Active Users:1139 Time:23/11/2024 08:27:24 AM
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" Joel Send a noteboard - 17/06/2015 10:02:00 AM

View original postSpontaneous all powerful beings are even more unlikely. The fact that we can not explain how organic life first began does not mean supernatural forces were at play. There theories for how it could have happed but since it will leave no fossil evidence and it happened several billions years ago and possibly not even on this planet it makes take a little while to nail down the exact mechanism. Just because we don't know why the mountain spews lava does need mean we need to assume it is an angry and toss a virgin down to keep him happy.

Because the impossible remains "more unlikely" than the improbable (and everything.) INDIVIDUAL abiogenic nitrogen bases are so uncommon we have only recently found ANY (NONE on the useful side of extreme temperature atmospheric entry.) But we are to believe they randomly spontaneously self-assembled into thousands and MILLIONS of MATCHED and CHAINED pairs? That is just the tornado in a junkyard again. The odds against bring us back to Many Worlds hypotheses, in turn bringing us back to untestable (since Many Worlds theories depend on each world being inherently undetectable in others, somehow declaring their chief flaw their chief virtue.)

Do not misunderstand: I have no objection to inverifiability as such—it simply precludes SCIENCE, except insofar as all metaphysical systems stand on at least one axiom (which is by untestable by definition.) Untestable conclusions can be sound, so many metaphysical systems include them—but sciences empiric premise FORBIDS (other) untestable unprovable conclusions. Neither theology nor science is obliged to play by the others rules, but each must abide by its OWN.

Since Cannoli earlier referenced Fred Hoyle, it is worth noting he rejected the Big Bang for the above stated reason (though cosmology is properly distinct from biology; on the other hand, that is why evolution is not part of Hoyles discipline but the Big Bang is at its literal core.) Though now deemed accepted science with overwhelming observational evidence yet attacked by religious fundamentalists, the Stephen Hawking of his generation ridiculed the Big Bangs introduction as an attempt to shoehorn Genesis' "let there be light" into legitimate science. Mainly because the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics says inert matter REMAINS so perpetually.

The "conflict" between Christianity and science is a contrived false dichotomy: While Hoyle remains correct the Big Bangs stated initial conditions mandate a supernatural kickstart, there is no need for any subsequent supernatural event: However one feels about Gods existence, it is self-evident to everyone that any God who MAY exist made physics the universes operating system. Contestants in the science v. religion game thus do not contend for their own cause, because there is no need: They simply contend AGAINST their chosen opponents cause.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Can liberals all stop their posturing about adhering to science? - 05/06/2015 12:04:13 AM 1215 Views
It's not really a difficult concept to understand, man - 05/06/2015 02:23:34 PM 650 Views
Re: It's not really a difficult concept to understand, man - 05/06/2015 09:05:03 PM 648 Views
It's so difficult to parse out your trolling sometimes - 07/06/2015 02:37:11 PM 626 Views
Some people feel like they are women, though born as men. So they take steps to live - 05/06/2015 04:47:14 PM 637 Views
I agree with you in theory - 05/06/2015 09:43:43 PM 521 Views
I think it's okay to be weirded out by it - 08/06/2015 10:28:02 PM 655 Views
gender issues aside the evidence of evolution is undeniable to the extreme - 05/06/2015 08:37:37 PM 521 Views
Well then why do scientists feel the need to make up their own fake evidence? - 05/06/2015 09:16:40 PM 567 Views
The specifics and our understanding always changes - 05/06/2015 09:50:39 PM 572 Views
"A better fit" doesn't sound much like testable hypotheses and observable data - 06/06/2015 12:38:49 AM 707 Views
Science and absolute, unquestioned fact... - 06/06/2015 11:16:10 AM 581 Views
The theory is refined that is all - 08/06/2015 07:11:40 PM 557 Views
We can find Naederthal DNA in modern humans - 08/06/2015 07:01:01 PM 513 Views
I am 3% Neanderthal! My 23andMe Test told me so!! *NM* - 08/06/2015 08:07:35 PM 318 Views
If thought about doing that - 09/06/2015 02:31:11 PM 520 Views
We share 1/3 of the DNA of flowers. Where are those in our ancestral tree? - 09/06/2015 02:20:46 PM 544 Views
Of course they are in our family tree - 09/06/2015 02:39:18 PM 552 Views
Re: Of course they are in our family tree - 13/06/2015 05:29:16 PM 503 Views
Americas (Christian?!) "accepted religious standards" can and have been changed to vindicate robbers - 15/06/2015 03:37:12 AM 526 Views
The problem with the "there can not spontanous life" argument is - 15/06/2015 02:29:06 PM 502 Views
"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - 17/06/2015 10:02:00 AM 528 Views
...I'm confused, are you claiming that no real fossils have been found? - 07/06/2015 02:41:12 PM 541 Views
And they prove what, exactly? - 07/06/2015 11:24:43 PM 643 Views
Er, well yeah, that's the point- Scientific knowledge keeps growing and challenging itself - 08/06/2015 02:58:26 PM 586 Views
It's not at all the same. - 09/06/2015 02:53:06 PM 547 Views
I would not have expected to see you adhere to a scientist position - 07/06/2015 03:06:11 AM 596 Views
I am not; I am criticizing the people who apply it inconsistently - 07/06/2015 11:14:05 PM 638 Views
Perhaps she does not believe in hell - 08/06/2015 12:55:50 PM 456 Views
can republicans stop their posturing about adhering to morality? - 08/06/2015 09:17:16 PM 557 Views
My own homosexual inclinations would not constitute hypocrisy in opposing deviant behavior - 09/06/2015 02:14:56 PM 582 Views
"… in the latter times some shall depart from the faith… speaking lies in hypocrisy…" - 15/06/2015 03:36:08 AM 598 Views
See - more liberal doublespeak - 15/06/2015 03:30:57 PM 563 Views
“Who are you calling, ‘you people’?! - 17/06/2015 10:08:32 AM 505 Views
Some other stuff - 15/06/2015 03:45:59 PM 592 Views
See what you (and the devil, of course) made me do? - 17/06/2015 10:16:35 AM 554 Views
I find this entire discussion absolutely hilarious. - 15/06/2015 04:19:31 PM 469 Views
well I am sucb a died in the wool liberal I just cant help myself - 15/06/2015 06:25:57 PM 432 Views
Yeah, you're to the Left of Trotsky. *NM* - 15/06/2015 07:31:28 PM 272 Views
...what? Attacking points is pretty much what debate IS. - 16/06/2015 04:29:05 AM 495 Views
No... - 17/06/2015 08:00:57 PM 477 Views
OK? - 18/06/2015 04:03:32 AM 512 Views
duplicate post, ignore *NM* - 18/06/2015 04:03:47 AM 344 Views
Oh, I'm sorry. - 18/06/2015 09:05:42 PM 577 Views
A thesis delayed till the SECOND paragraph is, at best, misplaced - 20/06/2015 09:37:36 AM 553 Views
Bah, damn you for good points! - 21/06/2015 09:33:49 PM 569 Views
Oh, man, been there, done that, got the T-shirt - 22/06/2015 01:26:13 AM 493 Views
Heheh, thank you for understanding. - 22/06/2015 09:23:11 PM 483 Views
Re: Oh, I'm sorry. - 20/06/2015 04:44:24 PM 630 Views
You're missing my whole issue with labeling. - 21/06/2015 09:32:36 PM 563 Views
This might be a complete non-sequitur, but... - 21/06/2015 10:38:19 PM 450 Views
I'm a hardcore lurker... - 22/06/2015 09:26:59 PM 401 Views
Cool. - 22/06/2015 10:14:45 PM 502 Views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU *NM* - 15/06/2015 05:01:30 PM 275 Views

Reply to Message