|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 4, 2023 20:38:32 GMT
I don't think anything, as you've just thrown up several examples of more false equivalency. Because some individuals may behave in ways you characterize as dumb makes absolutely no dent in the fact that blind faith in an unprovable (i.e. god) does not lend itself terribly well to the notion of unbiased critical intellect. And for all you know, at least some of those people in those videos may well be Christians, perhaps quite devout ones. Perhaps you'd best go back and rescan those sentences in your holy scriptures that quote your spiritual leader as saying something that sounds suspiciously like "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You want "unprovable"? Prove that anyone who claims to receive revelation did not. Oh no! You can't. Well, there's your "unprovable" for you. This because that some proofs are objective and others are subjective. Prove to a Muslim that the Qu'ran was not dictated by God or to a Christian that Jesus' was not a virgin birth. One cannot. Such things are true for them just as naturally that there is no deliberate supernatural is true for hard atheists. Please offer a reference to any peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes this claim. Evasion will be noted. Irreducible complexity, if this is to what you refer, as a 'scientific' concept was introduced (although as an argument it stretches right back to Paley and his Watchmaker argument and beyond in less sophisticated terms) by arch-creationist and American biochemist I hope that helps. In effect the argument from irreducible complexity (closely related to that of Intelligent Design) is one based on credulity, that since something looks to me that it cannot have happened that way by chance, then it is enough to make me believe it did not. Unfortunately, as already shown from multiple sources already quoted on this thread, non-believers are commonly more intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2023 1:04:03 GMT
You want "unprovable"? Prove that anyone who claims to receive revelation did not. Oh no! You can't. Well, there's your "unprovable" for you. This because that some proofs are objective and others are subjective. Prove to a Muslim that the Qu'ran was not dictated by God or to a Christian that Jesus' was not a virgin birth. One cannot. Such things are true for them just as naturally that there is no deliberate supernatural is true for hard atheists. Please offer a reference to any peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes this claim. Evasion will be noted. Irreducible complexity, if this is to what you refer, as a 'scientific' concept was introduced (although as an argument it stretches right back to Paley and his Watchmaker argument and beyond in less sophisticated terms) by arch-creationist and American biochemist I hope that helps. In effect the argument from irreducible complexity (closely related to that of Intelligent Design) is one based on credulity, that since something looks to me that it cannot have happened that way by chance, then it is enough to make me believe it did not. Unfortunately, as already shown from multiple sources already quoted on this thread, non-believers are commonly more intelligent.
You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way.
Some large number of "scientists" claim that the temperature of the planet has shifted 1.5°C over some large amount of time. In fact it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to make any such claim. Yet "NASA" makes the claim also.
I doubt repetition will help you much, but here it is anyway. You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way. And -- it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to claim any shift of 1.5°C.
The temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet is just one example. We also have people driving electric vehicles by getting electricity from burning fossil fuels (in most areas, @ over 70%) and believing that uses less fossil fuels. It does not.
But wait there's more. No clear indication has yet been found that the economic shutdown (Remember that?) was appropriate to the problem.
The bad news sir, is that you are currently without any arguments. You have depended entirely on others for your arguments and cannot construct your own. You have depended on "authorities" who were appointed by people incapable of science themselves.
The fact that the "RNA soup" is not now doing anything nor ever will do anything is the simple result before life begins that smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules. It is really something simple to observe. It does not matter what a crowd of idiots on the internet claims or what some idiot they appointed to "science" claims. Your time is running out. People are not going to keep having a blind faith in science. It has been identified as the leading problem in the United States today.
But you are still planning to be part of that problem rather than a solution? How will you pay for those crimes?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 5, 2023 2:07:43 GMT
I don't think anything, as you've just thrown up several examples of more false equivalency. Because some individuals may behave in ways you characterize as dumb makes absolutely no dent in the fact that blind faith in an unprovable (i.e. god) does not lend itself terribly well to the notion of unbiased critical intellect. And for all you know, at least some of those people in those videos may well be Christians, perhaps quite devout ones. Perhaps you'd best go back and rescan those sentences in your holy scriptures that quote your spiritual leader as saying something that sounds suspiciously like "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I think it would be great if every fact ever were available to every person ever. It is rather obvious however that there are many things that escape the perception of many individuals. It's cute when infants playing peek-a-boo are surprised that the person who disappeared is still in the sport. When retarded atheists on the internet speak about "unprovable" anything, it is just very annoying. Just because you can't see something, does not mean no one can. You want "unprovable"? Prove that anyone who claims to receive revelation did not. Oh no! You can't. Well, there's your "unprovable" for you. You need to allow religion to examine those things that are beyond the reach of science. Some of the most important things are beyond the reach of science. It will necessarily involve speculation, but a lot of things you consider "science" are no more than speculation. Science now "knows" that life did not originate by any sheer chance assembly. The agency necessary for assembly is clearly not present. The "RNA soup" for example is clearly not doing anything. Before life begins, smaller molecules have the competitive advantage. Critically analyze that. Before the 1930s when microscopes couldn't magnify more than about 200 times, and life was thought to be simple, people who believed in a god were considered by some to be stupid. Now that we know life is far too complicated to have originated without an agency not currently in our science, it is the other way around. People who do not believe in a god are the stupid ones. That is whether you finally get it or not. Oh, good grief. Massive wall o' text to say atheists be retards and god-botherers got the science right before the stupid scientists did...>yawn<. Now that we know life is far too complicated to have originated without an agency not currently in our science, it is the other way around. People who do not believe in a god are the stupid ones. That is whether you finally get it or not."We" know this? Who's "we" Arlon? You and your buddies? Because I've read nothing in any scientific, peer-reviewed journal claiming this. Direct quotes from a valid source (i.e. not some religoid publication) backing your claim, Arlon, or I'm not hearing you yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2023 2:29:57 GMT
I think it would be great if every fact ever were available to every person ever. It is rather obvious however that there are many things that escape the perception of many individuals. It's cute when infants playing peek-a-boo are surprised that the person who disappeared is still in the sport. When retarded atheists on the internet speak about "unprovable" anything, it is just very annoying. Just because you can't see something, does not mean no one can. You want "unprovable"? Prove that anyone who claims to receive revelation did not. Oh no! You can't. Well, there's your "unprovable" for you. You need to allow religion to examine those things that are beyond the reach of science. Some of the most important things are beyond the reach of science. It will necessarily involve speculation, but a lot of things you consider "science" are no more than speculation. Science now "knows" that life did not originate by any sheer chance assembly. The agency necessary for assembly is clearly not present. The "RNA soup" for example is clearly not doing anything. Before life begins, smaller molecules have the competitive advantage. Critically analyze that. Before the 1930s when microscopes couldn't magnify more than about 200 times, and life was thought to be simple, people who believed in a god were considered by some to be stupid. Now that we know life is far too complicated to have originated without an agency not currently in our science, it is the other way around. People who do not believe in a god are the stupid ones. That is whether you finally get it or not. Oh, good grief. Massive wall o' text to say atheists be retards and god-botherers got the science right before the stupid scientists did...>yawn<. Now that we know life is far too complicated to have originated without an agency not currently in our science, it is the other way around. People who do not believe in a god are the stupid ones. That is whether you finally get it or not."We" know this? Who's "we" Arlon? You and your buddies? Because I've read nothing in any scientific, peer-reviewed journal claiming this. Direct quotes from a valid source (i.e. not some religoid publication) backing your claim, Arlon, or I'm not hearing you yet again.
People who are not idiots, liars, or thieves.
By "valid source" do you mean like NASA? They back the claim that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been measured to shift 1.5°C. This might be very shocking news to you, but it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error for such a claim.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 5, 2023 2:34:45 GMT
Oh, good grief. Massive wall o' text to say atheists be retards and god-botherers got the science right before the stupid scientists did...>yawn<. Now that we know life is far too complicated to have originated without an agency not currently in our science, it is the other way around. People who do not believe in a god are the stupid ones. That is whether you finally get it or not."We" know this? Who's "we" Arlon? You and your buddies? Because I've read nothing in any scientific, peer-reviewed journal claiming this. Direct quotes from a valid source (i.e. not some religoid publication) backing your claim, Arlon, or I'm not hearing you yet again.
People who are not idiots, liars, or thieves.
By "valid source" do you mean like NASA? They back the claim that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been measured to shift 1.5°C. This might be very shocking news to you, but it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error for such a claim.
Your evasion skills haven't improved over time, Arlon.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2023 7:44:54 GMT
People who are not idiots, liars, or thieves.
By "valid source" do you mean like NASA? They back the claim that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been measured to shift 1.5°C. This might be very shocking news to you, but it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error for such a claim.
Your evasion skills haven't improved over time, Arlon.
My skills are not the question here. The question here is whether you have any.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 5, 2023 12:35:49 GMT
Your evasion skills haven't improved over time, Arlon.
My skills are not the question here. The question here is whether you have any.
Apparently more than yourself. I never cease to be amused by those such as you, who pour scorn and contempt on capital-S science, yet who long to have that same capital-S science give its imprimatur to your dopier pseudo-scientific pseudo-theorems. You're quite right: your skills aren't the question here, as it's pointless to question the evidence of something that doesn't exist. Rather like your god.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2023 15:23:39 GMT
My skills are not the question here. The question here is whether you have any.
Apparently more than yourself. I never cease to be amused by those such as you, who pour scorn and contempt on capital-S science, yet who long to have that same capital-S science give its imprimatur to your dopier pseudo-scientific pseudo-theorems. You're quite right: your skills aren't the question here, as it's pointless to question the evidence of something that doesn't exist. Rather like your god.
You are obviously easily fooled. Did you know? Just because you can't see what is happening you think that means anything. It does mean something, it means you're an idiot who cannot see what is happening.
The "scientists" you keep promoting are no more qualified than you are. Is it that difficult to accept?
What do you think is happening at NASA? Is it that science has really fallen that far off? Or do believe it is a scam to undermine all science? Or do you believe it is possible to measure a shift in temperature of 1.5°C in over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 6, 2023 12:25:32 GMT
Apparently more than yourself. I never cease to be amused by those such as you, who pour scorn and contempt on capital-S science, yet who long to have that same capital-S science give its imprimatur to your dopier pseudo-scientific pseudo-theorems. You're quite right: your skills aren't the question here, as it's pointless to question the evidence of something that doesn't exist. Rather like your god.
You are obviously easily fooled. Did you know? Just because you can't see what is happening you think that means anything. It does mean something, it means you're an idiot who cannot see what is happening.
The "scientists" you keep promoting are no more qualified than you are. Is it that difficult to accept?
What do you think is happening at NASA? Is it that science has really fallen that far off? Or do believe it is a scam to undermine all science? Or do you believe it is possible to measure a shift in temperature of 1.5°C in over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere?
Do you recognize you sound more and more like a cretin with every post you're placing on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 6, 2023 20:42:09 GMT
You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way. Some large number of "scientists" claim that the temperature of the planet has shifted 1.5°C over some large amount of time. In fact it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to make any such claim. Yet "NASA" makes the claim also.
I doubt repetition will help you much, but here it is anyway. You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way. And -- it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to claim any shift of 1.5°C. The temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet is just one example. We also have people driving electric vehicles by getting electricity from burning fossil fuels (in most areas, @ over 70%) and believing that uses less fossil fuels. It does not. But wait there's more. No clear indication has yet been found that the economic shutdown (Remember that?) was appropriate to the problem. The bad news sir, is that you are currently without any arguments. You have depended entirely on others for your arguments and cannot construct your own. You have depended on "authorities" who were appointed by people incapable of science themselves. The fact that the "RNA soup" is not now doing anything nor ever will do anything is the simple result before life begins that smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules. It is really something simple to observe. It does not matter what a crowd of idiots on the internet claims or what some idiot they appointed to "science" claims. Your time is running out. People are not going to keep having a blind faith in science. It has been identified as the leading problem in the United States today. But you are still planning to be part of that problem rather than a solution? How will you pay for those crimes?
"Science now "knows" that life did not originate by any sheer chance assembly." I asked you to offer a reference from any peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes this claim. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 14, 2023 23:02:39 GMT
You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way. Some large number of "scientists" claim that the temperature of the planet has shifted 1.5°C over some large amount of time. In fact it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to make any such claim. Yet "NASA" makes the claim also.
I doubt repetition will help you much, but here it is anyway. You apparently missed the memo. Your "sources" have not been valid. They in fact cannot be valid because you are not. See how that works? I doubt you do, but it does work that way. And -- it is not possible to measure the temperature of well over two billion cubic miles of atmosphere to the necessary margin of error to claim any shift of 1.5°C. The temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet is just one example. We also have people driving electric vehicles by getting electricity from burning fossil fuels (in most areas, @ over 70%) and believing that uses less fossil fuels. It does not. But wait there's more. No clear indication has yet been found that the economic shutdown (Remember that?) was appropriate to the problem. The bad news sir, is that you are currently without any arguments. You have depended entirely on others for your arguments and cannot construct your own. You have depended on "authorities" who were appointed by people incapable of science themselves. The fact that the "RNA soup" is not now doing anything nor ever will do anything is the simple result before life begins that smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules. It is really something simple to observe. It does not matter what a crowd of idiots on the internet claims or what some idiot they appointed to "science" claims. Your time is running out. People are not going to keep having a blind faith in science. It has been identified as the leading problem in the United States today. But you are still planning to be part of that problem rather than a solution? How will you pay for those crimes?
"Science now "knows" that life did not originate by any sheer chance assembly." I asked you to offer a reference from any peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes this claim. Evasion noted.
Oh, have the Republicans decided they don't want any credit at all? That is disappointing. I didn't want all the credit for myself. I know they have a lot of stupid people claiming to be Republicans whose plan is to keep a secret of the science. That isn't going to work though, since they are the only people too stupid top see it.
It think it's important for you to realize that your opinion on these matters could not possibly be worth any less. The same goes for your notion of "peer-reviewed scientific papers." I do not and should not care in the least what you think is science. Are you a "peer"? If not, please shut up about peers.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 16, 2023 22:40:51 GMT
"Science now "knows" that life did not originate by any sheer chance assembly." I asked you to offer a reference from any peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes this claim. Evasion noted.
Oh, have the Republicans decided they don't want any credit at all? That is disappointing. I didn't want all the credit for myself. I know they have a lot of stupid people claiming to be Republicans whose plan is to keep a secret of the science. That isn't going to work though, since they are the only people too stupid top see it.
It think it's important for you to realize that your opinion on these matters could not possibly be worth any less. The same goes for your notion of "peer-reviewed scientific papers." I do not and should not care in the least what you think is science. Are you a "peer"? If not, please shut up about peers.
Evasion still noted.
|
|