|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 22:46:57 GMT
Your terrible mistake is to dismiss all negative proofs as if none are possible. Some are and some are not. I explained how it is the scope of a proof that makes it possible or not. Whether the proof is positive or negative is actually irrelevant. It is howeve r remains impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being - which is the pertinent point here. It's just as well you're resigned to your fate, isn't it then? Yes indeed, if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible." A scope has to be fairly limited to enable proof, negative or positive. The scope of the positive proof of presence at a crime scene quickly increases unless traffic there is restricted by crime scene tape and monitors. In time it would be virtually impossible to prove anything about an open, unmonitored crime scene. I find your comments amusing despite the fact you usually have no idea what I say. You even insist my meaning must be something other than it is. Are you doing that deliberately? To what purpose? An exception is your comment about a proof with infinite scope. You actually got that right. Infinite scope makes a proof impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 14, 2019 23:01:09 GMT
It is howeve r remains impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being - which is the pertinent point here. Yes indeed, if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible; QED then and thank you. But just anywhere in the world will suffice for this demonstration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2019 23:14:10 GMT
Yes indeed, if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible; QED then and thank you. But just anywhere in the world will suffice for this demonstration. I have to admit I'm having as much trouble seeing your point as you have seeing mine. What is it you want to know exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 11:48:09 GMT
QED then and thank you. But just anywhere in the world will suffice for this demonstration. I have to admit I'm having as much trouble seeing your point as you have seeing mine. What is it you want to know exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 12:07:01 GMT
I have to admit I'm having as much trouble seeing your point as you have seeing mine. What is it you want to know exactly? That you are a blithering idiot?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 12:12:05 GMT
That which was to be demonstrated was done so by your last reply, but thank you anyway. That you are a blithering idiot? Nope, that you agree that "if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible" when I said "It is ... impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being ". I hope that helps. Ad hominem noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 12:18:08 GMT
That you are a blithering idiot? Nope, that you agree that "if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible" when I said "It is ... impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being ". I hope that helps. Ad hominem noted. Does this mean you're going to quit asking for a "positive" proof of anything, as if negative proofs are always invalid?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 12:22:16 GMT
Nope, that you agree that "if you want prove something cannot be found in all the universe, that would be a proof with infinite scope. Obviously no one here has the resources to address such scope. It is therefore "impossible" when I said "It is ... impossible to prove the absolute non-existence of a mythical being ". I hope that helps. Ad hominem noted. Does this mean you're going to quit asking for a "positive" proof of anything, as if negative proofs are always invalid? When you provide a positive evidence (let alone proof) of that one thing we often discuss, as opposed to the usual Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps, then feel free to ask me again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 12:55:25 GMT
Does this mean you're going to quit asking for a "positive" proof of anything, as if negative proofs are always invalid? When you provide a positive evidence (let alone proof) of that one thing we often discuss, as opposed to the usual Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps, then feel free to ask me again. I have a website. On it I explain why I do not need "positive" (whatever you mean by that) anything. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that short RNA chains cannot advance to greater complexity because they tend to tear each other apart more than build, which we have already observed in all nature anyway, it being a characteristic of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As for the energy from the sun "opening" the thermodynamic system, use all the sunlight you want. It won't help the situation. You suppose incorrectly that you can refuse to believe the obvious and ask silly questions based on your total lack of understanding of proofs. I am not the one who needs "positive" (more) proof. You do. If you believe short RNA chains can build anything like life without an intelligent designer then you need to show that happening. Otherwise the agent of assembly of life is not found in nature - QED. Obviously retarded people who imagined incorrectly that nature will do anything differently than it does given enough time have lost the argument. Please admit that. If beaches don't build sandcastles without an intelligent designer or person today, they still won't build their own sandcastles a billion years from now. See that? You lost the "wait forever" excuse. Sand and waves aren't going to do anything differently from what they do, neither are short RNA chains. I hope you own your bookshop otherwise a person as ignorant as you should be fired. Ad hominem emphasized and celebrated by me. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 15, 2019 13:07:25 GMT
There is no serious evidence that "speaking in tongues" is anything but babbling nonsense and no evidence that "super strength" is anything more than adrenaline. As I said, I have never seen someone that was declared to be demonically possessed so I can't say either way, but I have witnessed two things that I can't explain and I know of others who have also. Some things are like faith, you can't quantify them. Not that I'm saying we should believe something right away without some standard to go by. Exactly! One can only be the witness by what they can attest too with their own eyes. Evidence of reason is always required, but I also accept that the unexplainable is also an aspect of the phenomena of life, but it may only be something the witnesser needs to know about. For your eyes only, or so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 15:01:06 GMT
I have a website. On it I explain why I do not need "positive" (whatever you mean by that) anything. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that short RNA chains cannot advance to greater complexity because they tend to tear each other apart more than build, which we have already observed in all nature anyway, it being a characteristic of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As for the energy from the sun "opening" the thermodynamic system, use all the sunlight you want. It won't help the situation. You suppose incorrectly that you can refuse to believe the obvious and ask silly questions based on your total lack of understanding of proofs. I am not the one who needs "positive" (more) proof. You do. If you believe short RNA chains can build anything like life without an intelligent designer then you need to show that happening. Otherwise the agent of assembly of life is not found in nature - QED. Remember how the God of the Gaps argument is not positive evidence? It still isn't. "I don't think science can currently explain something so God must exist" is questionable logic and a fallacy. Does anyone else here think it is telling when you say "I don't need positive evidence" and always reach for the negative? No wonder faith is so important to the credulous when all they have otherwise is negativity. Remember how I have told you several times that I have an autistic brother and how I would find the deliberately provocative use of such a term offensive? And here you are with it again? You really are quite nasty, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 21:20:14 GMT
I have a website. On it I explain why I do not need "positive" (whatever you mean by that) anything. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that short RNA chains cannot advance to greater complexity because they tend to tear each other apart more than build, which we have already observed in all nature anyway, it being a characteristic of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As for the energy from the sun "opening" the thermodynamic system, use all the sunlight you want. It won't help the situation. You suppose incorrectly that you can refuse to believe the obvious and ask silly questions based on your total lack of understanding of proofs. I am not the one who needs "positive" (more) proof. You do. If you believe short RNA chains can build anything like life without an intelligent designer then you need to show that happening. Otherwise the agent of assembly of life is not found in nature - QED. Remember how the God of the Gaps argument is not positive evidence? It still isn't. "I don't think science can currently explain something so God must exist" is questionable logic and a fallacy. Does anyone else here think it is telling when you say "I don't need positive evidence" and always reach for the negative? No wonder faith is so important to the credulous when all they have otherwise is negativity. Remember how I have told you several times that I have an autistic brother and how I would find the deliberately provocative use of such a term offensive? And here you are with it again? You really are quite nasty, aren't you? I'm sorry about your brother, but it cannot be a ticket to having wrong ideas celebrated. If it continues to be a problem I suggest you get off the internet or stick to things you understand. ~~~~~+++**+++~~~~~
A Lesson in Scope
Remember how I explained some negative proofs are possible? They can be when the scope is sufficiently limited. You do not yet understand the concept of scope, so I'm going to try to help you. If you want to prove the baseball is not in the toolbox, you simply open the toolbox and check every baseball sized space in it. If it is not in any of those, then it is NOT in the toolbox. That was easy, wasn't it? Why? Because the scope of things to check is very limited. If you had to check a million toolboxes it would be far more difficult, but for a sufficiently large team of investigators, quite possible. So it is with the makings of life. There is not an infinite number of things to check or infinite time to wait. There are a little over 100 different chemical elements and some of those are not stable. Are there quite many more compounds? Yes, but notice there are only a few amino acids. You don't have to check molecules more complicated than they are because those are past the starting point. You don't have to check the glycine in Georgia and Ohio and below the Antarctic Circle, it is all the same glycine. You don't have to check the glycine today and in 50 years, it's the same glycine. There are only a few things to check, considering the number of labs devoted to the research, and they all have been checked. The proof is done, positive by your definition or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 15, 2019 21:34:48 GMT
Remember how the God of the Gaps argument is not positive evidence? It still isn't. "I don't think science can currently explain something so God must exist" is questionable logic and a fallacy. Does anyone else here think it is telling when you say "I don't need positive evidence" and always reach for the negative? No wonder faith is so important to the credulous when all they have otherwise is negativity. Remember how I have told you several times that I have an autistic brother and how I would find the deliberately provocative use of such a term offensive? And here you are with it again? You really are quite nasty, aren't you? I'm sorry about your brother, but it cannot be a ticket to having wrong ideas celebrated. If it continues to be a problem I suggest you get off the internet or stick to things you understand. ~~~~~+++**+++~~~~~
A Lesson in Scope
Remember how I explained some negative proofs are possible? They can be when the scope is sufficiently limited. You do not yet understand the concept of scope, so I'm going to try to help you. If you want to prove the baseball is not in the toolbox, you simply open the toolbox and check every baseball sized space in it. If it is not in any of those, then it is NOT in the toolbox. That was easy, wasn't it? Why? Because the scope of things to check is very limited. If you had to check a million toolboxes it would be far more difficult, but for a sufficiently large team of investigators, quite possible. So it is with the makings of life. There is not an infinite number of things to check or infinite time to wait. There are a little over 100 different chemical elements and some of those are not stable. Are there quite many more compounds? Yes, but notice there are only a few amino acids. You don't have to check molecules more complicated than they are because those are past the starting point. You don't have to check the glycine in Georgia and Ohio and below the Antarctic Circle, it is all the same glycine. You don't have to check the glycine today and in 50 years, it's the same glycine. There are only a few things to check, considering the number of labs devoted to the research, and they all have been checked. The proof is done, positive by your definition or not. You have always been a bit of a dick, but to willingly insult someones family after being repeatedly asked not to really takes the cake. Pull your fucking head in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 21:38:32 GMT
I'm sorry about your brother, but it cannot be a ticket to having wrong ideas celebrated. If it continues to be a problem I suggest you get off the internet or stick to things you understand. ~~~~~+++**+++~~~~~
A Lesson in Scope
Remember how I explained some negative proofs are possible? They can be when the scope is sufficiently limited. You do not yet understand the concept of scope, so I'm going to try to help you. If you want to prove the baseball is not in the toolbox, you simply open the toolbox and check every baseball sized space in it. If it is not in any of those, then it is NOT in the toolbox. That was easy, wasn't it? Why? Because the scope of things to check is very limited. If you had to check a million toolboxes it would be far more difficult, but for a sufficiently large team of investigators, quite possible. So it is with the makings of life. There is not an infinite number of things to check or infinite time to wait. There are a little over 100 different chemical elements and some of those are not stable. Are there quite many more compounds? Yes, but notice there are only a few amino acids. You don't have to check molecules more complicated than they are because those are past the starting point. You don't have to check the glycine in Georgia and Ohio and below the Antarctic Circle, it is all the same glycine. You don't have to check the glycine today and in 50 years, it's the same glycine. There are only a few things to check, considering the number of labs devoted to the research, and they all have been checked. The proof is done, positive by your definition or not. You have always been a bit of a dick, but to willingly insult someones family after being repeatedly asked not to really takes the cake. Pull your fucking head in. PKB
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 21:44:10 GMT
Remember how I have told you several times that I have an autistic brother and how I would find the deliberately provocative use of such a term offensive? And here you are with it again? You really are quite nasty, aren't you? I'm sorry about your brother, but it cannot be a ticket to having wrong ideas celebrated. If it continues to be a problem I suggest you get off the internet or stick to things you understand. Or you might just grow up and stop being gratuitously offensive when asked not to be. Still no positive proofs for your purported god then LOL Just the same old God of the Gaps. What is the scope of God, Arlon? A reminder : you've already agreed with me that negative proofs for a mythical being are impossible. Then why are you still here when others have already addressed your lack of scientific understanding? For everyone else who does not have their own website here is an update on some recent research www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180206115111.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 15, 2019 21:46:34 GMT
You have always been a bit of a dick, but to willingly insult someones family after being repeatedly asked not to really takes the cake. Pull your fucking head in. PKB I have no idea what PKB means, but I take it this is you not even having the common decency to be contrite for being a cunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 21:52:12 GMT
I have no idea what PKB means, but I take it this is you not even having the common decency to be contrite for being a cunt. Evidently. Try using the internet to find out what it means.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 22:04:07 GMT
I have no idea what PKB means, but I take it this is you not even having the common decency to be contrite for being a cunt. Evidently. Try using the internet to find out what it means. How is he going to do that Arlon, when you say all definitions are ad hoc and arbitrary?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2019 22:11:19 GMT
"We now see a clear path to the random assembly of life," said no one ever on your websites or any other academic source.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2019 22:46:14 GMT
"We now see a clear path to the random assembly of life," said no one ever on your websites or any other academic source. Neither does any reputable or peer-reviewed source conclude "... and so a deliberate supernatural must have done it..". So it looks like the God of the Gaps is all your own.
|
|
