Theistic Evolution Questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2017, 09:36 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
<response pending>

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 09:40 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(12-02-2017 09:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(12-02-2017 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Drake equation is not about abiogenesis, (necessarily).
It's a very conservative estimate of the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe. It arose here. We are not special.

It's not about abiogenesis. But as I said, it is similar. It makes assumptions about the conditions for life arising to then calculate a probability of this event. The assumptions are faulty.

You do not, in fact, know that they are faulty. You have no basis for that claim.

The Drake Equation is a valid way to compute a probability for life elsewhere in the universe.
What can be argued are the numbers plugged into it. No one claims it gives the answer, only that it gives an answer based on estimates.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-02-2017, 09:59 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(12-02-2017 09:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(12-02-2017 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Drake equation is not about abiogenesis, (necessarily).
It's a very conservative estimate of the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe. It arose here. We are not special.

It's not about abiogenesis. But as I said, it is similar. It makes assumptions about the conditions for life arising to then calculate a probability of this event. The assumptions are faulty.

Which you forgot to explain

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(12-02-2017 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-02-2017 09:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's not about abiogenesis. But as I said, it is similar. It makes assumptions about the conditions for life arising to then calculate a probability of this event. The assumptions are faulty.

You do not, in fact, know that they are faulty. You have no basis for that claim.

The Drake Equation is a valid way to compute a probability for life elsewhere in the universe.
What can be argued are the numbers plugged into it. No one claims it gives the answer, only that it gives an answer based on estimates.

In fact, since Drake proposed his equation, vastly more stars and galaxies are known to exist. If anything, it underestimates the probability it tries to estimate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 10:41 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(12-02-2017 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-02-2017 09:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's not about abiogenesis. But as I said, it is similar. It makes assumptions about the conditions for life arising to then calculate a probability of this event. The assumptions are faulty.

You do not, in fact, know that they are faulty. You have no basis for that claim.

The Drake Equation is a valid way to compute a probability for life elsewhere in the universe.
What can be argued are the numbers plugged into it. No one claims it gives the answer, only that it gives an answer based on estimates.

Right I agree. I was talking about the numbers plugged in. I have no problem with the equation itself. I just think certain values could be debated until you're blue in the face.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 10:41 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(12-02-2017 10:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-02-2017 09:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  You do not, in fact, know that they are faulty. You have no basis for that claim.

The Drake Equation is a valid way to compute a probability for life elsewhere in the universe.
What can be argued are the numbers plugged into it. No one claims it gives the answer, only that it gives an answer based on estimates.

In fact, since Drake proposed his equation, vastly more stars and galaxies are known to exist. If anything, it underestimates the probability it tries to estimate.

I agree.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 03:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 01:32 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So 'fallen' is basically a superfluous and needlessly opaque way of saying 'less than my subjective ideal’ Okay, great. Why not just say that? Why couch such a concept with so much theological baggage, unless you actually want the baggage to go with it?

Because it still comes with a lot of theological baggage, such as teleological, as distinct from a subjective ideal like when it comes to getting in shape, or obtianing an ideal figure.

Quote:Same thing goes for those 'god is love' dipshits. No, god is not love. We have a word for 'love', and that's 'love'. Equating the two only saddles the concept of love with unnecessary theological baggage.

Yet, in a variety of other languages, there’s a variety of different terms for love, to distinguish between a variety of different forms, like romantic love, unconditional love, etc…. For an atheists perhaps love is nothing more than a neurochemical reactions, were as for religious folks, christian and otherwise, there’s a whole slew of theological baggage attached to it.

Quote:So you can always tell when someone is being literal? You can spot a poe 100% of the time? Bull-motherfucking-shit, and we all know it.

You folks love erecting strawman don’t you?

But to address your strawman, no I don’t have a hundred person accuracy in interpreting sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., or just every day conversations. But as accurate as the best of them. If you’re autistic, or on the autistic spectrum your ability to draw such inferences is very low on the spectrum, because of genetically handicapped inferential capacity. Others, are particularly adapt at picking up on social queue’s, perceptive to a variety of forms of communication, and have a knack for these things. If you’re a lover of literature you’re likely better at this, than those that hate reading novels, and prefer science textbooks instead.

Yo dipshit! Exploring the logical and rational conclusions of the bullshit you spew is not making a strawman, it's simply giving your shit more thought and attention than you evidently do. Now would you kindly go fuck yourself?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 12:03 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
I will always prefer it when a theist accepts evolution and tries to weave it into their narrative, rather than denying it in order to stick more literally to their text. I'd rather they live in reality as much as possible.

How exactly they manage to mentally cope with weaving it in, I'm not sure. It involves taking a process that works fine with no guidance, and pretending it does have guidance, but this guidance still makes it look like there isn't any guidance. And it also makes God look like he's doing things in a ludicrously roundabout way for no apparent reason.

I find original sin to be the most vile part of Christianity. God blaming us for what our ancestors did, or what he did to us, or something else we can't avoid doing/being, is sick. It speaks to me of a creator who wants to hurt his creations, but feels a bit guilty about it, so he justifies it by blaming them. Naughty, naughty creations. Into the furnace you go.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
13-02-2017, 06:56 AM
RE: Theistic Evolution Questions
(24-01-2017 03:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  For an atheists* perhaps love is nothing more than a neurochemical reactions, were* as for religious folks, christian and otherwise, there’s a whole slew of theological baggage attached to it.


You folks love erecting strawman don’t you?

*atheist
*where as

Isn't that cute.
He *has * to get his daily insults in, even if he gets the grammar wrong.
But then, he did get his fake internet PhD, so whenever he doesn't like something, he calls it a '"strawman", cuz that the only fallacy they told him about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 06:58 AM
Theistic Evolution Questions
(13-02-2017 06:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 03:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  For an atheists* perhaps love is nothing more than a neurochemical reactions, were* as for religious folks, christian and otherwise, there’s a whole slew of theological baggage attached to it.


You folks love erecting strawman don’t you?

*atheist
*where as

Isn't that cute.
He *has * to get his daily insults in, even if he gets the grammar wrong.
But then, he did get his fake internet PhD, so whenever he doesn't like something, he calls it a '"strawman", cuz that the only fallacy they told him about.


No whenever someone tries to ascribe an argument to me that wasn't the one I made, I accurately call it what it is, a strawman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: