|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 21:08:31 [Permalink]
|
trollboy said:
| Show me where in this thread that I did any of the above you claim in reference to dictionary usage. |
You obviously don't comprehend the definition of hypothesis. You are quoting a dictionary definition and then trying to insert your ridiculous conclusion into that context, so you can pretend it is a hypothesis.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 21:11:25 [Permalink]
|
This is typical. It only took three pages for the talk to devolve into faith based assertions, name calling, and a complete misunderstanding of the question before the group.
 |
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 - 07/05/2007 : 21:13:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
trollboy said:
| Show me where in this thread that I did any of the above you claim in reference to dictionary usage. |
You obviously don't comprehend the definition of hypothesis. You are quoting a dictionary definition and then trying to insert your ridiculous conclusion into that context, so you can pretend it is a hypothesis.
|
Wrong again.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hypothesis
"supposition that appears to explain a group of phenomena and is advanced as a basis for further investigation, a proposition that is subject to proof or to an experimental or statistical test."
You really should try reading the posts before responding.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 21:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Ricky
| Looks like the explanation of life beginning from life is a hypothesis. |
Care to rethink this one?
|
Ahh, so it is fact that life does come from life.
It is hypothesis (supposition that appears to explain a group of phenomena) that life comes from non life. |
Huh? What? You can't seriously see no problem with the statement, "life beginning from life".
|
This goes to the talk in the other thread about the concept of time. If our perception of time is incorrect, than it is possible that time does not exist and things are eternal.
|
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 - 07/05/2007 : 21:52:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hypothesis
"supposition that appears to explain a group of phenomena and is advanced as a basis for further investigation, a proposition that is subject to proof or to an experimental or statistical test."
Looks like the explaination of life beginning from non life is a hypothesis.
Looks like the explanation of life beginning from life is a hypothesis.
Based on the scientific definition of hypothesis.
The point I am making is that where life came from is in dispute. It seems that even if it is allowed that the possibly that life only comes from life that an entire belief system falls apart. Not very skeptical. |
Excluding the fact that god, however you define him, would not qualify as "life" in the biological sense (even if you feel god is alive), please tell me Jerome how "goddidit" is "a basis for further investigation, a proposition that is subject to proof or to an experimental or statistical test." Honestly, I'd love to know how you feel that "hypothesis" advances our understanding of life's origins and leads to further investigative inquiry.
And no squirming away from the question now, this was the definition that you quoted. And remember, we're only trying to show you the flaws in your thinking in order to educate you, Jerome. The more you resist, the less you learn.
|
"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 - 07/05/2007 : 21:57:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Hypothesis
"supposition that appears to explain a group of phenomena and is advanced as a basis for further investigation, a proposition that is subject to proof or to an experimental or statistical test."
Looks like the explaination of life beginning from non life is a hypothesis.
Looks like the explanation of life beginning from life is a hypothesis.
Based on the scientific definition of hypothesis.
The point I am making is that where life came from is in dispute. It seems that even if it is allowed that the possibly that life only comes from life that an entire belief system falls apart. Not very skeptical. |
Excluding the fact that god, however you define him, would not qualify as "life" in the biological sense (even if you feel god is alive), please tell me Jerome how "goddidit" is "a basis for further investigation, a proposition that is subject to proof or to an experimental or statistical test." Honestly, I'd love to know how you feel that "hypothesis" advances our understanding of life's origins and leads to further investigative inquiry.
And no squirming away from the question now, this was the definition that you quoted. And remember, we're only trying to show you the flaws in your thinking in order to educate you, Jerome. The more you resist, the less you learn.
|
Are you claiming that "science" has not investigated the existence of God?
Do you need examples of science investigating the existence of God?
|
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 - 07/05/2007 : 22:11:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are you claiming that "science" has not investigated the existence of God? |
Not with any success.
| Do you need examples of science investigating the existence of God? |
I want examples of science investigating the "hypothesis" that god made the world, as you claim. Or at least ideas on how one could test that idea. Short of that, I would like an example of science not just investigating, but actually confirming the existence of the supernatural.
Like Dave said, without evidence of the mere existence of magical spirits, they can't even be a considered a contender in life's origins.
|
"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 07/05/2007 22:13:25 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 22:31:27 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
This goes to the talk in the other thread about the concept of time. If our perception of time is incorrect, than it is possible that time does not exist and things are eternal. |
Who is talking about things being eternal in the other thread? You want a metaphysical discussion, but so far, I see no takers over there.
Same thing in this thread.
The God “hypothesis” that you put forth, and apparently giving it equal weight with all other hypotheses suffers from fatal flaws. The main one being that it can't be tested. The experiments that have been done to test abiogeneses hypotheses could be done because the materials used exist in this realm. What experiment would you set up to test for “Goddidit?”
Another flaw is that a natural explanation is not in competition with a supernatural explanation. For a believer in an omnipotent God, no method for the beginnings of life should be beyond God's abilities. And since that can be said about everything, God explanations are not very useful in any search for an understanding of what happened. Science does not deal in the supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural is outside of nature. Science can't go there. The same goes for all metaphysical conjecture.
And once you go there yourself, you are in la la land. Anything goes. Anything you can dream up is on the table. When all ideas become equal, no idea has much value.
Better to stay in the realm of that which can be falsified, no? Better to stay in a realm where real evidence can be evaluated. Where a hypothesis can be tested and kept or be thrown out. You know? Science.
And while I am at it, I will point out that Nature vs. God is a false dichotomy. We have learned too much already to try to stuff God into every gap in our understanding of nature. All you will get, all anyone who thinks that way has ever gotten is a shrinking God or a delusional version of the workings of nature. If you choose to have faith in God, it should not be dependent on our expanding knowledge of how the world works.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 23:17:17 [Permalink]
|
HH, like I said, without evidence of the mere existence of life forming from life, it can't even be a considered a contender in life's origins.
 |
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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 23:18:18 [Permalink]
|
trollboy said:
| This is typical. It only took three pages for the talk to devolve into faith based assertions |
Actually, it was on page two, and you are the one who brought "faith based assertions" into the conversation. Tool.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 23:39:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Jerome:
This goes to the talk in the other thread about the concept of time. If our perception of time is incorrect, than it is possible that time does not exist and things are eternal. |
Who is talking about things being eternal in the other thread? You want a metaphysical discussion, but so far, I see no takers over there.
Same thing in this thread.
The God “hypothesis” that you put forth, and apparently giving it equal weight with all other hypotheses suffers from fatal flaws. The main one being that it can't be tested. The experiments that have been done to test abiogeneses hypotheses could be done because the materials used exist in this realm. What experiment would you set up to test for “Goddidit?”
Another flaw is that a natural explanation is not in competition with a supernatural explanation. For a believer in an omnipotent God, no method for the beginnings of life should be beyond God's abilities. And since that can be said about everything, God explanations are not very useful in any search for an understanding of what happened. Science does not deal in the supernatural because, by definition, the supernatural is outside of nature. Science can't go there. The same goes for all metaphysical conjecture.
And once you go there yourself, you are in la la land. Anything goes. Anything you can dream up is on the table. When all ideas become equal, no idea has much value.
Better to stay in a realm that can be falsified, no? Better to stay in a realm where real evidence can be evaluated. Where a hypothesis can be tested and kept or be thrown out. You know? Science.
And while I am at it, I will point out that Nature vs. God is a false dichotomy. We have learned too much already to try to stuff God into every gap in our understanding of nature. All you will get, all anyone who thinks that way has ever gotten is a shrinking God or a delusional version of the workings of nature. If you choose to have faith in God, it should not be dependent on our expanding knowledge of how the world works.
|
Ahh, but much of science is the exploration of the unknown and possibly unknowable. Black holes, expanding universe, contracting universe, beginning universe; this is laa laa land. Ever notice no matter how close we look we see more, and no matter how far we look we see more?
If God exists this would be natural; shall science exclude the search for black holes because we can not currently see them and shall we call them supernatural?
The tests have been and are being done. If life can not come from non life than some life which we currently do not understand must be the origin.
I define faith as an assured expectation. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have faith that life can not come from non life. I could be wrong about the sun tomorrow, and I could be wrong about life forming from non life. But, I certainly would not say anyone who believes that life can come from non life is either insane or stupid.
|
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 - 07/05/2007 : 23:44:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
trollboy said:
| This is typical. It only took three pages for the talk to devolve into faith based assertions |
Actually, it was on page two, and you are the one who brought "faith based assertions" into the conversation. Tool.
|
Why do you follow me around like a lost puppy and attempt to pee on my leg?
The fact that you refer to me as "trollboy" whist postings inane insults is very amusing.
|
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 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 03:14:58 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, you should research more. If you did, you'd come up with lots of neat stuff to use for argument's sake. Were I you, I'd not bother with this site, though. They are really full of shit. Abiogenesis
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is a theory which contends that organisms have originated from nonliving material at some point in the distant past. Evolutionists typically believe that life originated as a single self-replicating protocell which developed through spontaneous chemical reactions. In contrast to this atheistic perspective, creationists typically believe that God created life from the dust of the Earth, endowing non-living matter with life through a deliberate creative act.
A common synonym is chemical evolution, despite evolutionary propagandists' revisionist claims that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
|
So I ask: which is the more fantastic of two as yet unproven statements; life came into being through natural chemical process', or a magic elf created life from the dust of the earth? Which can be falsified; which can be accepted only on faith?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/06/2007 03:20:20 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 03:46:52 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, Yahweh-- or any god-- is, by definition, outside the realm of science. You cannot test for evidence of a god. So saying that Yahweh created life on earth isn't a hypothesis. It's not falsifiable. It is not repeatable. It has no real explanatory power.
All we can to, then, is try to explain via natural means how life arose on earth. It is a difficult thing to study, but the scientific literature is out there complete with real hypotheses waiting to be tested. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Abiogenesis
