What is the purpose behind an eternal hell?

[DogmaHunter]

it's a rather common sense

"common sense" is not a pathway to truth. Common sense can only inform you on things you allready know about.

"Common sense" doesn't lead to the conclusion that relative to the observer, time slows down as speed increases.
"Common sense" doesn't lead to the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun.
"Common sense" doesn't lead to the conclusion that particles can manifest in 2 places at once.

In fact, every single major breakthrough in science was something that completely defied common sense.

Scientifically speaking that's when you can demonstrate how it can be done so.

Genetics easily can, but your a priori beliefs prevent you from letting it sink in.

Moreover, you don't demonstrate how a character can be accidentally introduced into a code trunk of a program to conclude that the program can be formed by itself

What program? DNA is a molecule, you know... there is no "programming". There is just chemistry.

That's why the change from bacteria to bacteria says nothing about how a bacteria changes to a, say, mammal. Because the change of bacteria to bacteria shows nothing about how, say, a heart is formed.

Nore does it have to, no matter what you happen to believe. No matter the nonense that has been fed to you by religious propaganda.

Read a biology textbook.

Thus from the observations of change of bacteria to bacteria to draw the conclusion that a mammal with complicated organs can be formed by itself makes not much difference to speculating the accidental introduction of a character to a program then to draw the conclusion that the program is formed by itself.

There is plenty of extremely solid evidence that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that life shares ancestry.
The nested hierarchical nature of genetics alone is already enough to demonstrate that.

All the rest (comparative anatomy, fossil record, etc) is just more icing on the cake.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's about a possibility cannot be ruled out.

Not a single unfalsifiable concept "can be ruled out".
But what matters is not that which "can't be ruled out". It rather is that which can be ruled in.

What is hidden in this statement of yours, is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Your god is not a "valid option", simply because it can't be ruled out.
I can come up with an almost infinite amount of concepts that "can't be ruled out". I'ld be only limited by my own imagination. It's rather easy to come up with unfalsifiable things that can't be ruled out...

You can't draw the conclusion that "whatever considered as god-did-it cannot be true", can you?

I never said such a thing either.

Explanation power says nothing about what truth is. Humans never lack explanations to almost everything.

Apparantly, you also don't really understand what "explanatory power" is all about...

 

[Hawkins]

Nore does it have to, no matter what you happen to believe. No matter the nonense that has been fed to you by religious propaganda.

So you try to avoid the topic, but to throw in the assertion of "religious propaganda".

Read a biology textbook.

Find some true scientists to explain to you what it is. I don't even need to give you the definition of the predictability of science. I can simply point you to the characteristic itself.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

You can predict before each lab what quantitatively what the results are. If a legitimate lab get to a result which makes your prediction fail, you'll get a Nobel Prize. This is a characteristic common to all strict science. This is a characteristic repeatedly demonstratable in each and every change (chemical reaction). Show us how this is in ToE.

If you are still clueless about what it is, ask true scientists to get to the answer.

There is plenty of extremely solid evidence that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that life shares ancestry.
The nested hierarchical nature of genetics alone is already enough to demonstrate that.
.

Your approach is never confirmed to be reliable. Or show us the peer reports done by the true scientists confirming your approach being as valid as the classical approach used by all other science.

To put it another way for your understanding, the same formula,

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

with an arbitrary assumption that this reaction takes 3.6 million year to complete, such that the lab cycle won't be able to complete. Under this circumstance what evidence needs to be collected in order to proof that the end result of the formula is 2H2 + O2?

So you look into the test tubes used for the so-called evidence?
Your approach is never applicable to any other science (i.e., those can be completed without a time constrain as ToE does).

Ask the true scientists as it is out of your capability to understand what science is. In the mean time, the next logical question for you is,

1) you approach is never applicable to any other science (which in the end will rely on the repeatable predictability to confirm its truth)
2) the reliability of your approach is never examined seriously by any other scientists, especially in terms of the predictability and falsifiability of science.

so the next question is, has the public been well informed of these?

If not, your kind are not scientists but a group of deceptionists. ToE (even when treated as a science) remains your religion propaganda.

 

[bhsmte]

So you try to avoid the topic, but to throw in the assertion of "religious propaganda".



Find some true scientists to explain to you what it is. I don't even need to give you the definition of the predictability of science. I can simply point you to the characteristic itself.

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

You can predict before each lab what quantitatively what the results are. If a legitimate lab get to a result which makes your prediction fail, you'll get a Nobel Prize. This is a characteristic common to all strict science. This is a characteristic repeatedly demonstratable in each and every change (chemical reaction). Show us how this is in ToE.

If you are still clueless about what it is, ask true scientists to get to the answer.



Your approach is never confirmed to be reliable. Or show us the peer reports done by the true scientists confirming your approach being as valid as the classical approach used by all other science.

To put it another way for your understanding, the same formula,

2H2O = 2H2 + O2

with an arbitrary assumption that this reaction takes 3.6 million year to complete, such that the lab cycle won't be able to complete. Under this circumstance what evidence needs to be collected in order to proof that the end result of the formula is 2H2 + O2?

So you look into the test tubes used for the so-called evidence?
Your approach is never applicable to any other science (i.e., those can be completed without a time constrain as ToE does).

Ask the true scientists as it is out of your capability to understand what science is. In the mean time, the next logical question for you is,

1) you approach is never applicable to any other science (which in the end will rely on the repeatable predictability to confirm its truth)
2) the reliability of your approach is never examined seriously by any other scientists, especially in terms of the predictability and falsifiability of science.

so the next question is, has the public been well informed of these?

If not, your kind are not scientists but a group of deceptionists. ToE (even when treated as a science) remains your religion propaganda.

What is your definition of and how do you identify:

True scientists

 

[Hawkins]

What is your definition of and how do you identify:

True scientists

Like I said, I don't even need to. Is the following true?

You can predict before each lab what quantitatively what the results are. If a legitimate lab get to a result which makes your prediction fail, you'll get a Nobel Prize. This is a characteristic common to all strict science. This is a characteristic repeatedly demonstratable in each and every change (chemical reaction). Show us how this is in ToE.

If you are curious, ask the true scientists why it is so. It is related to the predictability and fasifiability of science.

True scientists in this case are those dedicated to the 99.99% science but not the so-called ToE of which the approach is never applicable to any other science. It's only applicable to ToE due to a, say, 3.5 million time constrain.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said, I don't even need to. Is the following true?

You can predict before each lab what quantitatively what the results are. If a legitimate lab get to a result which makes your prediction fail, you'll get a Nobel Prize. This is a characteristic common to all strict science. This is a characteristic repeatedly demonstratable in each and every change (chemical reaction). Show us how this is in ToE.

If you are curious, ask the true scientists why it is so. It is related to the predictability and fasifiability of science.

All science is not done in a lab.

 

[Hawkins]

All science is not done in a lab.

Then show us which one is not. Let's discuss its nature in details.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then show us which one is not. Let's discuss its nature in details.

I don't remember physicists having a star or orbitting planets form in a lab.

However, an evolutionary biologist can make all kinds of predictions concerning genetics, all of which could be tested in a lab.

Here's an example:
Humans have 46 chromosomes. The other great apes have 48.

If both share ancestry, then either the other great apes gained a chromosome pair, or humans lost one.
Considering that chimps are more closely related to humans then to the other great apes, the expectation is that somewhere in the human lineage, after the split with chimps, a chromosome pair was lost.

We can then compare the chromsomes of humans and chimps, to see which one is missing and where it went.
lo and behold, the missing chromosome is chromosome 13 in chimps.
lo and behold, the second chromosome of humans has telomeres in the middle, which are usually only found at the end.
lo and behold, if we split this chromosome at the telomere in the middle, the second half turns out to be an exact match with the chromosome 13 of the chimp.

So there you have it: in the human lineage, after the split with chimps, a mutation occured known as chromosomal fusion.

And that's just one example.

This is perfectly legit science.

We have a theory that makes predictions and we can test those predictions. In the lab and in the wild.

Here's another: chimps will share more ERV's with humans then with gorilla's.
Reason: ERV's are genetically inherited from ancestors and as our common ancestor with chimps is younger then with gorilla's, we'll share more ERV's with chimps then with gorilla's. Why? Because all the ERV's that entered the genome AFTER the split with gorilla's and BEFORE the split with chimps, will only be present in the descends of those ancestors, which are humans and chimps (and bonobo's).

We can take that and put it in more generic terms as well:
species more closely related to eachother (ie: younger common ancestor) will share more ERV's with eachother then with species that are less closely related (ie: older common ancestor).

Such predictions are entirely the result of the nested hierarchy of life, wich is a direct result of a branching tree pattern of common ancestry, as DNA is inherited by offspring (including all the mutations).

You could remove every single fossil from the face of the planet, and evolution would remain just as solid a theory as it is with fossils.

DNA and the nested structure thereof is pretty much the only evidence required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that life shares ancestry.

Just like DNA is all that is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your dad is your biological dad.