The Evolution Fraud

[james bond]

"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis

We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (From memory. If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)

It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.

Nothing extreme. It's observable. I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you. He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.

 

[james bond]

Ah. Another Harun Yahya groupie.

What's a Harun Yahya?

 

[james bond]

The charlatan? Heh heh....okay.

Who is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Why is he a charlatan?

You think the truth are lies and lies are truth, so it's probably worthwhile hearing why Pierre Chardin is a charlatan? Did he masquerade as Pierre Cardin?

 

[jasonlee3071]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

 

[Ringel05]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

Well it's obvious you're an unbeliever as you think logic and reason is also out of the equation, looks like an attempt at self justification. Logic and reason are often exercises in rationalization which can make them subjective as opposed to objective in nature depending on their application, subjective vs objective logic. There are those who would argue that based on a narrow definition/application, that's their prerogative. Reason on the other hand, if we take Hume's word, "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions" a totally subjective definition.

 

[Questioner]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof thereof be damned.

Another instance of such is when a simpleton or simplistic person calls one of much higher intelligence, whether standard, emotional, creative or otherwise a "kook" or some other childish dismissal or term simply because the ideas, concepts, metaphors, and so forth are merely too much for one of an IQ of 95-105 to attempt comprehension thereof (and likely a subpar EQ to boot, per Daniel Goleman), or require the training and emotional restraint of that reactive, impulsive "system 1" thinking which I aptly described and surmised above.

(Granted, there are kooks, like Ted Kaczynski, but in this hypothetical scenario, the person in question is not a "kook", but rather a genius, merely having their intellect derided by a literal, or at least relative simpleton who simply isn't at the level rightfully capable of comprehending it, or even attempting a bit of comprehension to begin with, because it would distract their time away from more important tasks, such as watching television or commenting ignorantly or maladjustedly on their favorite, childish little social media website of chose - pick your favorite?



I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.





I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.

 

[Questioner]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.





I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap.

I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".

Sometime, I will learn to write for an IQ 100 audience, which is what most mass media is for to begin with... sigh... but only if you insist. (Though to be honest, I'm not really sure how much of this is a case of "having a 100 IQ", or simply not using any more of it to begin with).

Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning,

That's factually incorrect.

Bacon's scientific method is "inductive" (based on nature, or empericism), not "deductive" (based on logic, or rationalism). You're conflating two things which aren't the same at all.

practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.

Yes, it and many other systems, such as legal systems have their own methodologies and arbitrations with their own focus and limits in scope, as far as the mathematical construction of those methodologies and what they limit their scope to, as well as what their scope excludes, or does not include, and as far as arguments in regards to whether or not the methologies themselves are a problem, in potential need of change or revision entirely, that's a different argument.

Regardless, you are merely repeating this on the basis of faith in Francis Bacon's methodology, as well as a misunderstanding of what that methodology is to begin with, not on having designed it yourself, or contributed to the design thereof, akin to Bacon himself, for example.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".

Cool crybabying!

You're not really impressing anyone,moron. You are an embarrassing evolution denier.

 

[Ringel05]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.





I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.

Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole. We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations. Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons. In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence." Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.

 

[Questioner]

I'm aware it has too many "big words for you".

Cool crybabying!

You're not really impressing anyone,moron.

I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.

You are an embarrassing evolution denier.

I'll deny evolution as much as I want to, and no - nothing will happen, no Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite me, no pirates will gang-rape me, or have me walk a proverbial plank.

I'll still get to make love to your wife or girlfriend, and do some actual "evolving" in practice, while you and the other hideous evolution fetishists spend your free time masturbating to anime and speculating on online forms whether or not your great great great grandad was conceived by rape or not, thereby spending your time "devolving", rather than actually evolving, as many a dashing young man has done since the caveman days, without even being naïve, bored, or desperate enough to care about the ugliness of evolution to begin with, at least as far as "mating success" goes. He he he.

Only an evolutionary ineffectual would have such a childish, simplistic view of evolution, as if it's a a god, or faithful little sky daddy for the superstitious for them to confide in every so faithfully, which can actually do anything to one who denies it.

My little pinky finger is obviously more powerful, potent, and significant than your archaic, and highly overrated 19th century theory is, which if not plagiarized or stolen out right from the various other evolutionary theories, having existed since the ancient Greeks and Hindus, or other contemporaries of Mr. Darwin himself, was at least entirely unoriginal, to the point that it had been a component of various folk wisdoms since the ancients, as well as a component of other theories and bodies of knowledge and information, such as legal or Common Law theory.

So go ahead, and continue to give your piety and penace to evolution, or "ugly-lution" as I prefer to call it lately, and please tell me when it actually cares, and actually grants you a beautiful or attractive mate for devotion and refusal to deny it, even at your own evolutionary expense, ironically - giving that talking about it in public places tends to be a aesthetic repellant, rather than aesthetic aid in the art of love and sex. Mhmm

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.

That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.

"The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."

That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.

Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.

Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.

 

[Hollie]

"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." C.S. Lewis

We are not physical bodies with a spirit, we are spiritual beings inside physical bodies. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (From memory. If you wish, look it up and make any corrections.)

It’s funny when religious extremists blather on with abstract ideas such as “spirits” and supernaturalism while not submitting any case to support them.

Nothing extreme. It's observable. I think OldBiologist kicked the bucket after I told him as he still didn't believe it like you. He probably couldn't take it that he was wrong all his life while you're still in denial.

Denial of what?

I accept knowledge, reason and supported hypothesis confirmed by peer review as a means to supplant the fear and superstition of religious extremism.

The slippery slope of religious dogma is once anyone begins to subdivide the bibles into the "yeah, that's absolutely true" parts from the "well, that's kinda' true", parts, it becomes a convoluted mess of contradictory suppositions.

Religious dogma has a singular goal to bolster your partisan beliefs -- not your knowledge, because knowledge and superstition are different. The seeking of knowledge would be to study and evaluate, with objectivity, countering proposals. Knowledge is not asked for in the realm of the religious extremist, unquestioning faith is. There is an underlying misology (hatred of knowledge) in the Bibles. knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, after all. Before they sinned, A & E (not the Cable Netwok), were ignorant. Knowledge to the gods is sin-- because knowledge would preclude faith. According to the dogma, the gods prefer unquestioning belief, but will allow you to choose knowledge. The price of which is eternal hell of course.

 

[Ringel05]

Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.

That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.

"The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."

That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.

Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.

Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.

In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.

That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.

"The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."

That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.

Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.

Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.

In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........

Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias. If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.

 

[Hollie]

I'm probably in the top 1% percentile in terms of reading and linguistic ability - either improve your reading and literary comprehension, or quit crying, don't make me dumb stuff down, seriously.

Not sure who told you that. Your ability to string words into coherent sentences is lacking and you display a marked inability to convey a reasoned argument supported by fact.

Pompous blathering doesn’t support your top 1% claim.

 

[Questioner]

The Insuperable Statistics of Life - Scientific Proof of Nature's God


Intelligent design has been viciously attacked, not so much for its claim that design can be detected, and not so much for the mathematical methods it uses, but because it trumps the belief system of those who consider themselves to be our ruling intellectual elite. It trumps Scientism. – Counting to God, A Personal Journey Through Science to Belief, by Douglas Ell, p 50

Dembski suggests a lower bound, a “universal probability limit,” of 1 in 10 to the 150. He gets that by taking the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in the visible universe (10 to the 80), multiplying it by the number of seconds since the creation of the universe (about 4 times 10 to the 17), and multiplying by 10 to the 43 units of “Planck time” in each second. (Planck time is theoretically the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible.) – p 52

----------------------

Now consider the universal probability limit of 1 in 10 the 150th power in comparison to any naturalistic synthesis of a modest human protein of just 300 amino acid residues in length.

1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 300 times is 1 chance in 20 to the 300th power, which is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th power.

Titin is a protein in the muscles of everyone reading this. Titin is 34,350 amino acid residues in length. Please do the math. There are at least 5,000 different proteins in your body. Do the math. 1 chance in 10 to the 150th is statistically equivalent to 0.

Attempting to prove God exists utilizing man's science is as foolish and fruitless as attempting to prove God doesn't exist utilizing man's science.

Agree. Which is why I have no faith in faith, especially if it's religious.
A belief in god does not rely in the realm of science, logic or reason.

The only statement which you just made which is accurate is that it doesn't rely in the realm of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, within the realm of logic or reason, that's quite a different story, and there are many logical and rational arguments for God, but you won't read them, because electing to be ignorant of that or those is easier, more convenient, and less mentally taxing or the brain, allowing you to perpetuate and sustain the confirmation bias which makes life and your, likely rather small and insignificant approximation on reality more easily sustained, irregardless of whether it's true in any inherent sense - I believe Phillip Tetlock did a good job approximating and defining this simplistic, primitive "system 1" type of thinking, which ironically may be in and of itself, an archaic holdover from a more primitive and anti-intellectual day and age, or a part or humanity's archaic, and rather robotic or monotonous past, not seeking truth in any more dedicated sense of the term, just something simple, easy, mentally convenient which "makes sense" to people, whom even if it is harsh to label simple and stupid, it would nevertheless be right to label them ignorant, willfully or consequentially, whatever archaic "positive" purpose a degree or margin of ignorance might actually serve, given that one simply wouldn't have the time to be all-knowing of every thing or potential thing one might theoretically be able to know or learn to comprehend, even assuming they had an entire lifetime to devote to learning just one subject, whether a natural science, a philosophy, a computational or informational science, mathematics, an art, or anything else (some experts cite a 10,000 hour rule required to become a "master" at any subject or pursuit, such as Tiger Woods at Golf, or maybe someone like Issac Netwon in the natural sciences).

Such as how, in the above, you childishly and erroneously conflate science (as in Bacon's method, or the institution itself based on empiricism), with "rationality" or "logic", when the things aren't the same or remotely nonfloatable in any way, except in extremely childish, or simplistic slogans or axioms, written and marketed for an average or below average IQ score, which are meant to be easily repeatable, as if by rote, axioms and honesty thereof be damned.





I'm curious what definition of "religious" you're using to begin with.

Of course, that's all a verbose, useless, steaming pile of crap. Scientific method is logic. It is deductive reasoning, practiced in a way to eliminate possibilities and to know which possibilities can be eliminated.

Unfortunately science and the scientific method aren't always equal parts of the whole. We make postulations then set out to prove or disprove based on our collective yet still limited knowledge/experiences/observations. Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons. In most cases all we prove is that based on our knowledge that this is or isn't or in other words "The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence." Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence simply means there's a lack of evidence and nothing more which is why some questions may never be answered scientifically.

The irony is that there's no "evolutionary" reason to "believe in evolution" to begin with, the notion of believing in or denying evolution is childish, archaic and entirely superstitious to begin with.

If it was more in our evolutionary interest to "deny it", than to believe in it or acknowledge it, then there's no reason to believe in it, the notion that believing in it as some silly "end in and of itself", like it's the Nicene Creed or something is absurd, and would in itself be an evolutionary maladaption, believing in something even to the point that it serves no meaningful or useful purpose or utility, or ends up being counter productive rather than productive.

Given that survival, procreation, mating, and simplistic behaviors like that have existed since the days of ancient humans, rarely if ever having any need for knowing what "evolution" is to begin with, and that many of the "internet atheists" who seem to fetishize evolution or simplistic notions or ideas of "science" to begin with, typically pale, with an IQ of maybe 105, often single, overweight, with more of an interest in "waifus" than finding a wife or girlfriend, seem to do quite a bit more "devolution" than any actual "evolution in practice"...

This could indicate that belief in or appealing to evolution itself is ironically an evolutionary maladaptation or recessive trait, while focusing on subjects of higher or superior aesthetic value, much as mathematics (as opposed to "math"), arts, music or other creative endeavours may be an evolutionary superior trait or area of focus in life).

(I believe there is a book on evolution called "Survival of the Beautiful" which documents this). As far as "science" itself as an enterprise or endeavor to begin with, the primary purpose of "science" as an end in and of itself is just an aesthetic end to begin with, akin to pure mathematics; scientists themselves say ultimately, that "science is just plain fun", and anything more pragmatic than that is simply a consequence or byproduct to begin with

Such as how, even in modern day hunter-gatherer tribes, which have met their basic material and survival needs for 80,000 years or more with no need for more modern technologies or endeavours (even then though, these cultures still have "creative" or "innovative" endeavors, such as arts or inventiveness, which I belive are ultimately just a fundamental part of our human nature, even if they would seem "primitive" by our standards today, such as it has been observed that animals display creative traits and activities such as artistic or musical, as "ends in and of themselves"

 

[Questioner]

Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.

That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.

"The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."

That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.

Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.

Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.

In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........

Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias.

So you have faith in, yes.

If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.

Circular reasoning; if the arguments are based on induction or empiricism to begin with, as opposed to something else or different, such as "deduction" or rationalism, that in and of itself is a valid argument.

 

[Ringel05]

Also unfortunately some circumvent the scientific method to arrive at desired conclusions for a multitude of reasons.

That's overblown. Peer review and repetition cure that.

"The absence of evidence is not the the evidence of absence."

That's a neat quote, but it is just not always true, especially in science. When a thorough examination of the data shows, for example, that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Sun is causing the current, rapid warming, that is, indeed, evidence that it isn't. Not proof, but definitely evidence.

Just because we have no evidence to turn a myth into a fact doesn't mean a myth isn't fact due to the lack of evidence.

Right, strictly speaking. But there comes a time when scientists have to decide that it is a waste of time to continue searching for evidence of the truth of something, and they proceed as if it isn't true or is irrelevant, even if true.

In the first you neglected to take into account "based on our limited knowledge" and in the second you affirm it...........

Yes, we will always be biased and constrained by what we already know. Science does its best to nullify this bias. If you can think of a better method for gaining empirical knowledge, I am all ears.

I'm a scientific method adherent myself even with all it's human limitations and fallibilities. You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel, I was responding to that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You appeared to take science and the scientific method as a form of gospel

Well, that's a "you" problem.

I take is as the best and, really, only method for discovering empirical knowledge.

Unlike the gospel, science invites any and all challenges. And new information will re write science books

That's about as "UNgospelly" as it gets.