Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Nope. Humans make better tiles. The "tiles" at Giant's Causeway would be terrible tiles - they are really columns rather than tiles, and they aren't very regular.

Only for the intentionally ignorant.

That's like claiming the "jury is out" on whether vaccines work, or whether the Earth is flat, or whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas - just because your political agenda requires you to be ignorant of such things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the qualitative superiority (outside of human aesthetics) between different structures (regardless whether they be columns or tiles or planets or stones), is what, exactly?

Feel free to clean up the wiki pages on the subject then. There is an array of differing ideas on what the precise process is, what to speak of dusting down specifics of variables within them. It's not a case of me disagreeing with your overly- simplistic ideas of science. Rather, it is the case of experts (whom we take as authoritative on the subject) as espousing several different versions of events over the past few decades (with no clear conclusion), disagreeing amongst themselves (or at least, having enough modesty to refrain from labelling their ideas as "factual", unlike yourself).

You are speaking BS.
There is a huge difference between the science that drives those things and the science people use as a platform to speculate. It's inconsistent of you to misuse scientific knowledge on which the jury is not out, and falsely claim that it is epistemologically identical to other scientific claims which are yet to safely depart the realm of mere speculation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one claims that. You claim that there is sentience involved because it is mathematical.
(somewhat like the "irreducible complexity" argument.)

Reality teaches us that it can be mathematical without having been created by a sentient being.
And that is the fundamental logical baseline in accordance with Occam's razor and the law of "neccessity and sufficiency".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then limit yourself to the same standard, ok?

 

You just don't get it. You are trying to weave a superfluous extraneous player into the fabric of spacetime.

The equation reads;
2 + 2 = 4
Not 2 + 2 = 4 + god.

 

Whether they work for the purpose intended. Quite simple, really. Try to tile a floor with commercial 1/4" thick hexagonal tiles. Now try it with "tiles" that are between six inches and forty feet thick. And are all slightly different shapes.

Wow that was fast! Only two posts to change the goalposts from "you cannot factually establish or even name the timescale, nor the variables" to "what the precise process is!" That, sir, is some VERY fast backpedaling. Bravo.

Agreed. And anti-vaxxers claim that vaccine efficacy and safety is "the science people use as a platform to speculate."

Sounds like the claims of every climate change denier, anti-vaxxer, flat Earther and Truther out there. You are in good company.

 

Ok

Try use tiles on the sea shore that will persist for thousands of years.
I think we have a winner.

So you can't be precise with your facts.
Alternative facts, perhaps?

If you can't recognize the variegated epustemological strengths within science, you don't understand science.
How many nobel awards (an award that is granted on certain epistemological strengths) have been granted in fields related to vaccination? How many have been awarded to fields related to the "factual" (IYHO) processes of life arising from matter?

 

Cram 4 billion years of global chemistry into a laboratory over 300 years and you expect answers?

OTOH we have been looking for evidence of gods for 5000 years and never found one yet. Yet you persist in this idle speculation.
So, which is the more compelling argument?

 

So when brains are left in an impaired state do to injury or disease, and there is a direct relationship between the the affected areas and resultant neurological capability, that’s not an example of causation?

The study of behavior is the cornerstone of every branch of science and philosophy. Behavior would be one of, if not the most significant quality of any object or system.

Unfortunately since the soul, like any other mystical element, cannot be rationally argued or demonstrated, any discussion of it has to be done on what ever subjective interpretation is put forward. So which subjective interpretation did you have in mind?

Like I said earlier, the soul can be whatever you want it to be. In the land of make believe one conception is just as legitimate as the next.

What I or any human considers intelligent is derived from our cultural norms. And it would be one of countless possible perspectives that exist in the universe. I wouldn’t expect a human perspective on intelligence to be the best informed in the universe, but then again who knows?

Whatever suits your fancy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you? You seem awfully certain that you are in that position.

You are aware that before modern medicine many more babies and mothers died naturally before, during, or after child-birth than today.

If life is so sacred, why are we able to improve on god's statistics, in spite of all the elective abortions? Are we more moral than god?

 

More like I can't run fast enough to keep up with your rapidly moving goalposts.

Let's see here. First we'll start with Nobels in fields related to abiogenesis:

Frances Arnold - the directed evolution of enzymes (how enzymes can show the same sort of evolution that heritable life does)
Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir J. Fraser Stoddart and Bernard L. Feringa - the design and synthesis of molecular machines (led to simple self-replicating, lifelike molecules)
Elias James Corey - development of the theory and methodology of organic synthesis (understanding how organic molecules can be synthesized in nonorganic environments)
Paul Berg - fundamental studies of the biochemistry of nucleic acids, with particular regard to recombinant-DNA

The last one is quite notable because it spans both areas. By researching how DNA can be spontaneously be assembled from small fragments, he demonstrated self-assembly, a critical part of late biogenesis (i.e. the ability to inherit.) And by understanding how to do that, he pioneered the use of recombinant DNA for production of a variety of medicines, including vaccines.

Next we will take a look at Nobels in fields related to vaccines:

Paul Berg (see above)
Baruch Blumberg - discoveries concerning new mechanisms for the origin and dissemination of infectious diseases (Hep B vaccine came from his work)
Joshua Lederberg - discoveries concerning genetic recombination in bacteria (important to understand for vaccine production)
Selman Waksman - discovery of streptomycin, the first antibiotic to work against tuberculosis

Hopefully that will get you started. (Unless, of course, you start moving goalposts again.)

 

I didn't call anybody stupid. I called their arguments stupid.

 

More to the point, can you locate a post of mine where I did?

 

Musika doesn't want to know about enzymes. He wants proof of someone getting a Nobel prize for creating a complete human being, like God did.

This is the extent of biblical knowledge of biology. Take some mud and make a man. If you cannot do that or you don't believe that it can be done, you cannot possibly know God.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For God there are no goalposts. He can change them at will. Who are we to complain? God is omnipotent!......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Interestingly, God has also not received a Nobel prize. And He did make a man from mud, in less than a day, proving evolution wrong altogether.

The injustice of it all! Those atheists are so bad ...........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

!

 

Well, I suspected he was going to move his goalposts from "Nobels in fields related to the factual processes of life arising from matter" to "Nobels for creating life without using intelligence" or some such nonsense - but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Careful, he'll take it and won't return it!

 

For the inquisitive...

Earlier in this thread, I VERY briefly mentioned that there is evidence for God, and even the Exodus account (found in the Bible), located at the Real Mt. Sinai Site, from the events that occurred there over 3000 years ago.

This information is becoming more well known all the time. But still needs more study and research.

The above video is a brief introduction to that topic, if anyone is interested.

I also have a 32 Gigabyte flash drive available, that I give away to people for free who ask me for it. It has slightly more than 1000 files on it that I have collected myself over about 4 years of my own research on the subject.

The flash drive has Google Earth Locations and Coordinates for almost all of the numerous related Sites involved, some recent HD Drone Video Footage, On the Ground Photos, Related Written Documentation, etc.

But you are, of course, certainly free to scoff in any way you wish to... especially before you have even really looked at the evidence seriously yourself.

In my opinion it should be Questioned and Studied very carefully, as I have attempted to do myself, not just thrown out the window because “it can’t be true”.

I would even bet that some of you could research it better than I am able to do, because you know more than I do on so many topics.

I know..., “it has already been debunked”..., please go ahead and tell me that one!

Decide for yourself if you wish to...
Or don’t...

 

That might make a good topic. Why don't you start one?

 

Post some excerpts......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is deliberate obfuscation not lying?