The Dead Old One Cell Speck Suddenly Came To Life , , ,

[frigidweirdo]

But is it true?

You don't know. You only have a theory.

Oops, there you go again, making the same mistake. A scientific theory is the highest status an explanation can achieve. Whenever anyone says "only a theory", they embarrass themselves a bit. Theories can also be facts. "It's only a fact!" sounds kind of silly, no?

Is it true? Its known to be true as much as any theory can be known to be true. It passes every test, explains the observations, and has yielded accurate predictions in every way we know how to check them. Also, there is no other explanation that meets this criteria. This is how we know if explanations are true or not.

This is how we know the theory of evolution is fact.

It's a theory because WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE.

And you can stop this bullshit of "Oops, there you go again", because that's just going to make me stop talking to you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

An effective theory" being the operative word here. It helps explain something.

No. It explains something all by itself. Again you have fallen down the rhetorical rabbit hole of casting undefined, blanket doubt on ALL knowledge. As you try to ise these overly vague and general talking points, you arent excluding anything we know. This is folly and a waste of time on your part, and it certainly does nothing to help any argument against the big bang being a fact.

Yes, it explains something.

Just as the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth explained something that fit in nicely with all the other shit they "knew", like God and Jesus and stuff.

If you're going to be arrogant and tell me that the Big Bang happened, then go prove it. PROVE the Big Bang happened, and then I'll start talking as if it's an undeniable FACT. Until then.... it's a theory which we cannot prove. (And you can't prove it).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a theory because WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE.

100% wrong. You really are not getting this at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just as the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth explained something that fit in nicely with all the other shit they "knew", like God and Jesus and stuff.

Sorry, no comparison. That wasn't determined by scientific method, using all the available observations. Else they would have admitted that the opposite was also possible, because they had not and could not rule it out. It wasn't a scientific theory and has no place in this discussion.

But, as a side note: All they had to do was look through a misshapen piece of glass and notice Venus has phases. Then it would have been all over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just as the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth explained something that fit in nicely with all the other shit they "knew", like God and Jesus and stuff.

Sorry, no comparison. That wasn't determined by scientific method, using the available observations. It wasn't a scientific theory and has no place in this discussion.

What is "scientific method"?

Are you saying that if I do science, and I get an answer, and then I stick a whole theory onto this answer, IT MUST BE TRUE?

If you get 1% of available data from science, and then you make a theory from this, does this mean your theory MUST BE TRUE?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you saying that if I do science, and I get an answer, and then I stick a whole theory onto this answer, IT MUST BE TRUE?

Nope, and the fact that you would even ask that shows you really don't understand the most basic principles in play, here. For starters, you don't appear to understand the term hypothesis and scientific theory, nor how a hypothesis becomes a scientific theory that is shown true, nor the basic idea that scientific theories can also be facts. True things are facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just as the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth explained something that fit in nicely with all the other shit they "knew", like God and Jesus and stuff.

Sorry, no comparison. That wasn't determined by scientific method, using the available observations. It wasn't a scientific theory and has no place in this discussion.

What is "scientific method"?

Are you saying that if I do science, and I get an answer, and then I stick a whole theory onto this answer, IT MUST BE TRUE?

If you get 1% of available data from science, and then you make a theory from this, does this mean your theory MUST BE TRUE?

Admittedly, it does not help this type of discussion when the word "theory" can take on so many connotations and is so overused when laypeople talk science, and when scientists talk about sets of ideas. (Like: "String Theory"... Probably should still be called The String Hypothesis)

And again, you arent making any points specific to any scientific theory. You are trying to cast doubt on all of them and basically say we can never know what is true and what is false.

"Did the rock fall exactly the way it did because of gravity, or because of magical invisible little helper animals? Dunno, since gravity is just a theory..." Silly, of course.

Scientific theories the best method we have of telling what is true and what is false. Yes, there is a tiny chance that ANYTHING we know could be wrong. Give me ANY scenario, and i will create this chance. But that idea is utterly useless by being indiscriminate and undefined. Surely some ideas are true (therefore, facts). So we do reach a point where we make an evidence based determination that a theory is true and move on. This happened long ago in the scientific community, re: the Theory of Evolution. This has now happened for AGW as well. That doesn't mean that you or anyone else are not free to challenge these theories, using evidence. It just means anyone should give you any odds you like, should you be willing to bet that you will be successful in that venture.

For example, you are free to challenge the now accepted fact that there was an inflationary period. Many have tried. They lost on the evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you saying that if I do science, and I get an answer, and then I stick a whole theory onto this answer, IT MUST BE TRUE?

Nope, and the fact that you would even ask that shows you really don't understand the most basic principles in play, here. For starters, you don't appear to understand the term hypothesis and scientific theory, nor how a hypothesis becomes a scientific theory that is shown true, nor the basic idea that scientific theories can also be facts. True things are facts.

Then I think we're done. Bye

 

[Ringtone]

JAG Writes:
You have no Empirical Evidence that your original ancestor
was at one time a dead one-celled speck that lived in the
Primordial Slime and then later begin to pulsate with life.

Pulsate , , just a slight boom , , boom , , boom , , ,

I mean the one-celled speck was not always alive --so there
was a time when Old One-Cell was as dead as a door nail , ,

, , , but , , , ,

, , lo and behold , , ,

, , ,Old One Cell at some point became alive and it began to pulsate.

Then Time Passed.

After awhile Old One Cell, increased to the size of a pecan.

Then later on Old One Cell increased to the size of a baseball.

Then to the size of a Chicken.

A chicken , , ,

Then later on as Time Passed Old One Cell has now become a Toad Frog.
{or What Ever You Claim It Became}

But Old One Cell did not remain a Toad Frog.

On no.

Old One Cell eventually became a Chimp.

Then as time Passed a "scientific miracle" occurred , , ,

Here it comes , , ,

Old One Cell now at last has become "a Ronald Reagan"
and "a Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

And all that up there happened due to , , ,

~ natural selection
and
~ :random mutation
and
~ atoms and molecules wiggling around
and
~ chemical reactions taking place . . .

, , , and all that was produced by

~ unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

, , which produced a , ,

~ highly complex Human Brain

~ and a highly complex Human Eye, and

~ a highly complex Fully Functioning Human Body

So?

So if you believe all that up there, then you are a Great Man Of Faith
and you believe in the Religion Of Evolution.

My view is It requires MORE faith to believe in all that up there, than
it requires to believe in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He
gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have Eternal Life."

Best.


JAG

People shouldn't go through High School science on drugs.

People shouldn't confound evolution with naturalism.

 

[fncceo]

People shouldn't confound evolution with naturalism.

Evolution doesn't require Naturalism... there is nothing in it that precludes the belief in a higher spiritual power. It merely puts paid to dogmatic interpretations of what that spiritual power might be and how it works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution doesn't require Naturalism... there is nothing in it that precludes the belief in a higher spiritual power.

Here, here, sir. Thank you. This needs to be said. A lot.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution doesn't require Naturalism... there is nothing in it that precludes the belief in a higher spiritual power. It merely puts paid to dogmatic interpretations of what that spiritual power might be and how it works.

Oh, but it does make a big difference. You've just never considered that difference, and dogma is still an imperative! I say the belief that God "preprogramed" or "hardwired" the cosmos from the jump to produce life presupposes only one instance of divine intervention. I say the empirical evidence evinces a series of divine interventions. The scientific ramifications should be obvious.

 

[fncceo]

I say the empirical evidence evinces a series of divine interventions.

Show me the data set.

 

[Ringtone]

Show me the data set.

EDIT

The last sentence in the above should read the varying scientific ramifications are obvious.. Also note that I used the term dogma to denote one's metaphysical point of view from which one interprets the empirical data. One is being dogmatic should one fail to observe the varying metaphysical potentialities and, thus, the varying scientific ramifications..

The evidence is clear. There is no way abiogenesis was preprogramed by God. The appearance of the first living cell was an instantaneously synchronous event of ex substantia creaturae entailing the formation of both its cellular membrane and machinery. There's no way both could possibly form without the other by any natural processes. They are irreducibly interdependent.

God said, "Let there be life."

As for the data set, see my article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[fncceo]

As for the data set, see my article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a data set? It's not an opinion piece from a religious publication. You stated that there is empirical evidence of a divine intervention.


adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   

I merely asked to see the data on which that conclusion was based. Just saying, "I believe it", while a perfectly valid basis on which to base an opinion, isn't empirical evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As for the data set, see my article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a data set? It's not an opinion piece from a religious publication. You stated that there is empirical evidence of a divine intervention.


adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I merely asked to see the data on which that conclusion was based. Just saying, "I believe it", while a perfectly valid basis on which to base an opinion, isn't empirical evidence.

You know, he started a thread to present this evidence. It claimed right in the thread title that this evidence was contained within. Strangely, he posted 100s of times in that thread, yet forgot to present any of the evidence. Strangest thing.

 

[Ringtone]

As for the data set, see my article: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a data set? It's not an opinion piece from a religious publication. You stated that there is empirical evidence of a divine intervention.


adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I merely asked to see the data on which that conclusion was based. Just saying, "I believe it", while a perfectly valid basis on which to base an opinion, isn't empirical evidence.

The empirical "data set" regarding the current, peer-reviewed research is in my article. Mere chemistry by natural processes cannot form cellular walls and machinery. The latter two are irreducibly interdependent. And that's just the bottom line. There are a myriad of other, insurmountable obstacles to abiogenesis via natural processes. These things are the thrust of the article, discussed in some detail, not religion. Either read it or don't.

 

[fncceo]

JAG Writes:
You have no Empirical Evidence that your original ancestor
was at one time a dead one-celled speck that lived in the
Primordial Slime and then later begin to pulsate with life.

Pulsate , , just a slight boom , , boom , , boom , , ,

I mean the one-celled speck was not always alive --so there
was a time when Old One-Cell was as dead as a door nail , ,

, , , but , , , ,

, , lo and behold , , ,

, , ,Old One Cell at some point became alive and it began to pulsate.

Then Time Passed.

After awhile Old One Cell, increased to the size of a pecan.

Then later on Old One Cell increased to the size of a baseball.

Then to the size of a Chicken.

A chicken , , ,

Then later on as Time Passed Old One Cell has now become a Toad Frog.
{or What Ever You Claim It Became}

But Old One Cell did not remain a Toad Frog.

On no.

Old One Cell eventually became a Chimp.

Then as time Passed a "scientific miracle" occurred , , ,

Here it comes , , ,

Old One Cell now at last has become "a Ronald Reagan"
and "a Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

And all that up there happened due to , , ,

~ natural selection
and
~ :random mutation
and
~ atoms and molecules wiggling around
and
~ chemical reactions taking place . . .

, , , and all that was produced by

~ unthinking non-intelligent Time
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Chance
plus
~ unthinking non-intelligent Matter , , ,

, , which produced a , ,

~ highly complex Human Brain

~ and a highly complex Human Eye, and

~ a highly complex Fully Functioning Human Body

So?

So if you believe all that up there, then you are a Great Man Of Faith
and you believe in the Religion Of Evolution.

My view is It requires MORE faith to believe in all that up there, than
it requires to believe in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He
gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have Eternal Life."

Best.


JAG

I don't have any empirical evidence ... but it's a valid theory that you slept through Science class...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no Empirical Evidence that your original ancestor
was at one time a dead one-celled speck that lived in the
Primordial Slime and then later begin to pulsate with life.

Therefore: magical sky daddy!