Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

Dude, your very own claim included that the stars are simply naturally following natural orbits and natural laws...
And by doing so, at some point they just happen to resemble some type of pattern.

And wouldn’t it be strange that the initial position of the stars was such that they would eventually form words and sentences in English?........wouldn’t that cry for ID?

But let's also not just skim over the fact that you are again arguing about imaginary evidence.
Do you have any real examples instead of these absurd imaginary hypotheticals?

No, obviously given your impossible high standards, nothing will ever count as convincing evidence for you.

 

[Pogo]

Ok, but just for the record, you don’t have a source that supports your claim, other than Carlos comments in a debate correct?

A little reading for you on the actual discussion of theory and evidence for the Necessity Chance portion of the ID conjecture with predictions and possible data to confirm or disconfirm. Even if we were to grant Dembski his idea, we are nowhere near concluding design.
This paper is specifically referencing your Boltzman Brain paradox and Penrose's calculation you referenced earlier. It is a slog and I can't confirm the math, but it is not unreadable and it is only 25 pages.
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse. Laura Mersini-Houghton

This is where the discussion really is, not with your we don't know therefore god.
Come back when you have read it.

 

[Pogo]

And wouldn’t it be strange that the initial position of the stars was such that they would eventually form words and sentences in English?........wouldn’t that cry for ID?

Ah specified complexity after the fact again. Is god's language King James era English? Even if you found this thing, all you would have is evidence of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy or the already discussed pareidoilia.

No, obviously given your impossible high standards, nothing will ever count as convincing evidence for you.

No, it is only that we do not consider wishfull thinking as convincing evidence.

 

[leroy]

I'ld be more impressed if we found ourselves in a universe that doesn't have life permitting values.

Your point?

 

[Pogo]

Your point?

 

[leroy]

Fix your behavior and then you can ask questions and expect an answer.

Ok added to the endless list of unsupported claims

 

[leroy]

A little reading for you on the actual discussion of theory and evidence for the Necessity Chance portion of the ID conjecture with predictions and possible data to confirm or disconfirm. Even if we were to grant Dembski his idea, we are nowhere near concluding design.
This paper is specifically referencing your Boltzman Brain paradox and Penrose's calculation you referenced earlier. It is a slog and I can't confirm the math, but it is not unreadable and it is only 25 pages.
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse. Laura Mersini-Houghton

This is where the discussion really is, not with your we don't know therefore god.
Come back when you have read it.

Why do you have this annoying tendency of quoting a comment, and then make a whole bunch of unrelated claims?

Adrees the point in the quote, or else, do not quote it

leroy said:
Ok, but just for the record, you don’t have a source that supports your claim, other than Carlol´s comments in a debate correct?

 

[leroy]

A little reading for you on the actual discussion of theory and evidence for the Necessity Chance portion of the ID conjecture with predictions and possible data to confirm or disconfirm. Even if we were to grant Dembski his idea, we are nowhere near concluding design.
This paper is specifically referencing your Boltzman Brain paradox and Penrose's calculation you referenced earlier. It is a slog and I can't confirm the math, but it is not unreadable and it is only 25 pages.
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse. Laura Mersini-Houghton

This is where the discussion really is, not with your we don't know therefore god.
Come back when you have read it.

Then quote the article and my comments (the actual words of both) and explain how the article refutes any of my claims

 

[Pogo]

Why do you have this annoying tendency of quoting a comment, and then make a whole bunch of unrelated claims?

Adrees the point in the quote, or else, do not quote it

leroy said:
Ok, but just for the record, you don’t have a source that supports your claim, other than Carlol´s comments in a debate correct?

because I wasn't going to waste time finding one out of your hundreds of posts that related to this silly ID claim, you wanted an expert on the subject, you got one. Now it is your turn to deal with it.

 

[Pogo]

Then quote the article and my comments (the actual words of both) and explain how the article refutes any of my claims

Read it, it is not possible for us to explain the reality of science to one who has such a poor understanding of logic, evidence, science etc.

In this case it is your claim that necessity, chance, design is relevant to tuna gods.

 

[leroy]

because I wasn't going to waste time finding one out of your hundreds of posts that related to this silly ID claim, you wanted an expert on the subject, you got one. Now it is your turn to deal with it.

That still doesn’t explain why did you quote an unrelated comment.


But anyway

1 quote my claim (my actual words)

2 quote the relevant part of the paper (the actual words)

3 explain how does the paper refute my claims

 

[leroy]

Read it, it is not possible for us to explain the reality of science to one who has such a poor understanding of logic, evidence, science etc.

In this case it is your claim that necessity, chance, design is relevant to tuna gods.

So you are just making things up, you just quoted a random paper, that you haven’t even read, because you wanted to look smart,…………. That is pathetic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok added to the endless list of unsupported claims

You keep forgetting. You disqualify yourself from the ability to even ask for support. Sometimes I give you a gift and your ingratitude is part of what keeps you at that status.

Change your ways and everyone will be happy to provide you with sources including me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are just making things up, you just quoted a random paper, that you haven’t even read, because you wanted to look smart,…………. That is pathetic

No, others feel the same way. If everyone is telling you the same thing then the problem is probably you and not them.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the old USSR you'd be right. It was politically trying to argue that God didn't exist; and it tried to claim Science had a place in disproving theology. The people thought that religion was dividing humanity, so they tried to eliminate it through arguments and political pressures. That was incorrect and was a corruption of the discipline of science. It was sloppy, too and tended to accept any convenient result which supported its political aims. We are not in the USSR.

The alleged circular reasoning that you refer to is a challenge leveled in churches, but evolution is pretty obviously a process that is continuing all the time. Its not about theology at all, not today except in communist countries. They are kind of backwards about that. Evolution is known to happen since it is a process that can be observed, so scientists should not be blamed for noticing it.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Its a hypothesis that perhaps the first cells came from chemical processes, but evolution is testable independent of how the first cells appear. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how things might have started. That is why it is not a theory but a hypothesis.

Regardless of politics and evolution, the outcome of humans regarding Russia isn't so great.

 

[Pogo]

So you are just making things up, you just quoted a random paper, that you haven’t even read, because you wanted to look smart,…………. That is pathetic

Not making anything up, it destroys your argument that chance and necessity have been eliminated as possibilities for your tuna hypothesis and I would quote the relevant parts but the soft ware won't allow posts that large so you will have to make that very minimal effort of clicking on the link.
I'll even save you from the effort of finding the link again.
Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse.
Unlike you I actually can read and understand this stuff which is why I read it before posting it and didn't post it yesterday, It is the totality of the paper that addresses your ignorant claim so you will have to read it yourself if you wish to pick it apart.

We all know that here as in prior threads you have no clue what you are talking about and are just spouting memes from your creationist sources.

 

[Pogo]

Regardless of politics and evolution, the outcome of humans regarding Russia isn't so great.

Which means what? And why are you posting this here?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Regardless of politics and evolution, the outcome of humans regarding Russia isn't so great.

Compared to subjection under the Tzars the last century has been relatively awesome in Russia, because the Tzars were particularly cruel monarchs. As bad as things are they aren't so bad compared to that, and they can still get much much better. Let us hope so, because its a small world.

 

[F1fan]

I think I vaguely recall his nothing is empty space which answers/explains nothing.

Sometimes what experts explain can go over our heads.

Exactly. It isn't known. Yet some claim it was this or that.

Yup, lots to chose from out in the world, but the safest bet is what experts say.

There supposedly are many gods and much god lore

That's the history of religious lore. Nothing suggests the lore corresponds to reality.

Opinion

No, an observation. We see creationists routinely make statemenst that are contrary to science, and even show deliberate ignorance. Just yesterday someone said theories are unreliable because anyone can make them, and then went on to give an example that he some theory on some issue. He doesn't know wat a theory in science is. It's covered in 7th grade science class.

The answers may never be known

Yup, it's possible. So it's best to defer to what experts say.

More questions for whom?

Everyone. Some believer who interprets Genesis literally can claim it's true, but there are no answers to what God is, how it supposedly created stuff from nothing, why it took 6 days, etc. And let's not forget the lack of evidence for interpreting Genesis literally in the first place.

Already answered more than once. Stop repeating yourself.

Why are you upset about it? Believers keep claiming their God exists and created things.

Who's "we". Do you speak for everyone?

Truth seekers, which often does not include hard core religious folks.

Exactly. To claim otherwise is foolish.
Does a god exist? I don't know.
Can you admit that?

Oh yeah. That's why I assert we are all agnostic where it comes to God, because although it is a popular idea that is spread through strong cultural influence there is nothing that suggests they correlate to anything real.

 

[danieldemol]

Having sex can't create anything

Its been repeatedly observed to create children in my view. But you can deny the obvious if you feel it helps your apologetic cause.