The Weakness Of Science -- Trying To Explain The Life Spirit

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, maybe someone can answer:

Why all of these magical ideas proposed for the genesis of life, but not for the formation of stars? I realize I have lost the YECs at this point, as they think the stars were all formed by magic 10,000 years ago. So this question is not for them.

 

[Frannie]

there is no evidence that all life came from nothing.

Nobody said it "came from nothing". Once again, you articulate your thoughts poorly.

What IS a foregone conclusion is that it arose from nature via physical processes that require no magic or divine intervention. The evidence for this comes in the form of every observation we have ever made and every bit of evidence we have ever collected. These all show us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws.

We know the Sun is 5 billion years old. We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, at the point where there is our sun, there was once no star at all. As all the evidence we have ever collected shows us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws, we look for and hopefully come to understand a natural explanation for star formation.

Now, apply the same process to abiogenesis. Do you propose magical events to explain star formation? No? Then why would you do the same for the formation of life? Religion, of course. This demonstrates a silly double standard that arises purely from superstition and fetishism.

The problem with that babble is that you are only looking backwards on the arrow of time. Time so far as is known does not travel backwards, only forwards. Once you look to a lifeless planet Mars visited, colonized and seeded with life, you will have achieved a view of God. Just get your ass out of the past and create a new better future

What a bunch of inane pap. Yes time only travels forward...that is how we have determinism.

Time only travels forward, so far as we know.

What percentage of all knowledge is known to humanity? and how do you come to the answer?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The human animal is so far as we know the most intelligent force in the Universe, thus it is the most Godlike,

That is the very opposite of logic. You have stated a premise and a conclusion with no argument to connect them. You are a charlatan, Frannie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Time only travels forward, so far as we know.

Which is how we have determinism. When we see something on the floor that used to be on the shelf, we know it fell somehow. Because time travels one way. That is determinism. I don't think you have a clue what you are trying to say.

And, stop with your "percentage" nonsense. It is self defeating crap. When you posit that "we only know x% of everything", you are admitting that we know what we know. Then, in the same breath, you try to argue that this percentage shows that we don't even know what we know. Convoluted garbage.

 

[Frannie]

So, maybe someone can answer:

Why all of these magical ideas proposed for the genesis of life, but not for the formation of stars? I realize I have lost the YECs at this point, as they think the stars were all formed by magic 10,000 years ago. So this question is not for them.

A star can not form, until it has a universe to be in, and the mass with which to form the star. If you believe in the scientific principle of conservation of mass, you must account for where the mass came from. Since there is no answer some infer God. While not accurate, it is actually better then the Universe exploded one day from nothing and created it's mass spontaneously...… That dude is nonsense, and is the view of geniuses who say that 85 percent of the Universe is missing...…………..

Dude it's all there, right where it belongs

 

[Frannie]

The human animal is so far as we know the most intelligent force in the Universe, thus it is the most Godlike,

That is the very opposite of logic. You have stated a premise and a conclusion with no argument to connect them. You are a charlatan, Frannie.

Then you can name what is more intelligent then a human...…….

Go

Moron

I'm the moron if you can prove me wrong

There is a first time for everything

U R just another notch on my belt

PHD and all

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A star can not form, until it has a universe to be in, and the mass with which to form the star.

Stop right there. I only address one point at a time. The rest of your word salad will remain ignored.

So, addressing the above:

And yet still you accept that the star formed by a physical, deterministic process within that universe. But you reject the same idea for life, in the form of abiogenesis. So again, you self defeat by highlighting your own, self contradictory nonsense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you can name what is more intelligent then a human...…….

What terrible logic on display here. Whetheror not I could name something smarter than a human has no bearing on whether or not something smarter than a human exists. You also assume a definition for god that is left to you to argue, not to assume. You rigged up a stupid little circular game for yourself, and you don't even know it.

 

[Frannie]

A star can not form, until it has a universe to be in, and the mass with which to form the star.

Stop right there. I only address one point at a time. The rest of your word salad will remain ignored.

So, addressing the above:

And yet still you accept that the star formed by a physical, deterministic process within that universe. But you reject the same idea for life, in the form of abiogenesis. So again, you self defeat by highlighting your own, self contradictory nonsense.

Are you implying that life is a function of the gravitational forces that coalesce and disperse matter in the Universe? Because that it what forms stars

Dude you are a word salad, like your mother before you

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Are you implying that life is a function of the gravitational forces that coalesce and disperse matter in the Universe?

Among other things, yes, of course. notice it lives on the surface of a planet. What do you suppose keeps it there? Happy thoughts?

 

[Hale]

there is no evidence that all life came from nothing.

Nobody said it "came from nothing". Once again, you articulate your thoughts poorly.

What IS a foregone conclusion is that it arose from nature via physical processes that require no magic or divine intervention. The evidence for this comes in the form of every observation we have ever made and every bit of evidence we have ever collected. These all show us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws.

We know the Sun is 5 billion years old. We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, at the point where there is our sun, there was once no star at all. As all the evidence we have ever collected shows us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws, we look for and hopefully come to understand a natural explanation for star formation.

Now, apply the same process to abiogenesis. Do you propose magical events to explain star formation? No? Then why would you do the same for the formation of life? Religion, of course. This demonstrates a silly double standard that arises purely from superstition and fetishism.

It's hardly poor articulation of thought when you feel compelled to use four paragraphs in a feeble attempt to deny what you said by repeating it, lol.

There is no "foregone conclusion" aside from your inability to say "I don't know". But say it you must, as you have absolutely no explanation for the origin of the matter you describe. You tip your hand by saying "at the point where there is our sun, there was once no star at all", but you utterly ignore the significance of this statement. Your fumbling may impress some, but you should probably leave real science to real scientists until you learn more.

And sadly, that doesn't seem likely.

 

[Frannie]

Then you can name what is more intelligent then a human...…….

What terrible logic on display here. Whetheror not I could name something smarter than a human has no bearing on whether or not something smarter than a human exists. You also assume a definition for god that is left to you to argue, not to assume. You rigged up a stupid little circular game for yourself, and you don't even know it.

The human animal is the most Godlike creature known. Oddly this creature known as human is developing the ability to travel off it's own planet.

The circle is you, I have left you in your dark past and am traveling into the future that must be created.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no "foregone conclusion" aside from your inability to say "I don't know"

Wrong. Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion, just as it is a foregone conclusion that, when we find something in the universe we know little to nothing about, it is still a foregone conclusion that it formed by deterministic,, physical processes.

Yes, we know that, as much as we can ever know anything. What are ya, some kind of YEC freak?

 

[Frannie]

there is no evidence that all life came from nothing.

Nobody said it "came from nothing". Once again, you articulate your thoughts poorly.

What IS a foregone conclusion is that it arose from nature via physical processes that require no magic or divine intervention. The evidence for this comes in the form of every observation we have ever made and every bit of evidence we have ever collected. These all show us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws.

We know the Sun is 5 billion years old. We know the universe is 13.8 billion years old. So, at the point where there is our sun, there was once no star at all. As all the evidence we have ever collected shows us a deterministic universe that follows natural laws, we look for and hopefully come to understand a natural explanation for star formation.

Now, apply the same process to abiogenesis. Do you propose magical events to explain star formation? No? Then why would you do the same for the formation of life? Religion, of course. This demonstrates a silly double standard that arises purely from superstition and fetishism.

It's hardly poor articulation of thought when you feel compelled to use four paragraphs in a feeble attempt to deny what you said by repeating it, lol.

There is no "foregone conclusion" aside from your inability to say "I don't know". But say it you must, as you have absolutely no explanation for the origin of the matter you describe. You tip your hand by saying "at the point where there is our sun, there was once no star at all", but you utterly ignore the significance of this statement. Your fumbling may impress some, but you should probably leave real science to real scientists until you learn more.

Saying I do not know, is step one to learning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The human animal is the most Godlike creature known.

Wrong. Oops, no way to tell who is right.

 

[Frannie]

There is no "foregone conclusion" aside from your inability to say "I don't know"

Wrong. Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion, just as it is a foregone conclusion that, when we find something in the universe we know little to nothing about, it is still a foregone conclusion that it formed by deterministic,, physical processes.

Yes, we know that, as much as we can ever know anything. What are ya, some kind of YEC freak?

Abiogenesis is not a forgone conclusion once a bacteria or fungi is engineered to live on Mars. However since you live in the past you can not see the future that is being built

 

[Frannie]

The human animal is the most Godlike creature known.

Wrong. Oops, no way to tell who is right.

Sure there is, God is all knowing and has an infinite ability to create or destroy, for those who believe and for those who do not as well. There is nothing known that comes closer to this than a human

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is not a forgone conclusion once a bacteria or fungi is engineered to live on Mars.

It absolutely is a foregone conclusion. Now, maybe it happened elsewhere and life traveled here. But that would still be abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God is all knowing and has an infinite ability to create or destroy.

And I say that's false. I say god is fallible and not omnipotent and merely appears as a god to us because he is more capable than we are.

Oops, no way to tell who is right. As is always the case with magical horseshit

 

[Frannie]

Abiogenesis is not a forgone conclusion once a bacteria or fungi is engineered to live on Mars.

It absolutely is a foregone conclusion. Now, maybe it happened elsewhere and life traveled here. But that would still be abiogenesis.

AS long as you can answer, what is the Universe, is it everything or is it smaller than a grain of sand when compared to all that there is.