A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
I understand your argument. There are problems with it. Saying you are open to it does not make it so. Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper. One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe. Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve. Or evolution, or trickledown economics, free market, government intervention, socialism, any of a million things that people see the same data and draw opposing conclusions. God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see. I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong. I came through engineering, calculus and physics. Both sides tell me it can't be so. If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they? People believe what they choose to, and, as the saying goes, YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Saying you are open to it does not make it so.
But it doesn't make it not so.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper.
All things which don't require god to exist at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe.
The point of religious faith in general is believing without seeing. Observation removes the need for faith.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve.
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or evolution
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't understand it, and who fabricate elaborate excuses for the evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see.
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong.
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
RichardM1 wrote:
If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they?
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
By creationists.
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing? I am a firm 'evolutionist', and I believe in God. But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing?
Pretty much, yes. Creationists are infamous for constructing ridiculous caricatures of evolution and criticising it.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Saying you are open to it does not make it so.
But it doesn't make it not so.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the joke of the hurricane where the believer dies and asked why God didn't help, and God says: Weather reports, evacuation notice, boat and chopper.
All things which don't require god to exist at all.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of the points in the Bible is that seeing is not believing, as people saw and did not believe.
The point of religious faith in general is believing without seeing. Observation removes the need for faith.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take AGW. If you believe it, the evidence (which lead you to believe it) is proof, yet some people see it and disbelieve.
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.
RichardM1 wrote:
Or evolution
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'. The only people who don't believe in evolution are those who don't understand it, and who fabricate elaborate excuses for the evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
God seems to have said that He is going to show everyone more or less the same data, but free will is still available for you to make up your mind based on what you see.
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have evidence that showed me God, but I'm told by both sides that it is wrong.
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
RichardM1 wrote:
If Jesus, or Mohamed, or the FSM, appeared in the sky, today, what would your reaction be? I don't mean 'get saved now, time is short', I mean what would you think? Special effects? Who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Must prove they exist? If they exist, what are they?
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing. There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before. So to you it is more likely you are not seeing reality. I admit I would be skeptical, for a couple reasons. Everyone approaches things from their own perspective.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it? :laugh: Like I said, engineering, physics, calculus. I saw and see the way it all fits together, how the same tools work for so many different things. Some people don't even question why they do. I know the whole anthropomorphic universe argument, but even within that, why do they still work? The chances are to low for it too be random, there are too many other ways the pieces could fit together (even within a livable universe) without the calculus working. That does not convince me of the Christian God, but in a designer. The Christian part comes from other study and personal experience. I have no doubt it would mean less to you than it does to me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
Yeah. Proof is proof, and belief is not faith. He does not ask for use to believe He exists like we know the ground is here. You get shown things and you make your own decisions. God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'.
Some people say that about AGW. [shrug] I believe in it, I just think God set up the fitness equation. What do you think set it up?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.<
-
Uros Calakovic wrote:
You don't actually need to believe in it.
You sure do, and I am a strong believer. :laugh: :laugh: But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. :)
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You confused me here - you think creationists are the only ones who state evolution means life came from nothing?
Pretty much, yes. Creationists are infamous for constructing ridiculous caricatures of evolution and criticising it.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, assuming no God, where did life come from, other than spontaneously arising?
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Doesn't it ever go from not being life, to being life? I'm not saying at one point, a flip switches, and there is life, as we don't have a good enough definition for life. But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is? Clearly, life wasn't, and then later, just as clearly, it was. I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. :)
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
Uros Calakovic wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. Smile
I believe there is a good verifiable test for God. I have faith what the result of the test is, but I have not performed it. The problem is that there is no verifiable form of communications from the knowing state back. And, while everyone performs this experiment, I'm not yet interested in doing it, until I have to. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A slow process of gradually increasing molecular complexity. There are plenty of simple molecules that self-replicate, so it's not exactly surprising that they could give life.
Doesn't it ever go from not being life, to being life? I'm not saying at one point, a flip switches, and there is life, as we don't have a good enough definition for life. But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is? Clearly, life wasn't, and then later, just as clearly, it was. I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is?
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
-
Okay.. This is getting interesting and I am sorry to interrupt you both. But your discussion made me think of a beautiful mail that I got few days back and I can't resist myself from printing it here. So here it is: If God exists - Why so much pain and suffering? A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer. “Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all these things.” The customer thought for a moment but didn’t respond because He didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just as he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with long, string, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkept. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber, “You know what? Barbers do not exist.” “How can you say that,” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, I am a barber and I just worked on you!” “No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did there would be no people with long dirty hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside.” “Ah, but barbers do exists! What happens is people don’t come to me.” “Exactly,” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is people do not go to Him or look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”
..Go Green..
-
Uros Calakovic wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
But I have to take on faith all those things I have not tested myself.
Yes, but all of those should be verifiable. Smile
I believe there is a good verifiable test for God. I have faith what the result of the test is, but I have not performed it. The problem is that there is no verifiable form of communications from the knowing state back. And, while everyone performs this experiment, I'm not yet interested in doing it, until I have to. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I believe ( :-\ ) that in the particular test you're talking about we are all test subjects.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My guess would be that I was probably hallucinating. Hallucinations are a comparatively common medical phenomenon, which makes them far more likely than an event that has never happened before.
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing. There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before. So to you it is more likely you are not seeing reality. I admit I would be skeptical, for a couple reasons. Everyone approaches things from their own perspective.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Am I correct in my assumption that this evidence is intangible, that you couldn't just 'show it to me'?
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it? :laugh: Like I said, engineering, physics, calculus. I saw and see the way it all fits together, how the same tools work for so many different things. Some people don't even question why they do. I know the whole anthropomorphic universe argument, but even within that, why do they still work? The chances are to low for it too be random, there are too many other ways the pieces could fit together (even within a livable universe) without the calculus working. That does not convince me of the Christian God, but in a designer. The Christian part comes from other study and personal experience. I have no doubt it would mean less to you than it does to me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'd be tempted to question him about his determination to show us only data that doesn't support his existence, and still expect us to believe in him.
Yeah. Proof is proof, and belief is not faith. He does not ask for use to believe He exists like we know the ground is here. You get shown things and you make your own decisions. God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, the evidence for evolution is not simply 'a matter of interpretation'.
Some people say that about AGW. [shrug] I believe in it, I just think God set up the fitness equation. What do you think set it up?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
AGW is too screwed up with politics to be a good example.<
RichardM1 wrote:
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing.
If you watched a magician saw somebody in half, would you believe that the person was really sawn in half?
RichardM1 wrote:
There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before.
The Bible is wildly inconsistent with reality, as well as internally inconsistent. Using it as evidence of god is like using a comic book as evidence for Superman.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it?
It's notoriously unreliable. I've heard people claim that their church prayed for amputees and saw their limbs miraculously grow back. They're either lying, or are delusional.
RichardM1 wrote:
God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
If Albert Einstein approached you in the street and started talking to you, would you believe it was real?
RichardM1 wrote:
What do you think set it up?
Nothing 'set it up'. It's just statistics, and there's really no other way it could have naturally arisen.
RichardM1 wrote:
Neither do any of the programs I have written require me, yet I created them.
Your programs don't claim that you divinely interfere with them.
RichardM1 wrote:
God does all these things to save the person, but the person does not accept it as the solution, because it is not the 'miraculous' type that they expect to see.
Except that god didn't do any of those things to save the person, and never does. It was people that did them.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But between two point, between a self replicating molecule that is not alive, and an Archean life form that clearly is, can't you say that there was no life, and now there is?
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see the ridiculous caricature in that, so could you explain where it is?
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution, as it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
No, I never claimed it was a description of evolution, just a description of one of its results. See, the problem exists that the world went from no life to life, no matter what you think the driving force was. You believe it was the spontaneous (but not instantaneous) creation through evolution, as described above. You did not say so, but there is no way around it. Either life was spontaneously created or it was created by something. Seeded from similar existing life is just putting it back to having happened somewhere else. Christian believes that it was created by something.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Are you a skeptic? If so, admit you are wrong. Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution, as it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
No, I never claimed it was a description of evolution, just a description of one of its results. See, the problem exists that the world went from no life to life, no matter what you think the driving force was. You believe it was the spontaneous (but not instantaneous) creation through evolution, as described above. You did not say so, but there is no way around it. Either life was spontaneously created or it was created by something. Seeded from similar existing life is just putting it back to having happened somewhere else. Christian believes that it was created by something.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Are you a skeptic? If so, admit you are wrong. Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution
No, that IS the definition.
RichardM1 wrote:
it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
That's not biological evolution. It's more like biochemical evolution or something like this.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
no matter what you think the driving force was.
It was the sun.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian believes that it was created by something.
Unjustifiably, I say.
RichardM1 wrote:
If so, admit you are wrong
I'm not wrong.
RichardM1 wrote:
Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I would expect life to be everywhere.
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now? That has bothered me, because one of the solutions to the probability equation is that somebody kills them all, as soon as they hear them, so the time of radiating tends to be short. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now?
Intelligent life might be rare or at least to our kind of level. Could also be a distance/time thing.
Kevin
-
viaducting wrote:
If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
The Dalai Lama's first words: "As I was saying..."
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing.
If you watched a magician saw somebody in half, would you believe that the person was really sawn in half?
RichardM1 wrote:
There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before.
The Bible is wildly inconsistent with reality, as well as internally inconsistent. Using it as evidence of god is like using a comic book as evidence for Superman.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it?
It's notoriously unreliable. I've heard people claim that their church prayed for amputees and saw their limbs miraculously grow back. They're either lying, or are delusional.
RichardM1 wrote:
God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
If Albert Einstein approached you in the street and started talking to you, would you believe it was real?
RichardM1 wrote:
What do you think set it up?
Nothing 'set it up'. It's just statistics, and there's really no other way it could have naturally arisen.
RichardM1 wrote:
Neither do any of the programs I have written require me, yet I created them.
Your programs don't claim that you divinely interfere with them.
RichardM1 wrote:
God does all these things to save the person, but the person does not accept it as the solution, because it is not the 'miraculous' type that they expect to see.
Except that god didn't do any of those things to save the person, and never does. It was people that did them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that god didn't do any of those things to save the person, and never does. It was people that did them.
OK Ravel, this was about a joke. You are taking it too far, and so can I :) This shows your bias, you have decided you will not see it, you won't. You looked at a one line condensed joke and decided, with no backup, that it had to be your way. God did make it all happen, and he used people to do it. I'm sorry for your blindness, but that is what it is.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nothing 'set it up'. It's just statistics, and there's really no other way it could have naturally arisen.
Sure, if you are so narrow minded that you think this is the only natural way. But there has been work done on other ways a universe could be set up, and they show that their naturally is different from ours. And calc and physics are not just statistics
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Your programs don't claim that you divinely interfere with them.
No, the selfish bastards aren't that polite. They mess up a calculation, and bitch because I have to cut them open and fix em. Little ungrateful pricks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If Albert Einstein approached you in the street and started talking to you, would you believe it was real?
Yes, I would believe it was real. I would remain healthfully skeptical as to it being Al. While hallucinations happen, the history of them happening to me is low. If it were a spirit in the sky, I would believe it was real, but retain my skepticism as to what is was.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's notoriously unreliable. I've heard people claim that their church prayed for amputees and saw their limbs miraculously grow back. They're either lying, or are delusional.
And how many times have we had the same problems with data falsifying and untrue conclusions, in the sciences? People lying is people lying, and it is not confined to religion.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Bible is wildly inconsistent with reality, as well as internally inconsistent. Using it as evidence of god is like using a comic book as evidence for Superman.
You will have to show me where it is as inconsistent as you say. I have read superficial inconsistency that does n
-
I believe ( :-\ ) that in the particular test you're talking about we are all test subjects.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution
No, that IS the definition.
RichardM1 wrote:
it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
That's not biological evolution. It's more like biochemical evolution or something like this.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
no matter what you think the driving force was.
It was the sun.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian believes that it was created by something.
Unjustifiably, I say.
RichardM1 wrote:
If so, admit you are wrong
I'm not wrong.
RichardM1 wrote:
Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, that IS the definition.
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution. :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm not wrong.
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
The Dalai Lama's first words: "As I was saying..."
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, that IS the definition.
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution. :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm not wrong.
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution.
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement; if we were talking about running, would you assume I meant all 78 definitions at once? And I can't show you any references, at least not for the rest of the month - my brothers used up all of our downloads and now my Internet connection is horrendous (it just took 1 minute 40 seconds to load the Google homepage X| ).
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
RichardM1 wrote:
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution.
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement; if we were talking about running, would you assume I meant all 78 definitions at once? And I can't show you any references, at least not for the rest of the month - my brothers used up all of our downloads and now my Internet connection is horrendous (it just took 1 minute 40 seconds to load the Google homepage X| ).
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
RichardM1 wrote:
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement
Yes, it is pretty obvious. That is why I did not understand why you used a definition of molecular biology to be the definition of biological evolution. Molecular biology, as you defined it, is a subset of biological evolution.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
Well, I an not going to update your version of Encarta for you, but I suggest you do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
I notice you hedge your words, and still will not agreed that it came about spontaneously. Do you not think that life started somewhere between the coagulation of the Earth, and now?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
Because, you are in fact, wrong. Are you still sure you are one of those skeptics that can admit they are wrong? ;) There is one hard constraint the must be met before you can have biological evolution. Life. Now, we have only two posited ways for life to occur: spontaneously, or by something creating it. You statemented:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented toget