Crazy Bible Stories

[skepticalbip]

No just highlighting that an estabished scientist disagrees with an established convention.

You don't really read the responses to your posts do you?

Again, a hypothesis is not 'established convention'. A hypothesis is a model of how observations could have come to be offered to be tested. If a hypothesis fails testing then it is dropped. So far, the impact hypothesis has not failed but it may in the future. It passed the first test by finding (after several years searching) a crater with the age and size predicted by the hypothesis.

 

[DBT]

Why believe in stories? Isn't it enough to live with the mystery of existence? To feel wonder over an incomprehensible universe?

I'd love to have an answer. I don't find either a natural or supernatural origin of the universe satisfactory. Neither makes any sense to me. But I most certainly don't think my views on origins should come down to the scientific understanding of the world 2500 years ago.

I want to produce a Nova like video with today's physicists, but talking like people did 2500 years ago about snakes eating the moon and no one knowing where it went after it sets.

The universe doesn't appear to make sense. Which makes it kind of hard to find a story that actually accounts for the universe and makes sense of it.

Religious stories fail on all counts.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Drive North at 50mph. I drive South at 50 mph.
To you, i appear to be doing 100mph.

Fly your spaceship at 90%c to galactic center.
I fly from center towards you at 90%c.
I do not appear, from your oerspective, to be doing 180%c.

The universe does not make sense outside of our limited bandwidth of experience, for sizes, speeds, durations, distances, and distribution of breathable air. Doesn't make science undependable, just our 'feels' undependable.

 

[Learner]

No just highlighting that an estabished scientist disagrees with an established convention.

You don't really read the responses to your posts do you?

Again, a hypothesis is not 'established convention'. A hypothesis is a model of how observations could have come to be offered to be tested. If a hypothesis fails testing then it is dropped. So far, the impact hypothesis has not failed but it may in the future. It passed the first test by finding (after several years searching) a crater with the age and size predicted by the hypothesis.

It passed the test or tests .. so its not yet established then? Perhaps its due to the amount of years. I'm ok with that too.

(Still chilling out a bit)

I was so motivated earlier for a good chin-wag so to speak but after a late meal and beverage, I suddenhheeeeeeeaaaoouhhhh feel sleepy. Wrong time zone. Good night all.

 

[Learner]

ETA:
As a contrast, religion offers claims that are not evident (as scientific finds are) and no hypotheses to explain those claims unless the claims are first accepted as true... it's called circular reasoning. For instance, the claim that there is a god and as evidence there is the claim that he performs miracles. The claim that he performs miracles is nonsense unless the claim that there is a god is first accepted as an undeniable truth. The only 'evidence' for that god and/or the miracles is that some people said it was so. In case you haven't noticed, people say a lot of things that just ain't so, and not just about religious beliefs.

I understand what you're saying, It's not about "Science V Creationism" imo. Its Atheism v Creationism - its either one or the other (each with their own biases).

 

[DBT]

Or lack of evidence for Creation versus Creationism.

 

[Learner]

Or Atheism V lack of "pure luck" evidence for the phsical universe .

Science versus No-One. (I think you agree in your post)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or Atheism V lack of "pure luck" evidence for the phsical universe .

Science versus No-One. (I think you agree in your post)

“That just doesn’t seem likely” isn’t much of a science based argument.

 

[Learner]

Or Atheism V lack of "pure luck" evidence for the phsical universe .

Science versus No-One. (I think you agree in your post)

“That just doesn’t seem likely” isn’t much of a science based argument.

No probs with that...

Science based ...on the evidence ... is the very thing I only want to know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or Atheism V lack of "pure luck" evidence for the phsical universe .

Science versus No-One. (I think you agree in your post)

“That just doesn’t seem likely” isn’t much of a science based argument.

No probs with that...

Science based ...on the evidence ... is the very thing I only want to know.

Odd, because you aren’t seeking science, you are just passive aggressively posting poor apologism that has all been asked and debunked for decades.

 

[DBT]

Or Atheism V lack of "pure luck" evidence for the phsical universe .

I'm not sure what you mean by ''pure luck evidence for the universe,''

 

[Learner]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

That's quite funny. What do you think would be different about how the universe looks, operates, is formed if it were an undirected process?

 

[Lion IRC]

In a completely undesigned universe we wouldn't be able to detect any difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture. We wouldn't know the difference between chaos and order.

It's not so much that mathematics and logic and laws of physics etc etc are elegant proofs of a Designer - which they are - but rather, that we can detect their conspicuous presence and appreciate what might happen in their absence.

In other words, Paleys watch might have been the result of completely spontaneous and unguided evolution. But we know the difference between it and a 500 million year old lump of rock.

In an unintentional evolutionary universe the term "fine tuned" wouldn't exist in any language. (If there even was such a thing as language.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

The Kent Hovind Shuffle, when you can’t actually defend a single anti-science argument, tie it all back to the origin of the universe and hope people forget you failed in your previous argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a completely undesigned universe we wouldn't be able to detect any difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture. We wouldn't know the difference between chaos and order.

It's not so much that mathematics and logic and laws of physics etc etc are elegant proofs of a Designer - which they are - but rather, that we can detect their conspicuous presence and appreciate what might happen in their absence.

In other words, Paleys watch might have been the result of completely spontaneous and unguided evolution. But we know the difference between it and a 500 million year old lump of rock.

In an unintentional evolutionary universe the term "fine tuned" wouldn't exist in any language. (If there even was such a thing as language.)

An undesigned universe could help explain why the largest mammals have bodies that manage to filter out cancer before it is a problem while the chosen people die of cancer all the time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In a completely undesigned universe we wouldn't be able to detect any difference between a sand dune and a sand sculpture. We wouldn't know the difference between chaos and order.

Don't you mean, in a 'designed' universe? If the dune is NOT designed and the sand sculpture is, one would expect that difference to be detectible.
If the entire universe were designed, there would be no difference between the dune and the castle. If we had a Star Trek thingamabob that detected design behind any tested structure, , it would be going off all the time in a designed universe.
Even in a deist universe, where the god simply established the physical laws and let that direct all interactions, the law would be a design.

So, this is just the standard creationist assertion that all order comes from God, it does, it does, it really does. I see no reason to think this is anything but wishful thinking. I mean, what would you compare this universe to in order to substantiate this fantasy? The other, undirected universe? A portion of the universe that was coincidentally free from divine influence?

So the 'lack of evidence' for an undirected universe is the same bias that 'sees' the hand of god in logic and gravity. A phantasm.

 

[Learner]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

That's quite funny. What do you think would be different about how the universe looks, operates, is formed if it were an undirected process?

I have no idea because so far, I believe God .... MADE THIS ONE.

Now your turn ... What do you (plural) think a universe would like, if GOD, or a god formed this universe with directed processes?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

That's quite funny. What do you think would be different about how the universe looks, operates, is formed if it were an undirected process?

I have no idea because so far, I believe God .... MADE THIS ONE.

Now your turn ... What do you (plural) think a universe would like, if GOD, or a god formed this universe with directed processes?

Whales and humans would have internal systems that could repel cancers instead of just whales, and our ability to synthesize vitamin C by ourselves wouldn't have shut off. Also, an 'attaboy' for reaching the moon.

 

[Learner]

Lack of evidence for pure-luck existence of the physical universe.

The Kent Hovind Shuffle, when you can’t actually defend a single anti-science argument, tie it all back to the origin of the universe and hope people forget you failed in your previous argument.

I like Kent Hovind, I've still got to address a few questions from Atrib. Its not that I'm avoiding its merely that I put him at the end of the que. Hence...

Learner can attempt to engage if he wants.
As for me I don't think there's any point engaging with people who spitefully use the negative rep system after feigning an interest in sincere dialogue.

I'll address other posts when an if I can. I am a little slow ( on top of taking on more than I can chew over here).