Five Stages of Grief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(25-09-2015 10:23 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(25-09-2015 08:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You did not give quality examples verifying your claims. I did both see them and respond.

By claiming that they were "intelligent design", yes. Which is both incorrect and very silly.

(25-09-2015 08:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  They were the equivalent of "we randomly got two toothpicks to rest upon one another, so we're almost done watching the Empire State Building get created without interference."

This is a more understandable objection, but it is still just the argument from personal incredulity fallacy rather than an actual, coherent point being raised against the principles in play.

Not particularly compelling.

No, I responded by explaining that the citations you gave that "scientists are well on their way to understand the exact mechanisms by which life randomly evolved" are better explained as "scientists have watched two toothpicks come to rest touching each other in vat of liquid, and thus will know soon how the Empire State Building might occur via random processes."

I further pointed out the folly of saying random processes to form life is a plausible concept when scientists can't get near forming life using purposeful processes in controlled environments!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(28-09-2015 01:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, I responded by explaining that the citations you gave that "scientists are well on their way to understand the exact mechanisms by which life randomly evolved" are better explained as "scientists have watched two toothpicks come to rest touching each other in vat of liquid, and thus will know soon how the Empire State Building might occur via random processes."

I further pointed out the folly of saying random processes to form life is a plausible concept when scientists can't get near forming life using purposeful processes in controlled environments!

I say again: your personal incredulity is not an argument. It is not even the beginnings of an argument. It is, in fact, the opposite of an argument.

No one cares whether or not you believe it is possible. What matters is whether or not you can justify that belief.

Saying "but you haven't done it yet" is not a justification.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(28-09-2015 02:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 01:44 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No, I responded by explaining that the citations you gave that "scientists are well on their way to understand the exact mechanisms by which life randomly evolved" are better explained as "scientists have watched two toothpicks come to rest touching each other in vat of liquid, and thus will know soon how the Empire State Building might occur via random processes."

I further pointed out the folly of saying random processes to form life is a plausible concept when scientists can't get near forming life using purposeful processes in controlled environments!

I say again: your personal incredulity is not an argument. It is not even the beginnings of an argument. It is, in fact, the opposite of an argument.

No one cares whether or not you believe it is possible. What matters is whether or not you can justify that belief.

Saying "but you haven't done it yet" is not a justification.

Exactly what you're saying to me sheds light on your own argument. You seem to believe that scientists have made tremendous strides that "chemistry and randomness" produced life when they've done nothing anywhere near so.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2015, 03:43 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 02:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I say again: your personal incredulity is not an argument. It is not even the beginnings of an argument. It is, in fact, the opposite of an argument.

No one cares whether or not you believe it is possible. What matters is whether or not you can justify that belief.

Saying "but you haven't done it yet" is not a justification.

Exactly what you're saying to me sheds light on your own argument. You seem to believe that scientists have made tremendous strides that "chemistry and randomness" produced life when they've done nothing anywhere near so.

The light is how you seem to think this situation is a strike or problematic situation for the view science proclaims on these issues... But in no way does it do that. To think anything close to that would be to be making quick assumptions. Which isn't a rational method for finding reality.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Exactly what you're saying to me sheds light on your own argument.

I should hope so.

(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You seem to believe that scientists have made tremendous strides that "chemistry and randomness" produced life when they've done nothing anywhere near so.

What is it with the theists on this forum and being unable to write a syntactically legible response? Again, this does not parse.

I assume that you're repeating your previous point that we haven't yet created life in a lab, which I have addressed at multiple points over the previous few pages. Re-read those responses.

Repeating a point which has already been shown to be worthless does not make it any less so.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-10-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(05-10-2015 03:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Exactly what you're saying to me sheds light on your own argument. You seem to believe that scientists have made tremendous strides that "chemistry and randomness" produced life when they've done nothing anywhere near so.

The light is how you seem to think this situation is a strike or problematic situation for the view science proclaims on these issues... But in no way does it do that. To think anything close to that would be to be making quick assumptions. Which isn't a rational method for finding reality.

No, we're speaking about facts and lack of facts. Do you think it is 2 or 3 scientists worldwide trying to solve this issue?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(05-10-2015 03:59 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Exactly what you're saying to me sheds light on your own argument.

I should hope so.

(05-10-2015 01:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You seem to believe that scientists have made tremendous strides that "chemistry and randomness" produced life when they've done nothing anywhere near so.

What is it with the theists on this forum and being unable to write a syntactically legible response? Again, this does not parse.

I assume that you're repeating your previous point that we haven't yet created life in a lab, which I have addressed at multiple points over the previous few pages. Re-read those responses.

Repeating a point which has already been shown to be worthless does not make it any less so.

I can hardly help it if you skim my posts and don't read them with care.

I'm not repeating that we are yet to create life in a lab. I'm saying that we should be able to make progress toward the basic building blocks of life in a controlled lab environment, and cannot--indicating that the mathematical probability for nature making life at random is statistically small enough to be considered as zero.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(08-10-2015 07:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm saying that we should be able to make progress toward the basic building blocks of life in a controlled lab environment

We arguably have, actually. Again, the Miller-Urey experiment, among others.

(08-10-2015 07:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and cannot--indicating that the mathematical probability for nature making life at random is statistically small enough to be considered as zero.

False on essentially every level.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, so this is logically invalid. Your premise is circular, as you assert "cannot" in place of the proper "have not" to try and prop up your predetermined conclusion, which renders it logically unsound as well. And with a sample size of the entirety of existence, it doesn't matter how close to zero the odds are.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-10-2015, 03:38 PM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(08-10-2015 07:53 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-10-2015 03:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The light is how you seem to think this situation is a strike or problematic situation for the view science proclaims on these issues... But in no way does it do that. To think anything close to that would be to be making quick assumptions. Which isn't a rational method for finding reality.

No, we're speaking about facts and lack of facts. Do you think it is 2 or 3 scientists worldwide trying to solve this issue?

Do you think where or not it's find-able with limited time searching and only marginally gaining scientific advancements?

It isn't demonstrably significant that certain scientific findings aren't notably found yet. It's again assumption to think they would if X or should if X. It's irrational behavior.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Five Stages of Grief
(08-10-2015 12:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-10-2015 07:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm saying that we should be able to make progress toward the basic building blocks of life in a controlled lab environment

We arguably have, actually. Again, the Miller-Urey experiment, among others.

(08-10-2015 07:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  and cannot--indicating that the mathematical probability for nature making life at random is statistically small enough to be considered as zero.

False on essentially every level.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, so this is logically invalid. Your premise is circular, as you assert "cannot" in place of the proper "have not" to try and prop up your predetermined conclusion, which renders it logically unsound as well. And with a sample size of the entirety of existence, it doesn't matter how close to zero the odds are.

The sample size is not the universe. The sample size is the known chemicals and compounds on the Earth, given eons of time. Statistically, nil. Thousands of scientists attempting to do this, nil.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: