GOD EXISTS

cthia wrote:Abiogenesis? I'm familiar with it.

And the fact that it also requires MATTER!

I trust more bookofGenesis.

Of course abiogenesis requires matter to exist, that was not why I brought it up. I brought it up because you said this:

Someone needs to have 'the talk' with biologists. We learn about the birds and the bees at a fairly young age. And even a kid knows that two rocks don't get together to make people.

Which, to me, seems you were arguing that without some form of intervention by some deity, life could not exist.

Which is bullshit, because as the various experiments conducted under the overall umbrella of abiogenesis theory prove, divine intervention is not necessary for any of it to happen.

Something that, funnily enough, is true of any of the physical sciences. If the best theoretical framework we have to explain the rules of the universe functions and has predictive power without including any form of deity, what does that say about the probability of a deity that takes active part in the development of its creations?

And perhaps you'll learn to carry on a decent conversation without denigration or colorful words.

Non-believers are oftentimes an angry lot. Science makes you angry does it.

Science fills me with wonder.

Creationists like you, however, make me laugh. You sit there and go on and on about how nothing could have ever happened without your particular brand of invisible sky daddy being there from the beginning, pulling all the strings. And so what? Do your theories, when measured against actual science, provide a better explanation of the world around us? Do they allow you to predict events with greater accuracy? If so, why are you not participating in the scientific dialogue? Why do you not publish your papers on arXiv?

But no. Of course you won't do that. Because you know that there is no way that your theories would hold up if someone were to try and prove them experimentally. Because you know that, for all your bluster about being absolutely right, you have no evidence aside from your deeply held beliefs. Because you're so mistrusting of anything beyond your precious "common sense" that the idea that you're wrong is infathomable.

Because, in short, you are a crank.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Abiogenesis? I'm familiar with it.

And the fact that it also requires MATTER!

I trust more bookofGenesis.

Of course abiogenesis requires matter to exist, that was not why I brought it up. I brought it up because you said this:

Someone needs to have 'the talk' with biologists. We learn about the birds and the bees at a fairly young age. And even a kid knows that two rocks don't get together to make people.

Which, to me, seems you were arguing that without some form of intervention by some deity, life could not exist.

Which is bullshit, because as the various experiments conducted under the overall umbrella of abiogenesis theory prove, divine intervention is not necessary for any of it to happen.

Something that, funnily enough, is true of any of the physical sciences. If the best theoretical framework we have to explain the rules of the universe functions and has predictive power without including any form of deity, what does that say about the probability of a deity that takes active part in the development of its creations?

And perhaps you'll learn to carry on a decent conversation without denigration or colorful words.

Non-believers are oftentimes an angry lot. Science makes you angry does it.

Science fills me with wonder.

Creationists like you, however, make me laugh. You sit there and go on and on about how nothing could have ever happened without your particular brand of invisible sky daddy being there from the beginning, pulling all the strings. And so what? Do your theories, when measured against actual science, provide a better explanation of the world around us? Do they allow you to predict events with greater accuracy? If so, why are you not participating in the scientific dialogue? Why do you not publish your papers on arXiv?

But no. Of course you won't do that. Because you know that there is no way that your theories would hold up if someone were to try and prove them experimentally. Because you know that, for all your bluster about being absolutely right, you have no evidence aside from your deeply held beliefs. Because you're so mistrusting of anything beyond your precious "common sense" that the idea that you're wrong is infathomable.

Because, in short, you are a crank.

If you would have been following my posts, you would have known that I am in the process of publishing with CERN. If I can make the deadlines (its not looking good) it could be published this year. I have visited CERN several times. Initially as a guest of my then barely 12-yr-old niece. Whereupon conversation led me to attempt publishing. My initial proposal, replete with qualifying physics, has already been accepted.

The subject matter is among my most cherished area of research, The Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. Which comprises, specifically t(sub 0) —> t(sub 7). To assist in the enormous calculations, I purchased a Cray XC30-AC almost two years ago. At $500,000, they're a steal now. Compared to the $30M previously. As I said before, I have my own theories. I love Science as well. I'm just intimately familiar with its limitations.

The number crunching is the holdup of publishing. And yes, I am also developing an unprecedented computer CAS system. I never said anything about a theory of everything, so I don't know why I'm being accused of saying that. Pulling all kinds of things out of thin air?


As promised, after publishing, I'll link it on the forum.

In the meantime, do you think you can find within you the minimal amount of respect and decency? Or is decency and respect only found within Christians? I only ask the same respect as I give. Is that beyond you?

If you continue. You'll be ignored. I am rather busy. Too much so, for a childish conversation.

Thank You

cthia wrote:

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

Ninety-five percent of Americans.

Statistically speak/think (ing), Christians are in the correct group of thinkers.

Statistics is a mathematical body of Science.

Good grief...

I find it difficult to believe that someone who claims to be engaged in advanced scientific research that supposedly entails extremely advanced mathematics does not understand the difference between a popular opinion and a correct one and is under the impression that a majority of random people believing something makes it *statistically correct*.

Someone needs to have 'the talk' with biologists. We learn about the birds and the bees at a fairly young age. And even a kid knows that two rocks don't get together to make people.

No, someone needs to learn biology and organic chemistry themselves before making the assumption that a grade school level understanding of the reproductive process somehow qualifies them to authoritatively declare that every professional scientist in the field they are speaking about somehow knows less about the subject than some 12 year old that just got the birds and the bees talk... based on the fact that what those scientists are saying isn't fully explained by said birds and bees talk.




And on, and on... I'm not going to wade through that entire morass of random nonsense claims when Spacekiwi already took that bullet for us. I'll just make the general observation that it is amazing how many creationists hold unshakable confidence in their understanding of various scientific fields in which they have clearly never received any kind of extensive education. I mean, it's fairly clear you've never studied microbiology and organic chemistry to any extent that gives you a clue what would have been involved in theories that describe the formation of early self replicating molecules... you must know you have not had this education... and yet you proclaim with certainty that any 6th grader who's had a sex ed class can clearly see what an entire field of people with doctorates in this subject matter and decades of research under their belt can't.

And, apparently, you find that plausible primarily because it lines up with your desire to believe a religious text written by an iron age civilization that couldn't dream of grasping half the concepts you're using their little book to declare invalid.

Just.. mind boggling.

PeterZ wrote:Well, I suppose we each have a different set of experiences. I find secular progressives to be the least accepting or tolerant of anything that does not fit their world view. T

And in my experience you can generally translate that statement to mean "They refuse to just accept the made up stories of my religion as valid based purely on my faith in them and insist on pointing out that they are in conflict with reality and lacking any evidence in support of them. Such intolerance..."

cthia wrote:
I love Science as well. I'm just intimately familiar with its limitations.

As we (most of us) are. However, from where I stand, your point seems to be that since science cannot give a definite answer to the great question of the origin of the Universe and Everything, and religion can, then religion holds some sort of high ground.

(snip)
Or is decency and respect only found within Christians?
(snip)

Most certainly not. Christians (especially the orthodox types) have disrespected me in multiple occasions for being an atheist.

And second, that phrase is utterly inappropriate, offensive even, since it shows an almost unconscious sense of superiority. I mean, just write "whites" instead of "Christian" and it would be a sentence worthy of any old KKK member.

From "racism" to "religionism" (is that even a word?)

PS. Oh, and I didn't quote mine your post. The snipped parts don't make the quote less offensive.

Point proven. Only people who view the world as progressive's see it deserve tolerance. That is consistent with my experience. Assuming you are not conservative that is.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Well, I suppose we each have a different set of experiences. I find secular progressives to be the least accepting or tolerant of anything that does not fit their world view. T

And in my experience you can generally translate that statement to mean "They refuse to just accept the made up stories of my religion as valid based purely on my faith in them and insist on pointing out that they are in conflict with reality and lacking any evidence in support of them. Such intolerance..."

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Point proven. Only people who view the world as progressive's see it deserve tolerance. That is consistent with my experience. Assuming you are not conservative that is.

And in my experience you can generally translate that statement to mean "They refuse to just accept the made up stories of my religion as valid based purely on my faith in them and insist on pointing out that they are in conflict with reality and lacking any evidence in support of them. Such intolerance..."

Point proven indeed, you have confirmed that your definition of "intolerance" is in fact "that person isn't accepting the claim I'm making just because I say so".


(Using that definition, I am also horribly intolerant of people who say 2+2=yogurt because they have faith that it is so. Terrible of me I know, I should just respect their faith and not criticize...)

Gadzooks! I have landed in the Teletubbies chat room. Perhaps the adults frequent other times or boards. I'll check those now.

gcomeau wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And in my experience you can generally translate that statement to mean "They refuse to just accept the made up stories of my religion as valid based purely on my faith in them and insist on pointing out that they are in conflict with reality and lacking any evidence in support of them. Such intolerance..."

Point proven indeed, you have confirmed that your definition of "intolerance" is in fact "that person isn't accepting the claim I'm making just because I say so".


(Using that definition, I am also horribly intolerant of people who say 2+2=yogurt because they have faith that it is so. Terrible of me I know, I should just respect their faith and not criticize...)

Yes, snipping everything you don't address,
is the protocol.
Thanks and bonus points to you for following it.

I had hoped that you might address points of agreement
between us also, but that's just me.

HTM

MAD-4A wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:By the way, I did not notice that you quoted any of the things I said that agreed with or supported your points.

oh-sorry - I was not addressing them so didn't re-copy them to save space (thought that was the protocol)

PeterZ wrote:Gadzooks! I have landed in the Teletubbies chat room. Perhaps the adults frequent other times or boards. I'll check those now.

If you can present some basis besides the one I laid out for how secular progressives are the "least tolerant" in your experience by all means do so.

Or you can just keep pretending that someone pointing out how you're defining your terms is childish. Your call really.