13 Jul 19
What the HELL are you talking about? I watched his tirade against science of life origins. All he said during the entire speel was WE DON"T KNOW, WE CANT KNOW.
He didn't even have to say GODIDIT, that was implicit in his 'speech'.
Very negative speel. So his implication is, YET HERE WE ARE. Since we can't explain it and never will.......
14 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidHe doesn't even say it, yet YOU KNOW! Did he say anything you know is false?
What the HELL are you talking about? I watched his tirade against science of life origins. All he said during the entire speel was WE DON"T KNOW, WE CANT KNOW.
He didn't even have to say GODIDIT, that was implicit in his 'speech'.
Very negative speel. So his implication is, YET HERE WE ARE. Since we can't explain it and never will.......
Did he twist any fact into something false? Did he tell the truth, or are you going to ding him for what he didn't say, because YOU KNOW what he really was saying, not what he actually said.
14 Jul 19
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see when we are being bamboozled into thinking we will NEVER figure it out.
So have fun dissing OOL science while you can, your faith prevents you from thinking any work along those lines will be doomed to failure.
He blithely mentions big numbers, 10 to the 10 billion power number of combinations trying to convince us it is flat ass impossible for anyone but a god to do it, and again, he deliberately ignores the influence of interstellar clouds of organic material our solar system has plowed through many times in Earth's history.
He deliberately refuses to bring that up since that cuts big holes in his too many numbers theory of life.
So how many more such dudes will you present here as if that were science FOR SCIENCE?
14 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidYou don't even know the size of the problems and refuse to look at them, how do you know we will figure it out, since you only listen to those that agree with you.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see when we are being bamboozled into thinking we will NEVER figure it out.
So have fun dissing OOL science while you can, your faith prevents you from thinking any work along those lines will be doomed to failure.
He blithely mentions big numbers, 10 to the 10 billion power number of combinations trying to convince us it is flat ass ...[text shortened]... ry of life.
So how many more such dudes will you present here as if that were science FOR SCIENCE?
14 Jul 19
In other words I should just fall over and kiss his shoes and genuflect and just accept the pessimistic view these dudes tout?
Science doesn't work that way. We freely admit we don't have the answer but that doesn't mean throw up your hand and give up.
Scientists want to know the answers to the hard problems not just the boiling point of water and such.
14 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidI didn't realize chemistry was so meaningful in your eyes, I don't think shoe kissing is required, falling over is optional. 🙂 No one is saying throw up our hands and give up, he doesn't say that either, but he does point out how hard this is without suggesting it is almost figured out.
In other words I should just fall over and kiss his shoes and genuflect and just accept the pessimistic view these dudes tout?
Science doesn't work that way. We freely admit we don't have the answer but that doesn't mean throw up your hand and give up.
Scientists want to know the answers to the hard problems not just the boiling point of water and such.
15 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidSo you have problems reading between the lines? He CLEARLY is saying because we can't figure it out now we never will THEREFORE GODDIDIT.
I didn't realize chemistry was so meaningful in your eyes, I don't think shoe kissing is required, falling over is optional. 🙂 No one is saying throw up our hands and give up, he doesn't say that either, but he does point out how hard this is without suggesting it is almost figured out.
Do you seriously think there was no other message there hidden between the lines?
15 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidYou have issues just reading the lines.
So you have problems reading between the lines? He CLEARLY is saying because we can't figure it out now we never will THEREFORE GODDIDIT.
Do you seriously think there was no other message there hidden between the lines?
All of your complaints if they are all found between the lines are just between your ears.
15 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidI listened to his speel and I CAN read between the lines. You just don't want to admit the bias inherent in all three of those posts.
You have issues just reading the lines.
All of your complaints if they are all found between the lines are just between your ears.
That last dude took pains to show how we would NEVER be able to suss it all out, using such arguments as proteins have 10 to the ten BILLION number of combinations which is just a way to convince common folk of the impossibility for life to have ever come from a mud pit plus lightning or whatever happened in the natural universe not requiring a creator.
It would be one thing if the dude had said, it is frigging hard to figure out how life could have started on Earth naturally and here is where we are and here is how I think we will tackle this issue in the future, what direction I think we need to take to get closer to the answer.
He POINTEDLY did not say anything like that. He started out saying how impossible it was for life to have started naturally and ending the same way.
He proposed no way forward, he actually was proposing ways BACKWARDS.
That is not science, that is touting an agenda that denies science will NEVER figure it out.
15 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidI have said all of us have bias, you are going on about this as if its something new. You think anyone supporting OOL non-biologically would be doing it without bias?
I listened to his speel and I CAN read between the lines. You just don't want to admit the bias inherent in all three of those posts.
That last dude took pains to show how we would NEVER be able to suss it all out, using such arguments as proteins have 10 to the ten BILLION number of combinations which is just a way to convince common folk of the impossibility for life to ...[text shortened]... WARDS.
That is not science, that is touting an agenda that denies science will NEVER figure it out.
15 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidI remind you this IS the science forum not a GODIDIT forum. If you want to discuss theology, take it to spiritual. There is ZERO science in claiming GODIDIT.
I have said all of us have bias, you are going on about this as if its something new. You think anyone supporting OOL non-biologically would be doing it without bias?
You take that on faith and good luck with that.
16 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidScience is about truth, or is it about your opinions of what is truth.
I remind you this IS the science forum not a GODIDIT forum. If you want to discuss theology, take it to spiritual. There is ZERO science in claiming GODIDIT.
You take that on faith and good luck with that.
You should read some of the founders of science, they have a different opinion than yours when it comes to science and God.
16 Jul 19
@humy saidYou have nothing on the beginning of the universe or life, on the how or why. So making any assumptions based on either is wishful thinking and blind faith!
-that can be rationally and formally obtained via evidence and/or logic, yes.
That's the same science that has proven we and all life we so far know of evolved from a common ancestor and the Earth is a few billion years old.