|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 19:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
This is a red herring.
All evidence of life points towards the basic characteristics that Dave mentioned. Thus, the evidence is strongly in favor that all life has these characteristics and there is no currently known evidence against this. Thus, if one wishes to go with the evidence and call God a life form at the same time, the only conclusion is that God shares characteristics that all other life does.
Notice that not once was "time" mentioned. Because time can in no way influence the argument. Changing one's concept of time does not change whether or not a life form has DNA.
|
You are confusing different points here.
We have seen in our history many concepts that were proven false. (i.e. flat earth, sun revolving around the earth) You would not be so dogmatic as to believe that we hold all correct concepts about time, space, and life; would you?
  |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:00:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Eternity allows us to accept that life has always been and always will be. |
We have no evidence that any lifeform is eternal. All evidence suggests that all individual lives have a beginning and an end. Thus if God existed and created life on Earth, He is now dead, since we have no evidence of anything living much past 4,500 years or so. God also would have had a parent (or two!), if one forms one's conclusions based on what we've observed, and that would be regardless of whether you view time as a measurement of change or as an eternal, static tick-tock.
Face it, Jerome, you've got no evidence at all that any thing is eternal, even if time is. "Maybe we're wrong about time" certainly isn't evidence that we are wrong about time, it is, instead, wild speculation.
If you demand that we form conclusions based on the rather limited set of evidence you've discussed, then we are forced to conclude that if God existed and if He created life on this planet, then He has been dead for nearly four billion years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:04:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have seen in our history many concepts that were proven false. (i.e. flat earth, sun revolving around the earth) You would not be so dogmatic as to believe that we hold all correct concepts about time, space, and life; would you? |
The fact that we've proven old theories wrong is in no way predictive of which theories may be proven wrong in the future, and you have no evidence (remember evidence?) that any current theories will be overturned in favor of theories that may be more "God-friendly." By the constraints you place on the argument, Jerome, demanding that conclusions be based upon only the evidence you've presented, you have shot your argument in the foot as being wholly speculative. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:20:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
We have no evidence that any lifeform is eternal. All evidence suggests that all individual lives have a beginning and an end. Thus if God existed and created life on Earth, He is now dead, since we have no evidence of anything living much past 4,500 years or so. God also would have had a parent (or two!), if one forms one's conclusions based on what we've observed, and that would be regardless of whether you view time as a measurement of change or as an eternal, static tick-tock.
Face it, Jerome, you've got no evidence at all that any thing is eternal, even if time is. "Maybe we're wrong about time" certainly isn't evidence that we are wrong about time, it is, instead, wild speculation.
If you demand that we form conclusions based on the rather limited set of evidence you've discussed, then we are forced to conclude that if God existed and if He created life on this planet, then He has been dead for nearly four billion years.
|
Are you stating that you are correct in your concept of time despite other cultures perceiving time differently?
Thus these other cultures are just speculating wildly?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:27:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have seen in our history many concepts that were proven false. (i.e. flat earth, sun revolving around the earth) You would not be so dogmatic as to believe that we hold all correct concepts about time, space, and life; would you? |
The fact that we've proven old theories wrong is in no way predictive of which theories may be proven wrong in the future, and you have no evidence (remember evidence?) that any current theories will be overturned in favor of theories that may be more "God-friendly." By the constraints you place on the argument, Jerome, demanding that conclusions be based upon only the evidence you've presented, you have shot your argument in the foot as being wholly speculative.
|
So, you admit you just follow the prevailing theory.
Bandwagon?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:31:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, you admit you just follow the prevailing theory.
Bandwagon?
|
 This could be the stupidest thing ever uttered by a human being in the history of the world.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:38:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, you admit you just follow the prevailing theory.
Bandwagon?
|
This could be the stupidest thing ever uttered by a human being in the history of the world.
|
You could not come up with a less used middle school insult than that?
Try this one next time:Pitiful
Farty pants!
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 20:52:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are you stating that you are correct in your concept of time despite other cultures perceiving time differently?
Thus these other cultures are just speculating wildly? |
As I said, the perception of time is irrelevant to the ridiculous conclusion your argument demands.So, you admit you just follow the prevailing theory.
Bandwagon? |
No, I admit that if I were as ignorant as you, and followed your logic based on the evidence as you apparently see it, I would be just hopping on a bandwagon (a bandwagon which would insist that God is dead). But of course, you obviously think that's a bad thing, so you are required to go waaaaay past the evidence and into bald speculation to get off the bandwagon.
Either that, or you're trolling some more. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 21:01:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Jerome pointed out: | Only if you are constrained by our concept of time. |
And silly little self-imposed contraints like "reason," "facts," "reality," "logic," and "sanity."
|
What is time?
|
Time is 9:01 PM.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/15/2007 21:02:30 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 22:00:02 [Permalink]
|
I really can't figure out what Jerome is trying to get across with questioning our concept of time. I can't understand why he feels it necessary to state that theories can be false. But most of all, I can't even begin to fathom why he, with his Websters dictionary in hand, attempted to redefine life to be so encompassing that it includes a freaking deity.
But perhaps that isn't entirely true. In other threads, he made an attempt to show that the current evidence leans towards the fact that life does not come from non-life. Maybe, he took his own belief in a Creator and found it at fault, applied this same logic, and came to a conclusion he didn't like. In a desperate, although I wouldn't say dishonest, attempt to save his beliefs, he tried to redefine life so that it included his Creator. That way, he could stick to his previous conclusion of life not coming from non-life, and still maintain his spiritual beliefs.
But if I'm wrong... then I'm stumped. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/15/2007 22:01:51 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 22:08:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I really can't figure out what Jerome is trying to get across with questioning our concept of time. I can't understand why he feels it necessary to state that theories can be false. But most of all, I can't even begin to fathom why he, with his Websters dictionary in hand, attempted to redefine life to be so encompassing that it includes a freaking deity.
But perhaps that isn't entirely true. In other threads, he made an attempt to show that the current evidence leans towards the fact that life does not come from non-life. Maybe, he took his own belief in a Creator and found it at fault, applied this same logic, and came to a conclusion he didn't like. In a desperate, although I wouldn't say dishonest, attempt to save his beliefs, he tried to redefine life so that it included his Creator. That way, he could stick to his previous conclusion of life not coming from non-life, and still maintain his spiritual beliefs.
But if I'm wrong... then I'm stumped.
|
Because to prop up his sagging argument (and save himself from actually being wrong) he has to retreat to existentialist arguments which argue that we cannot say anything definative about anything because God wants it that way.
Seems to be more of a defense mechanism from being wrong. With his penchant for error, he seems to have it well exercised. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2007 : 22:25:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Ricky
I really can't figure out what Jerome is trying to get across with questioning our concept of time. I can't understand why he feels it necessary to state that theories can be false. But most of all, I can't even begin to fathom why he, with his Websters dictionary in hand, attempted to redefine life to be so encompassing that it includes a freaking deity.
But perhaps that isn't entirely true. In other threads, he made an attempt to show that the current evidence leans towards the fact that life does not come from non-life. Maybe, he took his own belief in a Creator and found it at fault, applied this same logic, and came to a conclusion he didn't like. In a desperate, although I wouldn't say dishonest, attempt to save his beliefs, he tried to redefine life so that it included his Creator. That way, he could stick to his previous conclusion of life not coming from non-life, and still maintain his spiritual beliefs.
But if I'm wrong... then I'm stumped.
|
Because to prop up his sagging argument (and save himself from actually being wrong) he has to retreat to existentialist arguments which argue that we cannot say anything definative about anything because God wants it that way.
Seems to be more of a defense mechanism from being wrong. With his penchant for error, he seems to have it well exercised.
|
Aye. And remember the battle cry of the deluded creationist: "Evolution is just another form of faith."
Trying to throw out as much irrelevant crap as possible, indeed trying to purposely confuse the issue (and act confused at every turn himself), is Jerome's only goal. That way he can pretend that his nonsensical, irrational, baseless, and utterly unreasonable belief that "goddidit" is no worse or different than the well established and massively evidenced theory of evolution. He wants to pretend that a reasonable, intelligent person could find both theories legitimately equal, and he can only do that by willfully misunderstanding everything he has been told at every turn.
Jerome's mind was made up a long time ago. He ain't here to learn squat. He's here to sow confusion in the mistaken belief that it validates, or at least justifies, his medieval conceptions about how the world operates. Unfortunately for him, Jerome's ignorance isn't sufficient to undo mankind's collective knowledge and understanding, and ultimately harms no one but himself.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/15/2007 22:27:05 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 08:27:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You argument is unless a life conforms to our understanding of life it is not life therefore life came from non life.
This is a reasonable thought; just as the thought that life only comes from life and there is information beyond our knowledge.
These are equal in the context of evidentially fact. The problem is you have little respect for those that disagree with you and your faith based conclusions. |
No, the problem is that following your "life comes from life" logic to its rational end leads us to conclude that God must have been just another lifeform here on Earth, and that God is unquestionably dead by now. This is decidely ungodlike, and leaves us with the question of "what was God's mother?" or "who created the creator?"
|
God's mother was Sophie! (Manchean Gnotic I think.....)
Dead Gods .... A whole bunch in Egypt........
Balder died, but he got to come home.... Most of the Gods die during Ragnarok....
Keepng the faiths
Joe
|
| Edited by - Original_Intent on 07/16/2007 08:27:51 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2007 : 19:53:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Because to prop up his sagging argument (and save himself from actually being wrong) he has to retreat to existentialist arguments which argue that we cannot say anything definative about anything because God wants it that way. |
But that's where I always run into a contradiction. At times, he wants to be able to make conclusions. He wants say that the evidence says life doesn't come from non-life. You won't hear a peep about existentialist arguments there because he believes he has evidence. It's as soon as the evidence isn't in his favor that he starts going off on that crap.
I guess it's just him being selective and me trying to give him the benefit of the doubt yet again.
|
Evidence: life only comes from life--thus life must come from life
Concept of time: different in different cultures--thus our western concept could be very wrong.
Would you say we have evidence as to how time works and that our western concept is correct?
How would you test our concept of time?
How could you falsify our concept of time?
Can time be defined scientifically?
Is time outside of the realm of science?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Existence
