With you lack of age certainly doesn't! 😄@TheMidwesternWayToValhalla

@CookieLuvsBunny I should also point out that multiverse is not even accepted by most scientists and there are scientists that question inflation, deeming it unfalsifiable, so I have no idea why he's acting as if this is accepted science.

@basilfawlty89
You are correct. Any theories about anything outside of our universe, e.g., a multiverse, is a statement of faith and not science

@hippyjoe1955 I have no idea what the secondary symbol might be, because there is nothing.

That’s my whole point!

There is no second-level progression.

There is no code

DNA is not a code

[i]quod erat demonstrandum[/i]

@newjaninev2 @newjaninev2 [quote]The point of ERVs... and it’s a point you continually ignore... is that the ERVs are on exactly the same base pairs. Out of 3.2 billion possible base pairs, the ERVs are on the exact same base pairs for both species.[/quote]
[quote]Common DNA is indicative of nothing beyond a Creator using the same code for the same function in a different life form.[/quote]

It's pretty obvious at this point that hippie doesn't actually understand the basics of what it is you're talking about lmao - and why this scenario is a horrible example of "code reuse". The very significance of the situation eludes him. He lacks the vocabulary, foundations, and any semblance of common sense.

Of course, it does bring up a bit of a giggle when you consider the "Creator" "reusing" a (mutated into non-functionality) sequence for a retrovirus lmao. Good one there, buddy, way to make things look designed.

@QuixoticSoul lol! Yes, it’s not a case of parsimony and conservation of available resources on the part of some fantasy figure, it’s a simple case of bloatware.

@Phire1 [quote]It appears that someone within the post you made did...[/quote]

Why?

@GodSpeed63 🤷‍♀️

@Phire1 I want to let you know that wasn't my intention to freak anybody out.

@ImKelsey u TeLLZ Em HuNNEYS

Actually if God exists it seems to be rather an important thing and I'd want to know gir certain! @Jonjdw

@Speedyman yes I will want to know for sure. And if god is what he is supposed to be. He would defy the laws of science.

Not at all. He actually created the laws of science But isnot, of course, limited by them as some peop,e wrongly assume @Jonjdw

@GodSpeed63 no, you BELIEVE that. Other people believe in their faith just as strongly. Respect others faiths.

@basilfawlty89 [quote]no, you BELIEVE that.[/quote]

Who made you overseer of what I believe and what I don't believe? Belief follows truth, my friend, remember that. As other people's faith, I do respect them but I don't leave them there.

@GodSpeed63 because you literally profess belief in Christianity? I don't see you promoting Islam or Hinduism, so yeah, Christianity is your belief. How do you know your truth is right for someone else?

@Entwistle Of course, we can never be certain... unless [i]everything[/i] has ended.

The sole remaining object might be the one that [i]doesn’t[/i] end 😀

@newjaninev2 Hmm,and the sole remaining thing may be the new beginning! That's messed with my head for the day.. thanks! 😂🤣

@Entwistle "An absolute truth would be "Anything that has a beginning has an ending"".
Logic haves no ontological commitment.
What can be also said as: Logical "necessity" do not entail material existence, the source of truth...about material existence.

There is a naive but still interesting example.
Not at all a prove and not even strict reasoning but neither trivial.

Firefighters, there are young ones and older ones.
Firefighters, there are impulsive and wiser ones.
Thus, exhausting the potencial combinations…
Firefighters, there are young and wiser ones.
Firefighters, there are young and impulsive ones.
Firefighters, there are older and wiser ones.
…
…
Where are the impulsive older ones?
There are no more.

@Tarxarin [quote]I will say this. Faith is not believing in things because magic. Faith is a belief that things are happening and be relied.upon. I sit in a chair and I have it won't break. [/quote] These are very different types of "knowledge" and in these kinds of epistemological discussions we tend to separate faith and trust/risk. Your stance on the chair is a reflection of prior empirical testing, and an assumption of risk. There are no metaphysics involved.

@QuixoticSoul But my faith [i]has[/i] been tested. That is how faith grows. I am very analytical and I know I can count on God!

@QuixoticSoul it's more simple than that. The sun rises and it sets. I believe it will continue to do this, and i have faith that it will.

There is no "evidence" I don't need "scientific" meaning.

There is no risk. There is a value or principle called Faith you do or do not have it.

@Tarxarin That's good for you. However, if at some point in time people that do believe in something you don't care about, knock on your door, and start making demands. Then maybe it's a bit to late to understand the phenomena that drives people to do really crazy stuff.

You assume life doesn’t exist on other planets. Science is all but certain it does. Any form of life, when found will completely destroy the story, and that is all it is, of creation. @Kwek00

@JenKarl I didn't assume annything. Just listen to what the guy in the clip says. Just using his own argument.

@Sharon I don't know that part. The Irony how I understand it is that Einstein described "relativity", and it's "realitivity" that is the source for the next step which was "quantum mechanics".

If you go looking up biographies of the man, you'll see that he has 2 big parts in the scientific world. The first part is where he did all the stuff that we remember him by today. All the big advancements that he made (and allowed) in physics. The next part is his strugglings with his own narrative of God. In Einsteins world he also goes from the argument of "complexity" or "beauty". Everything is in harmony, everything can be calculated, everything is beautifull and there is no chaos. But relativity opened pandoras' box, germans and austrians started figuring out that on super small levels "chaos" occurs. That things are not calculable annymore, then things get reduced to a world of possibilities. Where the cat has a probability to be dead or alive, where we can find out the point of an element but not it's velocity (or it's velocity, but not the point that it holds in space). That's where the: "God doesn't throw dice" thing comes from. Einstein kinda rationalised and created this idea about God (because he was a Jew) and this idea helped him for a long way, till the evidence didn't stack up with his conception of God. At that point crisis occurs and he could either "deny the evidence" , "reevaluate his position" or go in full obnoxious denial mode. He at least took the intellectual high road and started argueing against the evidence on a scientific basis, but never could win the argument. That's totally diffrent then creating and spinning narratives like conspiracy theories.

@Kwek00 He believed in a wholly deterministic universe but quantum theory shows that it isn't.

@Sharon The electromagnetic properties of moving bodies.

@Reflection2 No, I read that part... I'm more amazed that you haven't pointed out what scientific ideas point towards the believe of a higher power. I think there is still a good concensus in scientists, that the idea of a "higher being" so far, isn't really needed in the field of science.

Your paragraph on the nobel price guy, also ends with: "We may or may never find the answer to it". If I understand your paragraph, then both of these people came to the same conclusion? That we might never know? I don't see a problem with that. But since we might never know, also doesn't make the positive claim anny more true. The idea is that if we don't know, we shouldn't use it our decision making in anny way. Once you accept the positive claim (just look around in this threat) people will use that information for their descision making and world vieuw and step out of the idea that we "dont know" to the idea that we "do know".

I've also said before that really smart people can be religious (any religion for that matter). But there are also quite a lot of examples where once their scientific findings reach on their dogmatic ideas, that they are unable to accept science and kinda get lost because of cognitive dissonance.

And yes, you can perfectly believe in feelings. I believe in feelings too. The question was if you take facts over feelings (and there is a questionmark there, no need to get all defensive yet).

@Kwek00 Defensive! You remind of me of something. I will keep it cool. I believe in feelings 😁.

@Reflection2 I remind you of something?
... so much for being special I guess 😢

@CopperCicada Even if I agree with some of your concepts, Science is not as old as Aristóteles.
Logic haves no ontologic commitment, except for the scholastic failed rethorics.
And, thus, is not Science.
Neither is Philosophy.
Even with lot of isolated antecedents, Scientific tradition began with Francis Bacon.

@CharlieZ Sure. If you want to argue who came up with the scientific method... we can't put that on Aristotle. You are certainly correct.

But we can put the project of studying the physical world analytically on Aristotle. And such maestros as Eratosthenes and Aristarchus. We could arguably push it back to the pre-Socratics.

@CopperCicada Sorry if I was not clear enough.
Scientific methods (the plural is on purpose) are, for sure, a need for Science, but not at all enough for making it scientific.
THAT was Popper´s worst mistake.
Science is defined also by it´s object.
So to say: is not only about what we say about what we think on the natural world (that would be Epistemology). It´s about things on itselves.

The Ptolemaic System was systematic, based on observations, mathematically formulated and predictive.
And, even so, not scientific.
It had a weak worldview behind,

Neither rationallity is enough.
Descartes was a bright mathematician.
But his discourse on method is just philosophy and not Science.
Thoughts, words, rationallity, knowledge do not cause the material Unverse to be. The opposite is true.

Philosophy, despite formulating deep questions and being sometimes "rational" is not Science.
It´s not even mainly knowledge, nor a strict way to know.
It´s mainly research about what we don´t know or not enough. And about what exists whith autonomy of being known.

BTW, said or not (and not invoking authority) this is the by default view of Science of the hundreds of thousands who DO Science as scientific researchers.

@talisker Actually I do know, as there is no proof.

I mean you and your buddy GodSpeed there can get stuck in terminology, it really doesn't matter. You believe what you believed and I know what I know.

You both trying to apply labels and force your ideas on others doesn't work, nor will it ever work.

@talisker That's not how science works. You don't believe in something because you have no evidence for it.

There is no evidence or proof for god, hence there is no god.

@talisker It was a power struggle Christianity provided dividing lines.

@hippyjoe1955 It´s not frequent for us to agree, hippy.
But you are right on this.

@GodSpeed63 ID, if I´m not wrong (if I am tell me please), the usual acronym for "Intelligent Design"

@CharlieZ [quote]I'd never put the Word of God along with ID.[/quote]

Why wouldn't you put the Word of God along with ID? Why do you think ID is a delusion?

@GodSpeed63 "Why do you think ID is a delusion?"

Because it is based in something notoriously inexistent.
The existence of reified non material pre existing entities, qualia-like, Platonic-like ones, like (repeating myself) "Redness".
Never detected, never meassured.
And based on what is (technically) called Logical Necessity (and Logical Imposiblility) wich are abstract and with no material correlate / commitment.

It haves no serious systematic data collecting.
It haves no rigurous theory building behind.

Because it´s philosophic antecedents in History never gave ONE contribution to Science.

But, mainly, because calling it Science, with the above said foundations, is much more than an error, is a fraud.

Fraud is a better word for it, instead of delusion.


Science should be not based on frauds.
Faith should not be based on frauds.

@revenant [quote]we need more people like him but nowadays faith is a bad thing[/quote]

You just ain't whistling Dixie, sister.

@GodSpeed63 I am not dIXIE. This one is a very bad person who goes by many different names.

@revenant [quote]I am not dIXIE.[/quote]

😆 I Know that. It's an old American saying that you are being truthful and I agree with you. 😂

@talisker Oh, really? What part of my explanation was unclear or confusing. I’d be more than happy to clarify anything that is causing you a problem.

@MakeAspirit Actually we are inside Him. Acts 17:28 "For in him we live and move and have our being."

@CharlieZ [quote]Science is defined by it´s object, the natural World.[/quote]

God created science to show us His creation and how He's made it all work.

@GodSpeed63 I believe in God, but that´s my faith.

To do Science is irrelevant if you are atheist, esceptic, religious, from one faith or another different one.
The prove of this is that scientists of differents worldviews do it together and do it well.
And been doing this with excelent results along History.
Amongst other things, no one of them would remotely tolerate to submitt Science to the rule of their OWN religion.
Cos they know that Science was born when Science was emancipated from them. Or would not work as it does.
The prove of this is that the First Philosophies (besides other merits) had never, not once in millenia, gave us a good description of the natural world and not even a serious one in scientific terms. While Science does.

Does this denies or refutes God? No. It can´t.
Does it confirms Him? Neither. It can´t.

You can find a clue making more general the famous quote of Galileo (not really his, but he also said it): "The Scriptures shows how to go to Heaven and not how the Heaven goes".

This is the attitude of most of scientists, almost all of them.
I find it a good one.

And, as a personal adenum, I will say: I don´t see Science leading to God but (as for my faith) I believe that God leaded me to Science.
So I´ll do it the best as I can, as my fellow scientists did and do, pointing honestly, in this, to the object of Science (the natural world), with the agenda of Science and no other other one.
Just as my fellows, that are christians, jews, muslims, budhists, from other "credos", agnostics and atheists DO.
Also just as them, I would not tolerate to put my service and Science under the guide of other worldviews other than the scientific, no matter wich one.

Of course, the ones who believe may share that God is above all.
But, sorry, I have about the interpretation of the will of God an opinión of the religious thinkers not so different than the one you have about the interpretations of scientists.
About Science, I see them saying what I sincerelly doubt that God think and, for sure, no doubt, what Science do not say.
The last (what Science do not say) asserts, as it is published at the present, also for ID.

I hope that this, knowing we will never agree, makes my position more clear.

Psychosis @Julien

@Tennessee 🤔 Did Harriet infect you? Or am I not getting the alabamian thing in the last couple of days?

@Tennessee
Amen! How true, how true

@Tennessee Ammoniascrubbertime? Is that you?

Do you understand your words?

There is no evidence.
You believe, because as Kierkegaard wrote, you took the leap of faith.
I don’t operate with beliefs.
Frankly they are a crutch.
You should read your Bible about controlling your thoughts @talisker

That’s your belief. There is no evidence.
If you point to the Bible as evidence...is that a strong case?


I will then pull out Frankenstein or Superman.
Or the Canterbury tales.


I will politely ask you to refrain from talking down to anyone here.
The words I select, are for a specific reason.
You are making choices with regard on how to understand what I say.


@talisker

@Chattanooga You spelled TWATS wrong!! 🤷‍♀️

@talisker I accept the premise.. I simply hold science and faith as being of two different universes. I dont expect faith to solve the problems of this universe, no matter how hard one prays. Nor do I expect this universe of the sciences to find "god." Each to their own. My only area of contention is when people bring the world of religion and its rules for living into the physical world and insist on applying its values to those who dont agree.

@Tennessee Oh Yes they do. Its just that Alabamans and Tennesseans both come from a lower branch on the evolutionary tree. They got John Wayne to play Crockett in"The Alamo" so as not to scare customers away.

@SW-User [quote]Such silliness.[/quote]

Based on what?

Amazing how stupid people like you call other things 'such silliness'. Your name says it all about your mentality or lack of it@SW-User

Ad hominem arguments...🐔🐔🐔@Speedyman

@CharlieZ [quote]What applies and fits so well to you and hippy that no other example can compete in doing so.[/quote]

Your point being what?

@GodSpeed63 My point is to say that you should look at "your eye" before making a critics to others.
Very specially if you have no clue on what you are talking about.

As a small example of the above, when you say that someone else is not following "Logic".
When the last update you have in such disipline is Scholastics rethorics.
There is a well defined tool properly called Logic, a mathematical field.
Not related to the pretended logical "necessity / imposiblity" of vacuous philosophers.

@CharlieZ [quote]There is a well defined tool properly called Logic, a mathematical field. Not related to the pretended logical "necessity / impossibility" of vacuous philosophers.[/quote]

I understand what you mean friend. I have no excuse for my behavior. Thank you for correcting me on that.