Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

@hippyjoe1955 The peculiarities of human thinking lead to a failure to recognise underlying mechanisms such as sex, death, and a constantly changing environment.

We are pattern-seeking animals, and we see patterns when there are none.

Add that to unfounded extrapolation and it’s little wonder that we find it so easy to fool ourselves.

@newjaninev2 Which are a product of Intelligent Design not dumb luck. Shows your lack of intellect again.

@hippyjoe1955"The problem with Intelligent Design is that it takes intelligence to recognize it."
The joke get´s ruined because you, an obvious recognizable non intelligent believe in ID.

@hippyjoe1955 You have just demonstrated the ridiculous nature of creationist claims. No matter what is presented, no matter what contradictory evidence is presented, the sole response is always ‘goddit’.

That has to be the sole response, because it the [i]only[/i] response available to you.

@CharlieZ So says a fool that believes in accidental existence. Too Funny.

@hippyjoe1955 Here again we see the nonsensical base of your ‘goddit’ claim.

Characterising everything as ‘accidental’ or ‘dumb luck’ when it is explained to you that there are other mechanisms in play, while pretending that such mechanisms have not been pointed out to you.

Just keep looking at the wall and muttering ‘goddit’ to yourself.

@newjaninev2 No dearie it is you that have shown your foolishness. It can't even get started but here you have definitive 'proof' that it happened because in your weak mind life is the result of evolution so since there is life it must have evolved. Tautology.

@hippyjoe1955 So says a fool, me, that do not believe in accidents but in the opposite, wich is not at all supernatural design, but material natural causes.
And a fool that stands for the worldview of Science and scientists, intead of the kind of fool that align with snake oil stuff which is ID is.

@CharlieZ Actually if it is not planned it is by accident that we all exist. Sorry to explain simple things to foolish people. There is no third option.

@hippyjoe1955 Sorry to say that "Actually if it is not planned it is by accident" is not only fool but also unecesary simple foolish.
Sorry that you are foolish enough to make unuseful to explain you this or whatever in detail.

@CharlieZ Actually to believe you way is even more foolish. Even Hoyle noted that the evidence supports design even as he denied design. Kind of like you that way. Foolish in the extreme.

@hippyjoe1955 Seems that Hoyle can be wrong, as his Theory of a steady Universe was.
He was wrong, not foolish.
You have the merit of being not only one but both.

@CharlieZ He was foolish. He recognized the incredible complexity and delicate balancing that had to exist to make life possible. He chose to ignore it. Foolish like you. Wrong like you.

@hippyjoe1955 😆

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]It can't even get started[/quote]

Are you again denying that there is life on Earth? Are you again abandoning discussion around evolution and trying instead to discuss abiogenesis... a separate topic?

[quote]but here you have definitive 'proof' [/quote]

I wonder how many times you need to be taught that science [i]never[/i] tries to prove anything

[quote]life is the result of evolution[/quote]

No, life is the [i]result[/i] of abiogenesis.

Evolution is the process that [i]follows[/i] abiogenesis. Evolution doesn’t [i]cause[/i] life

[quote]there is life it must have evolved. Tautology.[/quote]

There is abiogenesis followed by evolution... two [i]separate[/i] processes... where’s the tautology?

@newjaninev2 Nice tautology you got going there. Too bad it is false. Too Funny!!!!!

@hippyjoe1955 Did you recently learn the word ‘tautology’? You really shouldn’t apply it randomly as some sort of vague defence.

The word refers to saying the same thing twice in different words.

I referred to two [i]separate[/i] processes.

How can they possibly be the same thing?

@newjaninev2 I make a living using words. You don't understand them.

@hippyjoe1955 Jeanine, he haves a point.
He makes a living with ONLY words meaning nothing.
That is, preaching and related.

@CharlieZ And you pretend to be a scientist as you hang out in the faculty lounge.

@CharlieZ Yes, mere sophistry (si, mero sofistería)

It’s remarkable that he feels that excludes anyone else from understanding common English words

@CharlieZ it’s equally remarkable how quickly he is now trying to divert away from his failure to support his characterisation of abiogenesis and evolution as a tautology

@newjaninev2 You obviously don't know the meaning of sophistry either!!!! Too funny!!! The only ones engaged in sophistic nonsense is your side of the debate. I point out some hard numbers and all you can do is deny them. No evidence to the contrary. Just arguments designed to deceive. Oh well too bad you are so ignorant of the English language.

@newjaninev2 BTW why are you pretending you understand Spanish? We know you don't understand English so are you trying to show your ignorance of more than one language?

@newjaninev2 Well, jeanine, as he said, he is dedicated to words.
To ask him to put also a meaning in them, seems to be asking him to do more than he can.