were that one guy out of millions who won that particular lottery? Who knows?
Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.The cells you are talking about have been evolving for some 3 billion years. First life did not consist of modern cells.
Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.
I never believe in abiogenesis.
So now the universe is only 10,000 years old?
No, but it does ultimately demonstrate the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You apparently for instance don't need tangible evidence of inflation or dark energy or exotic matter when suggesting you can put some age on the universe. On the other hand you simply deny the *experiences* of every human outside of yourself in terms of their validity. Why? What's the *empirical* (in the lab replicable) difference?Even if I used fallacies, it would not excuse your use of them, would it?
That was a non answer to my question.You inability to demonstrate a connection between the two.
Apparently he's a fan of Penrose like me. Do I have a "camp" other than respect for the work Penrose in that area?You left out Deepak Chopra - is he not in your camp also?
Unlike you, I can *physically define* the "God" that I believe to be eternal. It's been there for as long as any human has ever known. It's definitely been there for more than 4.6 billion years old since Earth itself is that old. It's *ancient* by anyone's standards and it's structures resemble both in form and function (information transfer) the neutrons of living organisms.No, you still don't have one name.
If you are so sure of it, then demonstrate it, instead of endlessly insisting others shoulder the burden of evidence.It's ancient. That's all I'm sure of. If you have some belief about it's supposedly finite age, it's up to you to demonstrate it.
I am not making that claim. The complaint about the nature of evidence is most often made by those that lack evidence. Like yourself.No, but it does ultimately demonstrate the subjective nature of 'evidence'. You apparently for instance don't need tangible evidence of inflation or dark energy or exotic matter when suggesting you can put some age on the universe.
I do not deny the "experiences" of my fellow humans, or their validity, as evidence for overactive imaginations and the natural inclination to believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, and government conspiracies. This is demonstrable, and falsifiable.On the other hand you simply deny the *experiences* of every human outside of yourself in terms of their validity. Why? What's the *empirical* (in the lab replicable) difference?
"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."Apparently he's a fan of Penrose like me. Do I have a "camp" other than respect for the work Penrose in that area?
Not in any way that is demonstrable or falsifiable.Unlike you, I can *physically define* the "God" that I believe to be eternal.
I do not accept your unevidenced claim for this.It's been there for as long as any human has ever known. It's definitely been there for more than 4.6 billion years old since Earth itself is that old.
By anyone's standards? Who voted for you to be our spokesperson?It's *ancient* by anyone's standards
Look - it's a mermaid on Mars!and it's structures resemble both in form and function (information transfer) the neutrons of living organisms.
Right, the first life was Frankencell; totally science fiction. Modern cells are self-replicating cities of biological machines.
Man haven't yet build a self-replicating machines. Why? Because it's a lot simpler to build a machine to perform a certain function than to build one that perform a function plus self-replicate itself.
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?