The joys of life without God

[superluminal]

From observing and testing electrons, someone found that information useful and created the computer YOU use to discredit the science and the very person who created that computer. And what do you use as your guide for discrediting that science? Your self-appointed authority, of course.

This is an excellent point (Q).

All of the religious nutjobs decry the evils of science and technology, and tout the evils of "materialistic reductionism" yet they surround themselves with the products of this science and never once think about the implications of the science behind the radio or TV they use to demean it. They use their computers, benefit daily from medical therapies and detailed knowledge of genetics, blindly acknowledge the vast array of understanding we have about the physical and biological world, but withought a thought, they claim evolution and abiogenesis is nonsense. Wait. Let me try:

Yes I use a car. But you say there's an explosive exothermic chemical reaction that's responsible for making it go? Nonsense. It's obviously some form of prime motivational "essence".

[superluminal]

I eagerly await...

Holdeth not ye breath...

[(Q)]

This is an excellent point (Q).

Thanks supe. I'm continually dumb-founded at the hypocrisy and audacity of theists like LG who by his very own arguments, should be living in a cave, completely satified being one with his god.

[lightgigantic]

(Q)

Therein lies the problem LG, you're always under the impression authority is the key to understanding, that if an authority says it's so, then you take it for the truth. The problem is two-fold.

First, YOU need to make the decision as to whose authority is credible, which is redundant simply because you have no grounds to decide the authority other than from what the authority is claiming based on what YOU want to believe - circular motion, the dog chasing its tail. Second, Scientists are not authorities, nor do they advocate such, they are simply people who have taken the time to observe, theorize, test and share the results. It is up to YOU to determine if those results are of value and if you can find them useful or not.

Its not clear how one avoids accepting scientists as authorities when one has not observed, theorized and tested like they have - like for instance if you accept the theories of molecular evolutionists and have never examined the artificially introdeuced chromosones on an e.coli (or whatever it may be that you are reading in the name of molecular evolution), how is it that you are not working by the same principles that you deride as above?

On the contrary a world view without authority is quite narrow

From observing and testing electrons, someone found that information useful and created the computer YOU use to discredit the science

First you have to understand - what goes down in the name of advocating that life came from matter is not science - it is nonsense, or at best the wistful dreaming of sci-fi writers

and the very person who created that computer. And what do you use as your guide for discrediting that science? Your self-appointed authority, of course.

All I am discrediting is teh idea that matter creates life - I am not sure what that has to do with computers since a computer is obviously not life - and even then a computer owes its existence to consciousnes of the computer designer (and who, BTW, has to be on call to debug the thing quite frequently) so I am not sure what your point is

[lightgigantic]

This is an excellent point (Q).

All of the religious nutjobs decry the evils of science and technology, and tout the evils of "materialistic reductionism" yet they surround themselves with the products of this science and never once think about the implications of the science behind the radio or TV they use to demean it. They use their computers, benefit daily from medical therapies and detailed knowledge of genetics, blindly acknowledge the vast array of understanding we have about the physical and biological world, but withought a thought, they claim evolution and abiogenesis is nonsense. Wait. Let me try:

Yes I use a car. But you say there's an explosive exothermic chemical reaction that's responsible for making it go? Nonsense. It's obviously some form of prime motivational "essence".

The evils of materialistic reductionism is that it assumes that life operates out of the same reductionistic paradigm - last time I checked I wasn't dull matter

[KennyJC]

First you have to understand - what goes down in the name of advocating that life came from matter is not science - it is nonsense, or at best the wistful dreaming of sci-fi writers

Sounds like you need to go back and read his post again as you have given a dismissively ignorant non-answer.

[lightgigantic]

Sounds like you need to go back and read his post again as you have given a dismissively ignorant non-answer.

On the contrary there is no evidence of life coming from matter despite the ardent attempts of over 150 years of darwinism

[KennyJC]

On the contrary there is no evidence of life coming from matter despite the ardent attempts of over 150 years of darwinism

1) Life exists.

2) Living things are made of matter.

3) We know that in the lab and in every corner of the universe, the building blocks of life can be, and indeed are, synthesized from raw elemental matter.

I would just like to see you directly answer the list that superluminal gave for you. But you seem only capable of denial...

[(Q)]

Its not clear how one avoids accepting scientists as authorities when one has not observed, theorized and tested like they have

That is part of your problem, LG, you've not taken the time to understand anything, even the very basics. High school students can begin testing and reviewing exactly the same results of experiments conducted before them, simply because those experiments are repeatable. YOU can see those results with your own eyes and not have to accept anyone's authority.

On the contrary a world view without authority is quite narrow

Only a worldview from ignorance requires self-appointed authorities to rule their worldview.

Do two things, try the two-slit experiment and review the results, then go out, find a god and review his results, then get back to me with your findings and tell me all about authority.

First you have to understand - what goes down in the name of advocating that life came from matter is not science - it is nonsense, or at best the wistful dreaming of sci-fi writers

I would agree with you, from a standpoint of complete ignorance. Clearly, you've never taken the time to understand exactly that which you so easily dismiss as science fiction.

You are unable to call a duck a duck, because you've never seen a duck.

All I am discrediting is teh idea that matter creates life - I am not sure what that has to do with computers since a computer is obviously not life - and even then a computer owes its existence to consciousnes of the computer designer (and who, BTW, has to be on call to debug the thing quite frequently) so I am not sure what your point is

The point is, exactly, that you have no idea about what you're discrediting. You are that ignorant high school dropout who is unable to think for themselves and must rely entirely on self-appointed authorities to guide them.

[(Q)]

The evils of materialistic reductionism is that it assumes that life operates out of the same reductionistic paradigm - last time I checked I wasn't dull matter

Yet, the quality of your posts would indicate otherwise.

[superluminal]

I would just like to see you directly answer the list that superluminal gave for you. But you seem only capable of denial...

Yeah. Me too...

[superluminal]

Yet, the quality of your posts would indicate otherwise.

Ha! He walked right into that one!

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
On the contrary there is no evidence of life coming from matter despite the ardent attempts of over 150 years of darwinism ”




“ Originally Posted by superluminal
1) Life exists.

True

2) Living things are made of matter.

True

3) We know that in the lab and in every corner of the universe, the building blocks of life can be, and indeed are, synthesized from raw elemental matter. ”

The problem is with this assumption - NOWHERE is there any evidence of any life being formed out of a random or reconstituted reorganisation of dull matter - life is seen to always emerge from life


I would just like to see you directly answer the list that superluminal gave for you. But you seem only capable of denial...

[Godless]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Learn something, get your head out of your ass, and perhaps you can understand.

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not clear how one avoids accepting scientists as authorities when one has not observed, theorized and tested like they have ”



That is part of your problem, LG, you've not taken the time to understand anything, even the very basics. High school students can begin testing and reviewing exactly the same results of experiments conducted before them, simply because those experiments are repeatable. YOU can see those results with your own eyes and not have to accept anyone's authority.

Really?

When was the last time you checked the speed of light?
When was the last time you checked tosee whether Planck's constant was really constant?

In other words the very basis that such experiments operate out of are established axioms (ie authorities)

“ On the contrary a world view without authority is quite narrow ”



Only a worldview from ignorance requires self-appointed authorities to rule their worldview.

Do two things, try the two-slit experiment and review the results, then go out, find a god and review his results, then get back to me with your findings and tell me all about authority.

But you cannot even do this experiment without relying on the axioms established above - once again authority - there's no avoiding it

“ First you have to understand - what goes down in the name of advocating that life came from matter is not science - it is nonsense, or at best the wistful dreaming of sci-fi writers ”



I would agree with you, from a standpoint of complete ignorance. Clearly, you've never taken the time to understand exactly that which you so easily dismiss as science fiction.

You are unable to call a duck a duck, because you've never seen a duck.

Well if you have seen life evolve from dull matter you are certainly one up on any of the highly qualified microbioligists on the planet .....

“ All I am discrediting is teh idea that matter creates life - I am not sure what that has to do with computers since a computer is obviously not life - and even then a computer owes its existence to consciousnes of the computer designer (and who, BTW, has to be on call to debug the thing quite frequently) so I am not sure what your point is ”



The point is, exactly, that you have no idea about what you're discrediting. You are that ignorant high school dropout who is unable to think for themselves and must rely entirely on self-appointed authorities to guide them.

I know exactly what I am discrediting - the point was raised that computers are an indication of intelligence, but even a 10 year old can understand that a computer cannot think and is not life - for instance its possible for a human to give an answer in written chinese to a question written in chinese simply by using algorythmic processes similar to computers - of course they don't understand a word of chinese, nor the nature of the question nor the nature of the answer, and neither does a computer

[lightgigantic]

Yet, the quality of your posts would indicate otherwise.

No its not just dull matter - knowing what the organic and inorganic elements of a living organism are is not sufficient toreplicate life - thus it seems to indicate that there is an evasive element not known to the reductionists that distinguishes dull matter from living matter

[lightgigantic]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Learn something, get your head out of your ass, and perhaps you can understand.

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis.

Seems like they also agree that the idea that life evolved from matter is merely a theory too

[Godless]

Stephen J. Gould

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[lightgigantic]

This is quite an amusing pirece or oratory - first he starts off saying that a fact is not a theory but then its okay to accept a theory as a fact

What you have seen in the past 150 years of darwinism is the attempt to make evidence fit the "fact" that life evolved from matter

[Godless]

You are apparently a moron, do some reading will ya! Damn if I get dragged debating with someone who has his head buried up his ass!.

*Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.*