Spirituality
10 Feb 19
10 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSo your starting point in your "seeking truth " is that there are "directed processes"?
What has to be directed is what should concern you not what you want.
Dice and cards are small things to over come, but what about a single protein?
The numbers of everything required to get it right are beyond staggering.
10 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSo all this isn't about your religion?
No, which ever one I want isn't a criteria with which to base anything on. People who select religions on what they like are not seeking truth they want their ears itched.Truth is what matters, my wants have to take a backseat.
10 Feb 19
1 edit
@fmf saidYou can setup your query to show anything you want, it doesn't mean the query is meaningfull. As I pointed out shuffling a card deck will always end up with the 52 cards in some order, so the odds of that happening are one, telling everyone what that order is after it is shuffled before anyone can know is quite different.
So your starting point in your "seeking truth " is that there are "directed processes"?
If I'm trying to prove something and I only look at what does that, I've done exactly what you claim so many do with the conformation bias.
10 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidI'll try again. Is your starting point ~ in what you describe as your "seeking truth" ~ that there are "directed processes"? Yes or no?
You can setup your query to show anything you want, it doesn't mean the query is meaningfull. As I pointed out shuffling a card deck will always end up with the 52 cards in some order, so the odds of that happening are one, telling everyone what that order is after it is shuffled before anyone can know is quite different.
If I'm trying to prove something and I only look at what does that, I've done exactly what you claim so many do with the conformation bias.
10 Feb 19
@fmf saidIt will point to something that supports my views, but no matter how the numbers fall out that doesn't automatically prove my religion. My religion could still be wrong even if we show that natural processes could not do it, but what it would do is eliminate one of the theories that are currently in place that some have bought into hook line and sinker.
So all this isn't about your religion?
10 Feb 19
@fmf saidI said yes, the numbers do not support an undirected process of life rising from non life in an undirected process with or without natural selection.
I'll try again. Is your starting point ~ in what you describe as your "seeking truth" ~ that there are "directed processes"? Yes or no?
10 Feb 19
@kellyjay said"Hook line and sinker"?
It will point to something that supports my views, but no matter how the numbers fall out that doesn't automatically prove my religion. My religion could still be wrong even if we show that natural processes could not do it, but what it would do is eliminate one of the theories that are currently in place that some have bought into hook line and sinker.
10 Feb 19
@fmf saidI think you should mull over what has been posted, if you cannot figure that out with what has been posted no one is going to be able to explain it to you.
So if you feel the numbers do not support undirected processes, what is the issue?
10 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidI don't agree with your perspective. I remember twhitehead dismantling your Argument from Improbability 5-6 years ago. I agreed with him. This ground was covered before. But if you feel your Argument from Improbability supports your religious affiliation and dogma, so be it.
I think you should mull over what has been posted, if you cannot figure that out with what has been posted no one is going to be able to explain it to you.
10 Feb 19
@fmf saidYou may remember him and I talking about it, that's about it, your bias is showing.
I don't agree with your perspective. I remember twhitehead dismantling your Argument from Improbability 5-6 years ago. I agreed with him. This ground was covered before. But if you feel your Argument from Improbability supports your religious affiliation and dogma, so be it.