The confusion about faith (theory of evolution, dinosaur, quote, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Estimates of the probability of life are based on data. The amount of biochemicals in the universe, the number of stars, how likely they are to have planets, how many of them might be Earthlike or at least not hostile to life, the probability of life evolving in suitable conditions. It isn't data itself and is only a debate about probabilities. But it is more than just Guesses.
Intelligent guesses are still guesses, NOT data.
Quote:
Given the plausibility of naturally evolving Life, a universe made by natural forces and the problems with a complex being that was either created by nothing for no reason Or has always existed, the probability for an Intelligent creative being is not on the plus -side.
So your plausibilities are somehow superior to mine? Given the KNOWN existence of complex intelligent creative beings (over 7 billion here on earth), it seems rather presumptuous to write off the probability of the existence of ANY complex intelligent creative beings so cavalierly. It is more difficult to justify the absence of such a Being somehow magically producing such beings (your observational "emergence" nonexplanation notwithstanding).
Intelligent guesses are still guesses, NOT data. So your plausibilities are somehow superior to mine? Given the KNOWN existence of complex intelligent creative beings (over 7 billion here on earth), it seems rather presumptuous to write off the probability of the existence of ANY complex intelligent creative beings so cavalierly. It is more difficult to justify the absence of such a Being somehow magically producing such beings (your observational "emergence" nonexplanation notwithstanding).
Intelligent guesses are based on data and probabilities. To dismiss them as 'guesses' shows only that you do not read or at least understand, posts.
Your dismissal of my pointing to the evidence of 'emergence' (in the evolutionary sense) which needs no more explanation that reading a bit of evolutionary biology, again shows that you do not read or understand, posts.
Intelligent guesses are still guesses, NOT data. So your plausibilities are somehow superior to mine? Given the KNOWN existence of complex intelligent creative beings (over 7 billion here on earth), it seems rather presumptuous to write off the probability of the existence of ANY complex intelligent creative beings so cavalierly. It is more difficult to justify the absence of such a Being somehow magically producing such beings (your observational "emergence" nonexplanation notwithstanding).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Intelligent guesses are based on data and probabilities. To dismiss them as 'guesses' shows only that you do not read or at least understand, posts.
Your dismissal of my pointing to the evidence of 'emergence' (in the evolutionary sense) which needs no more explanation that reading a bit of evolutionary biology, again shows that you do not read or understand, posts.
That you did not respond to or answer the bold shows that you do not read or understand, posts. Emergence is an OBSERVATION, not an EXPLANATION. You find it cognitively acceptable to pretend it is an explanation, but it is not!
That you did not respond to or answer the bold shows that you do not read or understand, posts. Emergence is an OBSERVATION, not an EXPLANATION. You find it cognitively acceptable to pretend it is an explanation, but it is not!
I responded and answered here-
"Your dismissal of my pointing to the evidence of 'emergence' (in the evolutionary sense) which needs no more explanation that reading a bit of evolutionary biology"
You are still not reading, or understanding, posts.
Intelligent guesses are still guesses, NOT data. So your plausibilities are somehow superior to mine? Given the KNOWN existence of complex intelligent creative beings (over 7 billion here on earth), it seems rather presumptuous to write off the probability of the existence of ANY complex intelligent creative beings so cavalierly. It is more difficult to justify the absence of such a Being somehow magically producing such beings (your observational "emergence" nonexplanation notwithstanding).
look at it this way mystic. Our brains are not the most complex nodes we know of. The system they are in is vastly more complex. I just stay on earth tho.
I mean, trans can't deny that, so he'll make up some other reason to squeeze it into the anti-religious/god dogma. Just like all of those people that need to fit the observations into a limited world view (mostly of hate). For example Fundy theist, the same personality type as the milimental IMO, will squeeze the whole of science into the creation story.
That you did not respond to or answer the bold shows that you do not read or understand, posts. Emergence is an OBSERVATION, not an EXPLANATION. You find it cognitively acceptable to pretend it is an explanation, but it is not!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I responded and answered here-
"Your dismissal of my pointing to the evidence of 'emergence' (in the evolutionary sense) which needs no more explanation that reading a bit of evolutionary biology"
You are still not reading, or understanding, posts.
You are the one not reading posts. The bold is the bottom line and there is no exception to it. It contains NO explanation. Evolution is a separate phenomenon that is orders of magnitude removed from any emergent phenomenon. Emergence remains an observation only, no explanation.
You are the one not reading posts. The bold is the bottom line and there is no exception to it. It contains NO explanation. Evolution is a separate phenomenon that is orders of magnitude removed from any emergent phenomenon. Emergence remains an observation only, no explanation.
Of course it's an observation, in the sense that it has been observed happening - it Happens - which you apparently try to deny. The explanation is in explaining (with scientifically validated evidence) How it happens. Why is this so difficult for you?
Intelligent guesses are still guesses, NOT data. So your plausibilities are somehow superior to mine? Given the KNOWN existence of complex intelligent creative beings (over 7 billion here on earth), it seems rather presumptuous to write off the probability of the existence of ANY complex intelligent creative beings so cavalierly.
Must you misrepresent everything? Over 7 billion EVOLVED beings who were BORN, they did not simply exist. The population of over 7 billion people is an argument AGAINST your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is more difficult to justify the absence of such a Being somehow magically producing such beings (your observational "emergence" nonexplanation notwithstanding).
Of course it's an observation, in the sense that it has been observed happening - it Happens - which you apparently try to deny. The explanation is in explaining (with scientifically validated evidence) How it happens. Why is this so difficult for you?
Because to use your favorite word, it is a bamboozle, NOT an explanation. Observing something appearing under whatever circumstances is NOT explaining it. It does not explain HOW it happens, it just shows that it DOES happen under those circumstances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
