To believe that the finer analytical faculties of mankind,such as those exhibited by Einstein and Newton and Hawking,which have allowed us to explore the inner workings of the universe in such phenomenal depth and detail.To believe that those faculties evolved for the purpose of primitive survival (the ability to survive being the singular driving factor of evolution)-that is to place your faith in the absurd.
I really wish some of you people would graduate from uni with a degree in hard science before you attempt to answer a scientific matter. All you can do until then is rephrase something that scientists have already said.
For those of yu who believe in these wacky alien IDEAS (they don't have evidence yet to even be labled as a hypothesis or theory), I doubt you could even get a science degree, but I do suggest you spend more time looking in the opposite side of your belief to find your evidence
@confettibrains I wrote that so if there's any sentiment that I'm rephrasing it, think again. Materialism is an orthodoxy to which all the parameters of epistemology must unjustifiably yield.That is the essential message of free-thinkers like Berlinski,and if you don't like it,at least produce a decent argument against it.Even Einstein never conceded to the idea of an atheistic universe, although he had a personal aversion for the idea of a personal God.But Dawkins has gone FURTHER than Einstein
@Tripockets Too much to stomach? I like how you try to reverse the situation. You need answers because YOU can't stomach not knowing. Believing in fairy tales makes it easier for you. You have simplified the universe and the unknown to make you feel at ease. Where did we come from, oh this dude made us out of dirt. What is the meaning of life, oh to do what this book says and serve the one who made us. Where do we go when we die, oh back to this magical land where the dirt sorcerer lives. LOL
@Tripockets Oh come off it! Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, or, greater still, the origin of the cosmos! It merely states that species change over time! That's it! Those are different theories! You don't group Newton's laws in with quantum physics, because they're completely different! But seriously, propose better theories than "magic father figure did it" and I will listen!
@steve0281 Well wikipedia seems to say Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Dave here did postdoctoral work in molecular biology. Again, I don't doubt his nor your intelligence, but what is the alternate to the theory of evolution? Aliens? God? Please elaborate since Dave refuses to make any statement on the origin of life.
@steve0281 I'm sure he does. But I'm also sure Richard Dawkins knows more than he. I don't claim to be an expert, but his reference to the Australian wolf is bogus. Different species can develop practical, similar systems, organs, etc. independently of each other. That's called convergent evolution. (like converging on a good idea) I don't like him because he is lukewarm with any sort of alternate to the theory. The best way to debunk a theory is to put up a better one, he doesn't even really
@ steve0281 I'm sure he does. But I'm also sure Richard Dawkins knows more than he. I don't claim to be an expert, but his reference to the Australian wolf is bogus. Different species can develop practical, similar systems, organs, etc. independently of each other. That's called convergent evolution. (like converging on a good idea) I don't like him because he is lukewarm with any sort of alternate to the theory. The best way to debunk a theory is to put up a better one, he doesn't even really
@IceCreamRueckert Dr. Berlinski has done postdoctoral work in molecular biology. Considering that, it might be that he knows a bit more on the subject than you or I.
@steve0281 Dr. Berlinski is also a fellow of the faculty in mathematics, which makes the fundamental mathematical flaws in his book, A Tour of the Calculus, head-scratching and disenchanting. There is probably a very good reason why, according to his own boasts, that he has been fired from nearly every job he's had.
What he says is valid. But nowadays, if we can perform a genetic comparison between species, we do. Otherwise, we fall back to morphological sorting. I think almost every living species has been subject to genetic comparison, as evidence for which species are descended from which others.
We are advancing beyond the ambiguities in reasoning which he is pointing out.
@gregrutz "Next he will tell us a whale came form a cow, another screw-up." LOL This is one of the first times i remember agreeing with anything you have made comments on.
@gregrutz How can I say this fore sure..put everything you need in a test tube to make a cell..Never ever will it self assemble even under amazing conditions in the moist advanced laboratories in the world..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
@5tonyvvvv Chirality is not made in at test tube because only living things make left handed molecules because they use catylists make of proteins. Just because you have never studied biochemistry and don't understand does mean it doesn't happen. Get an education.
@gregrutz You get an education moron..thats not science what you just stated..Homochirality has never happened in a test tube..it cant be repeated or tested..so dont say it just happened..thats not science you Dummy!!!
@gregrutz You are going against a well established law of .Biogenesis Moron!!.louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
@gregrutz You are the dumbest most stubborn person on you tube ever!!..and you have no clue what chirality is..they have never separated amino acds .out side of the Human body in any natural process..you dumb fuck..this is what stopped Miller from making a cell...MORON..you need to read a chemistry book..not propaganda lies!!
@5tonyvvvv You are the dumbest most stubborn person on you tube ever!!..and you have no clue what a protein is, or what an amino acid is. Proteins are a long chain of amino acids. You have amino acids on your finget tips, no need to 'separate' them.
Miller was not trying to make life, He was trying to make amino acids out of simple molecules,
WHICH HE DID ! I have a Degree in Chemistry and studied Biochemistry. Way can't you read a science book?
@gregrutz RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If the really want t o simulate the correct experiment .they need conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids you MORON!!!
@5tonyvvvv Life makes left handed molecules, it does not have to seperate them, it only produces one kind. Making them in a test tube makes 50-50 left and right. Females take birth control pills just take twice as much and their bodies only use the left ones. No need to seperate them.
One could logically argue if appearance proves common descent, then, Mr. Berlinski evolved from the Fonz! If you look closely at the eyes, mouth, and bone structure; as well as the striking similarities in mannerisms: Then he had to evolve from Fonzie! The debate is over, the evidence has been examined, and the facts is staring you right in the face: If you disagree, you just don't understand real science: Mr. Berlinski and the Fonz must be at least 1st cousins.
@nolobede the TROLL - Why should you care anyway? You have no absolute moral law to appeal to, so any opinions according to your worldview are just the result of electrons in the brain.
You're a determinist, so you can't help thinking or saying what you do, according to your bankrupt theories, anyway.
But the truth is, you've sinned (just as I have) and you are utlimately accountable to God and you are bitter and twisted about that fact and seek to escape by pretending God doesn't exist.
The list of quotes can go on and on. Hitler may have tried to use his "catholocism" to political ends but he was disowned by a number of Catholics:
"Rabbi Dalin also notes that prominent Catholics who were honored for their efforts on behalf of the Jews have pointed to Pope Pius XII as the inspiration behind their actions. The future Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, while still Cardinals Roncalli and Montini, respectively, received high praise for their efforts to shelter and rescue Jews.
Indeed, the Nuremberg prosecutor, General William Donovan, documented copious proof that the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity. The documents are now being posted online at the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. Indeed, the Nazis wiped out 3 million Polish Christians (see Poland’s Holocaust: 6 million citizens dead: (3 million Christians and 3 million Jews).
The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris [atheist propagandist] cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a “culmination” of Christianity.
The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance.
In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.
One 1937 Nazi film, Victims of the Past, showed a retarded person accompanied by the narration: ‘In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply. The descendants of these sick people look like this!’
One 1937 Nazi film, Victims of the Past, showed a retarded person accompanied by the narration: ‘In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply. The descendants of these sick people look like this!’
British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith (1866–1955) wrote: ‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for a national policy. … The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’17
The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) wrote: ‘Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.’16
More "intelligent" comments from the nolobede TROLL. I think his vocabulary is limited to vulgarity. His own comments proving that they were not consistent with Christ's own teaching - however he tried to twist them.
Poor, immature, little nolobede. Still struggling with a sense of worth and significance - never able to see the truth staring him in the face.
More "intelligent" comments from the nolobede TROLL. I think his vocabulary is limited to vulgarity. His own comments proving that they were not consistent with Christ's own teaching - however he tried to twist them.
Poor, immature, little nolobede. Still struggling with a sense of worth and significance - never able to see the truth staring him in the face.
" As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged."
The TROLLS have no answers and yet again try to fling mud when in fact the ATHEIST dictators of the 20th Century are responsible for more attrocities than all the ATHEIST dictators before them.
Lets take a look: Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin - responsible for 100's of millions of murders. What a disgrace and the nolobede TROLL wants to defend them. How horrific.
No doubt nolobede is also a history denier too. nolobede, your empty philosophy and cowardice cannot be hidden by mudslinging!
@Shenanigasm - That has been totally refuted by many Authors, notably Richard Weikart as well as quotes from Hitlers own writings and those of his close associates.
You also make a moot point - the others still represent many millions alone!
@heloWelo I think your original point was moot. So I just wanted to correct you. Go ahead, argue all you want but It's widely known. Nazi's wore "God with us" on their belts.
@Shenanigasm - As the real history shows, your comments are make believe - not correction.
History deniers will always try to come up with something to disassociate themselves from Hitler and the like. Especially given the clear association with Nietzsche and Darwin - Hitler just took their philosphies to their natural conclusions.
No-one in their right mind could conclude that the teachings of Christ are consistent with Hitlers actions. That's just pure denial and buring heads in the sand.
@heloWelo Make believe? As far as I know it is true. Sure, it could be wrong but why do all of the sources say it's true. Even in his book he talks about his christian God. Anyway the real "issue" you are trying to point out is that atheism makes people evil, this is false. Pope Gregory was a mass murderer too. So we're all the pople that made Christianity popular by conquering lands and converting people for control reasons, obviously not moral reasons.
@Shenanigasm - "As far as you know" - exactly. You've obviously fallen prey to atheistic propaganda. The subject is controversial because it doesn't suit your position. And you still haven't dealt with the hundreds of millions killed by the others. So, your smoke screen is not working. It's just fluff.
Clearly, atheism/darwinianism and the ntural outworking is FAR more murderous, by orders of magnitude, than even those trying to twist the teachings of Christ - as you do.
@heloWelo Now the real problem is not your religion. It's your psychological health. I know plenty of atheists that are perfectly normal, good people. They all have morals, they treat others the way they want to be treated, they don't try and convert christians to atheism. You obviously know nothing of human psychology or history before the 20th century if you thing atheism is the cause of "Hitler" and Stalin and Nero, it was something much more disturbing than that.
@Shenanigasm - Well, if you share the nolobede TROLL's worldview, you are a self-proclaimed denier of reality and purposefully live with a self defeating worldview.
In fact, I'm quite aware of History in previous millenia and the link between, Darwin, Nietzche and Hitler is very well established. Perhaps you are a Holocaust denier too. All of your heros, who also showed signs of great mental illness.
The real psychological problems are for those like yourself who want to change real history.
@heloWelo So even if I was slightly misinformed, which I don't believe I am because I don't trust your word, you would call me a history denier off of that simple mistake? You're a fool. Your overzealous denfensiveness reveals the shakey foundation of what you say. It's only because that's what you want to believe, nothing more. Btw, do you believe everything you are told about history? Try checking multiple sources that wouldn't have any biased towards you thinking the wrong thing. Offical ones
@Shenanigasm - You are more than "slightly misinformed" , you are grossly misinformed. If you parade as one who "knows" what they're talking about and twist facts to suit your feelings, then don't be surprised when real historical facts destroy your just so stories.
What you perceive as my "defensiveness" is twisted also. In fact, there's nothing wrong with defending a position - as you attempt to do but I do so with facts, you do so with your own made up distortions.
@heloWelo It's an evident fact that the Nazis wore Gott Mit Uns, or "God With Us" on their belts, I don't see how you can say this is make believe. Google image it. Btw, if you look at the old testament, that's not a God I would believe in, more of an evil construction in minds of people wanting to controls masses of other people. I never said that Hitler was like Jesus, Hitler has some serious psychological problems, and a lot of charisma. Natural Selection has nothing to do with killing jews..
@Shenanigasm - I used multiple sources, which were "official". Unless you describe sources from the Nuremburg trial as unofficial!
I get the feeling that you are just trotting out militant atheist diatribe without any real consideration of what you're saying. Clearly, you haven't studied from multiple sources.
Hitler refers to himself as a god. The Nazis gave thanks to Hitler for their salvation - not God. Therefore to wear "God with Us" on their belts was further praise to Hitler.
@heloWelo Noone is going to buy that, sorry. Even if I did agree with you, I would still find you disgustingly pathetic. You've been doing this for how long?...
@Shenanigasm - You asked for official quotes, you got them. Then you deny that no-one will buy it. So, once again - MORE history denial by you.
Seems to me you'd accept anything, even by Mickey Mouse, as long as it agreed with your prejudice. I find that pitiful... truly. You must be very closed minded.
The mountains of evidence all show how Hitler planned to try to destroy Christianity as well as the Jews.
Your shallow outlook leaves you intellectually and factually stranded.
@heloWelo Half of this arguement is in your head. I never said any of that had to do with his religion at all. Infact, I think that was my point. I'm more than confident that I'm much better off intellectually than you are. I don't make connections where there are none like you tend to do. The entire core of your arguement is irrelevant, I don't need your "official quotes" to know that.
@Shenanigasm - Your problem is that you don't know the ins and outs of your arguments well enough. They are philosophically bankrupt. In other words, you don't understand your own position.
I make the connections because I understand the roots of your arguments. You just don't see it yet. Even what you think you know, you are inconsistent with.
The cores of my arguments are systemically reliable, whereas your jumbled claims are not. You asked for quotes and then deny them. Make up your mind!
@Shenanigasm - The Bible has spoken of false gods for millenia. Hitler's claims were not new.
Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit". Clearly, even to a pre-schooler, Hitler wasn't showing "good fruit". By killing Jews and Christians and the helpless, you must be deluded to think it squares away with any true form of Christianity.
You have your hands over your ears and refuse to believe reason - the very reason Jesus would say "he who has ears to hear, let him hear". You refuse to.
Defend Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin...? Really? and now you add mre lies? Can you show me where I said that?... Didn't think so.
But lets add them all up...and why not throw in Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein for good measure... They ALL pale, compared to your murderous genocidal prick of a god. Your god murdered an entire planet full of innocents. Expects you to stone your own children, and kill everyone in an entire city if just one resident commits apostacy
THAT would be just a start... Shall we count the millions killed and those unknown numbers of violently murdered victims all slain in the name of your religion?
You can't count that high.
There is no comparison to the violence and murder posed by your god. Your religion has been the bane of mankind since it was plaguerized from the pagan religions before it. Your whole religion is a stolen myth.
Look how the TROLLS react - just filth and depravity, resorting to ad hominem attacks and bluff and bluster. Always the same - nothing of substance - just grandstanding and handwaving.
The TROLLS' claim that their case is so strong but have no answers even for the simple stuff. All they need to do is account for INFORMATION and LOGIC and yet despite weeks of searching the Net, they still don't have any answers.
Follow the evidence where it leads - atheism is a dead religion!!
Yet the numbers of Atheists grow... soaring, check the stats. While christianity dwindles in its own child molesting fodder, more people are becoming enlightened at every moment.
Your religion is like a ball and chain shackled to the ankles of humanity.
And in the not too distant future, we will cut off that ball and chain and leave you behind to rust.
Its happening today. It is a freight train staring you in the face. Better get off the track.
Some fucktard uneducated creationist spewing the same shit and trying to pose information theory without making a thesis statement when a premis must be stated first.... but he knows we'll turn that shit right back at him. Yeah dumbass, you know I'll point it right back at you...
Wrong asshole, YOU wont don't give us your thesis, cause you KNOW you CANT tie a creator to logic or intelligence.
nolobede TOLL - wash your mouth out. You just appear silly now. You're obviously a TROLL without teeth and very little content.
If you can't answer the questions about INFORMATION and LOGIC - I don't think you'll manage a thesis.
I get the impression you like living in denial. Keep wearing those blinkers if it comforts you to deny reality. Bury your head in the sand, just to make sure.
Now, answer the simple questions and then we can move on...
nolobede TROLL - still empty claims from you but NO specifics.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC from your worldview. As your conjectures require INFORMATION, you must have a FAULTY worldview - at best you are extremely confused.
You are a silly boy. Making such blanket statements does show your lack of cogent argument.
You need to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC from your worldview to gain some credibility otherwise, you remain a rabid evo fundamentalist.
ALL of the evidence for Evolution, the ENTIRE COMPILATION of knowledge, proof and evidence gathered throughout the history of science, and ALL the scientists, academics and institutions of the world, would be stopped dead in their tracks.... by ONE single solitary piece of viable evidence... JUST ONE!
Yet, creationists toil in the practice of philosophising conjecture to fit their own baseless worldview. Too bad poppi... you come up short as has ALWAYS been done by those much smarter than you
nolobede - TROLL - sadly, oh blinkered one, it is you and your faulty worldview which wants to "shortcut the process".
When you can't even account for LOGIC or INFORMATION in your worldview and claim fanciful fairytales (evolution) as facts, despite a worldview PROVEN to be false, one wonders again about your mental processes.
Once again you are deliberately denying the evidence before your eyes. Rather than more of your boorish rant - how about accounting for INFORMATION & LOGIC.
"... rock solid fact" for which you give no evidence - just foul language! You reveal your lack of credibility yet further.
You have yet to account for INFORMATION and logic in your worldview, yet you try to deride one that accounts for theirs by LOGIC and deduction.
Oh, wait - you can't account for LOGIC either. Hmmm... not a very strong argument. No wonder you just try to use HATE SPEECH - more of your TROLL tactics.
Come on, grow up, reel your neck in and engage in real debate!
-Hate speech?... you mean writing the word "Fuck"?... the most versatile word in the English language?... get over it and grow up., do you think you'll go to hell? Oppressed much?... oh yes, I almost forgot that whole christian oppression thing you've got going.
"reel your neck in and engage in real debate!"
-If there were a debateable topic maybe... got one ?
Excellent. Looks like you may have gotten through the sixth grade! So now all you have to do is go by your definition and prove there is intent "intended purpose" in biological systems. Sorry, but evolution explains every argument... yours is not new. Creationists have been trtying for 150 years.
@nolobede - your understanding verges on stupidity. And that is not intended as an insult. Merely a statement of fact!
You clearly have NO understanding of biological systems if you ask such inane questions. Seriously - get educated in the subject and then have a grown up conversation.
You disappoint me - I thought you'd do better than that. Sadly, you follow the empty huffing and puffing of other stereotypical atheopaths, unable to engage in anything other than empty claims!
Its really ironic, that someone who claims to have scientifically valid answers, yet wants to shortcut the process of science.
You want to play the game, you have to play by the fucking rules.YOUR assertion, then YOU need to explain before asking others to explain something u have yet to define/prove. You play the bait game, & I don't go for bait.You want to assert biological systems are designed by intelligent means, then fucking prove it FIRST otherwise, its just creatard vomit.
See, people wth ACTUAL educations know better than to follow bait they've read from some Discovery Institute creatard dot org website. We scrutinize our sources, and THAT's what I'm doing to you... you can't stand it when someone smarter than you doesn't let you fling chum. See in science when you make an assertion, you need to back it up before bringing it into the academic venue for review. No shortcuts.
Sorry poppi, we don't waste time trying to disprove pink unicorns.
"You clearly have NO understanding of biological systems if you ask such inane questions"
-Which then must say quite a bit of those that cannot answer the inane.
We don't have the claims remember?... you do, we'd just like you to pose a sngle shred of validity, just once, so we'd have something stimulatng to discuss. How about something new... anything? please, we crave it. Evidence for creationism stills sits at 0, zilch, nada, keep trying though, we wouldn't want to get bored.
Lots of spouting by the nolobede TROLL and he still can't account for INFORMATION in his materialistic universe.
One who claims so much and offers so little. Nolobede acts like a TROLL and uses aggression and foul language to say "you can't cross this bridge". Yet his intimidation is powerless and his worldview intellectually bankrupt.
Typical neo-atheopath - attack the person and not the reasoning. When they can't answer, they bluff and bluster.
Speaking of spouting, you've peed yourself trying to make an argument without meat.
Try defining your question in a cognizant, grammatically correct English form, and maybe we'll think about making you look stupid again. You won't even have to do it for us.
@nolobede Actually, Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay at NIMS in Japan has experimentally verified that microtubules in the brain are "ballistic conductors", meaning they can conduct electrical signals at less than 1 ohm resistance. This was a prediction of Penrose/Hameroff that was not a prediction of standard interpretations of biophysics.
@cameronmichaelkeys Most notably, Dr. Hameroff's research, as director of the Anaesthesiology program at one of the world's best medical schools, is in the effects of anesthetic gas on the Van der Waal's London force inside the hydrophobic pockets of microtubule structures in the brain. Anesthetic gas erases consciousness, and it does this through disabling microtubule dynamics.
Yes, I am familiar with the work. Moreso my wife, since she has a doctorate in psychology & has attended some conferences in AZ regarding "consciousness science" She said the kind of work done to understand the biological/physical/chemical/cognizant processes have been going on for a very long time. Neural/chemical/electrical aspects of the work are not exciting or groundbreaking since still, much of the interpretations are philosophical.
Wiki, is not in my referencing list. Wiki is not peer reviewed and is avalilable for edit by joe blow. And yes, I am familiar with their work, and also Dr. Buttinksky here. My point is that it still goes no further than philosphy, and like everything else, I'll wait for the peer reviewed documented facts before buying in.
Berlinsky only spouts drivel that some are impressed with, regardless, it is still drivel. Words makes a thesis, results make a converstation
@nolobede Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay is working on the experimental verfication of the main elements of Orch OR, namely that microtubules act as superconductors in the warm medium of the neural circuitry, allowing for quantum coherence. Anirban works at the National Institute of Materials Science in Japan. He has found that microtubules are "ballistic conductors", meaning they conduct signals at less than 1 ohm resistance. That's a major, reproducible find, not anticipated by neuroscientists.
Ok, again so what? I think we pretty much covered this. Are you suggesting anything with it? I'd be interested in hearing if you are tying this in somehow with creationist pov. If not, and U R appreciating the science behind it, ok. But still irrelevant to the creation discussion. Berlinski is paid by Discovery institute to discredit evolution theory, wholly unsuccessfully because everything that comes out of Berlinkski's mouth, is just more baseless articulate drivel..
@nolobede In 1879 JC Maxwell published a theoretical model, electromagnetism, that many thought could not be experimentally verified. Top scientists felt the theory was mystical. He was right. Hameroff and Penrose are suggesting that organisms have evolved ways of directly interacting with Planck scale geometry. If you take evolution seriously, the capacity for quantum computation in the brain is a massive evolutionary advance. There's now some evidence for entanglement in biology.
@nolobede Google should upload the Oct. 22, 2010 quantum biology conference lectures shortly. Hameroff's site keeps up-to-date on peer-reviewed quantum biology papers also. Good science often begins with a hypothesis that seems outlandish. Penrose's E=h/t equations are considered one of the major contenders for quantum gravity theory. I applaud your demand for evidence. You say you'll keep it in mind -- please do!
Wiki, is not in my referencing list. Wiki is not peer reviewed and is avalilable for edit by joe blow. And yes, I am familiar with their work, and also Dr. Buttinksky here. My point is that it still goes no further than philosphy, and like everything else, I'll wait for the peer reviewed documented facts before buying in.
Berlinsky only spouts drivel that some are impressed with, regardless it is still drivel. Words makes a thesis, results make a converstation
It's funny - those atheopaths below that froth at the mouth about intelligence CANNOT give an account for:
INFORMATION
LAWS of LOGIC
MORAL LAW
from their worldview. Kinda suggests it's bankrupt!
I'm still waiting for them to answer the questions but none seem to be able to offer anything other than handwaving, grandstanding, elephant hurling or Ad hominem attacks.
Nothing REASONable from the Disciples of Darwin on that front yet - still waiting...
@nolobede - "They're irrelevant" oh, is that right? So, DNA and Information it contains is irrelevant too then, by your standards!
I knew you were misinformed but that comment really shows the stark reality of how brainwashed you have become. I would have thought such a self-proclaimed authority such as yourself would know that!
So, as Information theory shows that Information can always be traced back to an intelligent source, the burden of prood lays with you and you hocus pocus ideas...
Otherwise you don't interest me. You need something new.... and you havent the intellect to come up with anything you havent read off from some creationist website. Fuck your myths.Dembski has been debunked a thousand times. Come up with something new or jack off.
@nolobede - Having a temper tantrum isn't going to help your cause.
It doesn't detract from the FACT that YOUR worldview is SELF REFUTING and from which it's IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION or the LAWS of LOGIC.
Most reasonable people would reconsider their position if they were shown how illogical and self-refuting it is. But going by your ranting, you are clearly not very REASONable.
@nolobede - Yes, good arguments(not)... I could just as well say "you havent the intellect to come up with anything you havent read off from some" raving, evolutionism website.
Btw, that's not where I got it from. Information Theory is open to all - apart from the close minded that you appear to be... but I have suggested you do some more research before you blunder some more into the gaping wide holes in your worldview.
Do you have a job or something... Do you sit at a computer for days on end with nothing productive to do with your life?
Go the fuck away.
Its nothing more than;
150 years of trying to discredit the fact of evolution. No one, anywhere at any time has been able to so. Its proven beyond doubt. Fact... evolution has/does/will happen in spite of your complete ignorance of the process.
It proves there is no need for a god to explain the diversity or origin of life
@nolobede Kant responded to Hume, who said arguments for God's existence were merely arguments by analogy, which aren't demonstrative proofs, by saying all man can do is claim it is "actually possible" God exists. If it were "actually possible", this would ground a rational faith, but still not prove conclusive. There are thus two camps: those who believe God is actually possible, and those who think God is impossible. Neither camp uses demonstrative reasoning.
I tthink you are limiting to 2 camps when there are more than a dichotomy of "god or no god."
I pitch my tent in the "nothing can be discounted fully, however absolutely no reason whatsoever to speculate that a god exists" Its not a matter of possible or not. It is a matter of how exponentially unlikely it is.
Finding truth, is a worthy effort. But if proving/disproving god is at all in the equation, of intent, then IMO the effort becomes non-credible.
@nolobede The argument from analogy is getting more interesting these days. Michio Kaku is pointing out humans will be able to create baby universes in a laboratory in the next 100 years or so. And the probability for intelligent life elsewhere is astronomically high, whether or not we find it. A civilization one million years more advanced than us would seem like God. And they might actually exist.
"A civilization one million years more advanced than us would seem like God"
...and to a civilization a hundred years less advanced than us we might seem like gods.Yet it doesn't make us such, and certainly neither bolsters any notion that one exists.
And lets remember that the "god is impossible" camp, has neither the charge nor the obligation to provide any demonstrative reasoning. This is just the same as always "burden of proof" discussion.
Which brings me back to why I can't stand this man Berlinsky, pure snake-oil, ambulance chasing lawyer type. Good at twisting empty dialogue to make it sound like it may have viability, yet never really does.
@nolobedeKevin Kelly the tech guy said "God" functions as a technological device for mankind, questions of truth aside.The question for me is "what is true, what is false?"Berlinski points out the mechanisms of evolution are poorly understood, so as to threaten the theoretical structure.Read Stephen Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.There may be some things about human evolution that are so remarkable,it seems like we've been created by cosmic intelligence.(We have, in a sense)
The mechanisms of gravity are far less understood than the mechanisms of evolution. Yet that theory isn't questioned like evolution is.
Evolution theory is as strong as Gravity or electromagnetic theory, but Evolution theory, is the one that deems god as uneccessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Its always been a creationists target, futile as the efforts are.
Berlinski is no threat to Evo theory except for those that do not understand it in the first place
@nolobede Good points, Nolobede. Now, consider the question posed by Sir Robert May: What portion of the available design space has evolution explored? The latest work in synthetic biology by Dr. Jason Chin is mind-blowing stuff -Artificial ribosomes, synthetic amino acids, and the feasibility of adding a third strand to DNA through genetic modifications of the food chain.The religious mind cannot presently integrate these advances, but neither can the majority of secular society.
"What portion of the available design space has evolution explored?"
- "Design" space?... none since none has been determined as "designed."
And "synthetic biology" is no more mind-blowing than using chemistry for the making of synthetic chemicals. it taking the science we already know, and doing something with it that we haven't found in nature.It's neither amazing, nor does it validate directed "design" in any way. Its interesting usage of known science.But again, so?
@nolobede design space is a popular engineering term, used often to discuss the dynamics of evolution by good scientists. easy, Nolobede! the quantum biology workshop at Google Oct.22 2010 is being uploaded now. youtube.com/watch?v=pSe8mBWeeYM I ain't got an agenda, just want to appreciate what nature is doing. quantum mechanisms in biology are amazing!
Yes... I am familiar with the term. I AM an Engineer, and obviously a skeptical one. That makes me good at what I do too. I won't disagree that anything in scientific exploration or advancement is interesting. But as one who has been educated and worked in the sciences since my first job, skepticism is what I do.
Everything in biology is amazing and exactly why nature is so much more astounding to experience rather than just explaining it away to a myth.
haha... no, we are realists and we know talking to you is like shitting into the wind. There's nothing more to say to you because you're just too stupid, seriously, that's not just a crude comment or a random ad-hominem, you really are just too damn stupid.
@nolobede - How can you be a realist when you have a self-refuting worldview?!
In fact, you believe in something despite the evidence to the contrary. To continue believing in something which has been debunked is BLIND faith and just wishful thinking.
But anyway, as a determinist, you actually only ending up arguing with yourself - because you can't help what you or others think. So why argue? Oh, yeah - yuo can't help it etc etc
Sadly, by your own philosophy, you cannot be a free thinker...
"lots of intelligent input by the atheopath nolobede"
Yeah, we're done... you could throw the worlds intellect at a mule and it will stay as stubborn and stupid as the day before. You won't get it, you can't... a complete waste of time and gray matter.
@nolobede - Don't be too hard on yourself. You shouldn't refer to yourself as a mule... unless of course you are referring to your common ancestor which eventually became a mule and you became a human.
But why go? I'm still waiting for you to give an intelligent account for the list above.
Still can't huh? SHould give you a clue really, eh? Kind of a wake up and smell the coffee... before it's too late, sorta thing...
To believe that the finer analytical faculties of mankind,such as those exhibited by Einstein and Newton and Hawking,which have allowed us to explore the inner workings of the universe in such phenomenal depth and detail.To believe that those faculties evolved for the purpose of primitive survival (the ability to survive being the singular driving factor of evolution)-that is to place your faith in the absurd.
fashklash 8 months ago
I really wish some of you people would graduate from uni with a degree in hard science before you attempt to answer a scientific matter. All you can do until then is rephrase something that scientists have already said.
For those of yu who believe in these wacky alien IDEAS (they don't have evidence yet to even be labled as a hypothesis or theory), I doubt you could even get a science degree, but I do suggest you spend more time looking in the opposite side of your belief to find your evidence
confettibrains 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@confettibrains
and what "degrees" do you have?
Oh thats right.....NONE
Poof, be gone boy
buffboynick 8 months ago
@buffboynick You don't have a degree either, although you claim to have one.
lethalsub 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@confettibrains
There are 3 theories on the origins of life....
1. Creationism
2. Evolution
3. Ancient Astronaut Theory and Panspermia
Lets see which out of the 3 has actual FACTS to support it and is MATHEMATICALLY PERFECT in relation to the INFINITE size of this universe.....
Yes, number 3. Wake up and grow a brain "ape-man believer" haha
buffboynick 8 months ago 11
@confettibrains I wrote that so if there's any sentiment that I'm rephrasing it, think again. Materialism is an orthodoxy to which all the parameters of epistemology must unjustifiably yield.That is the essential message of free-thinkers like Berlinski,and if you don't like it,at least produce a decent argument against it.Even Einstein never conceded to the idea of an atheistic universe, although he had a personal aversion for the idea of a personal God.But Dawkins has gone FURTHER than Einstein
fashklash 8 months ago
@fashklash well said!
PLeighG 4 months ago
@Tripockets Too much to stomach? I like how you try to reverse the situation. You need answers because YOU can't stomach not knowing. Believing in fairy tales makes it easier for you. You have simplified the universe and the unknown to make you feel at ease. Where did we come from, oh this dude made us out of dirt. What is the meaning of life, oh to do what this book says and serve the one who made us. Where do we go when we die, oh back to this magical land where the dirt sorcerer lives. LOL
Indigo656 8 months ago
@Tripockets Oh come off it! Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life, or, greater still, the origin of the cosmos! It merely states that species change over time! That's it! Those are different theories! You don't group Newton's laws in with quantum physics, because they're completely different! But seriously, propose better theories than "magic father figure did it" and I will listen!
IceCreamRueckert 10 months ago
@steve0281 Well wikipedia seems to say Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Dave here did postdoctoral work in molecular biology. Again, I don't doubt his nor your intelligence, but what is the alternate to the theory of evolution? Aliens? God? Please elaborate since Dave refuses to make any statement on the origin of life.
IceCreamRueckert 10 months ago
@steve0281 I'm sure he does. But I'm also sure Richard Dawkins knows more than he. I don't claim to be an expert, but his reference to the Australian wolf is bogus. Different species can develop practical, similar systems, organs, etc. independently of each other. That's called convergent evolution. (like converging on a good idea) I don't like him because he is lukewarm with any sort of alternate to the theory. The best way to debunk a theory is to put up a better one, he doesn't even really
IceCreamRueckert 10 months ago
@IceCreamRueckert Not. Dawkins is a zoologist, not a biologist. And the rest of what you cite has not been demonstrated. It remains a theory.
steve0281 10 months ago
he doesn't even really back up anything. (search for the debate video from the 90's about intelligent design)
IceCreamRueckert 10 months ago
@ steve0281 I'm sure he does. But I'm also sure Richard Dawkins knows more than he. I don't claim to be an expert, but his reference to the Australian wolf is bogus. Different species can develop practical, similar systems, organs, etc. independently of each other. That's called convergent evolution. (like converging on a good idea) I don't like him because he is lukewarm with any sort of alternate to the theory. The best way to debunk a theory is to put up a better one, he doesn't even really
IceCreamRueckert 10 months ago
Did this guy ever even take a biology class? Convergence and divergence. C'mon!
IceCreamRueckert 11 months ago
@IceCreamRueckert Dr. Berlinski has done postdoctoral work in molecular biology. Considering that, it might be that he knows a bit more on the subject than you or I.
steve0281 10 months ago
@steve0281 Dr. Berlinski is also a fellow of the faculty in mathematics, which makes the fundamental mathematical flaws in his book, A Tour of the Calculus, head-scratching and disenchanting. There is probably a very good reason why, according to his own boasts, that he has been fired from nearly every job he's had.
9Speed 10 months ago
@9Speed It comes with being an iconoclast, I imagine.
steve0281 10 months ago
DNA answers the common ancester question whether or not homological evidence can tell us!!!
onechess 11 months ago
This happens every time a math teacher talks about biology.
"We just don't know'' Who is ''WE'', Mr. Butinski is not a scientist.
gregrutz 11 months ago
What he says is valid. But nowadays, if we can perform a genetic comparison between species, we do. Otherwise, we fall back to morphological sorting. I think almost every living species has been subject to genetic comparison, as evidence for which species are descended from which others.
We are advancing beyond the ambiguities in reasoning which he is pointing out.
pjnlsn 11 months ago
''The fin of a fish is like that of a man'' What a retard. The flipper of a whale has the same bones as a mans.
He doesn't know the difference between a fish and a mammal.
Next he will tell us a whale came form a cow, another screw-up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Next he will tell us a whale came form a cow, another screw-up." LOL This is one of the first times i remember agreeing with anything you have made comments on.
smoothpeople33 11 months ago
Columbia U. was started by the Church of England. Philosophy and math?!? no wonder he does not understand biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Muscle for muscle, bone for bone we are the same as a chimp, and it means nothing to Mr. Butinski. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz LOL..we are nothing like chimps..look at one moron..DNA proves life is similar but always different..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Muscle for muscle, bone for bone, we are the same as chimps. We share 98.6% the same DNA.
.
CHIMPS ARE CLOSER TO HUMANS THAN THEY ARE TO GORILLAS. THINK ABOUT THAT.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz How can I say this fore sure..put everything you need in a test tube to make a cell..Never ever will it self assemble even under amazing conditions in the moist advanced laboratories in the world..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Chirality is not made in at test tube because only living things make left handed molecules because they use catylists make of proteins. Just because you have never studied biochemistry and don't understand does mean it doesn't happen. Get an education.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You get an education moron..thats not science what you just stated..Homochirality has never happened in a test tube..it cant be repeated or tested..so dont say it just happened..thats not science you Dummy!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv 100% you are fucking corrent, Homochirality does not happen in a test tube. SO WHAT DIP SHIT. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT CHILALITY IS.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Right and LEFT handed amino acids separated to form proteins, and DNA, RNA ...this process never happens by chance ever MORON!!!!!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv ''Right and LEFT handed amino acids separated to form proteins'' WHAT?!?
Proteins are a long chain of amino acids, dummy. Read a biology book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You are going against a well established law of .Biogenesis Moron!!.louis pasteur..proved it wrong in the time of Darwin..stanley miller proved it impossible because of Homochirality.and with Toxic tar and unusable amino acids .and all we are doing today is copying information like what Venter did..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
yes but we are strfuctured differnetly, a dead tree has all the same componets of a live one, yet they are totaly differnt
zenithar6666 1 year ago
@zenithar6666 Maybe the tree lost it's soul !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You are the dumbest most stubborn person on you tube ever!!..and you have no clue what chirality is..they have never separated amino acds .out side of the Human body in any natural process..you dumb fuck..this is what stopped Miller from making a cell...MORON..you need to read a chemistry book..not propaganda lies!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv You are the dumbest most stubborn person on you tube ever!!..and you have no clue what a protein is, or what an amino acid is. Proteins are a long chain of amino acids. You have amino acids on your finget tips, no need to 'separate' them.
Miller was not trying to make life, He was trying to make amino acids out of simple molecules,
WHICH HE DID ! I have a Degree in Chemistry and studied Biochemistry. Way can't you read a science book?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz RNA research..lol copying information using activated subunits at just the right temperatures ..which would never be found on a there so called primordial earth...If the really want t o simulate the correct experiment .they need conduct one like what Stanley miller did, and get around the major problem of Chirality..its IMPOSSIBLE to separate amino acids you MORON!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv Life makes left handed molecules, it does not have to seperate them, it only produces one kind. Making them in a test tube makes 50-50 left and right. Females take birth control pills just take twice as much and their bodies only use the left ones. No need to seperate them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You have no degree in chemistry or biochemistry,you would know that separating amino acids is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv so what? why do you want to seperate them?
gregrutz 1 year ago
One could logically argue if appearance proves common descent, then, Mr. Berlinski evolved from the Fonz! If you look closely at the eyes, mouth, and bone structure; as well as the striking similarities in mannerisms: Then he had to evolve from Fonzie! The debate is over, the evidence has been examined, and the facts is staring you right in the face: If you disagree, you just don't understand real science: Mr. Berlinski and the Fonz must be at least 1st cousins.
Krydan2167 1 year ago
@nolobede the TROLL - Why should you care anyway? You have no absolute moral law to appeal to, so any opinions according to your worldview are just the result of electrons in the brain.
You're a determinist, so you can't help thinking or saying what you do, according to your bankrupt theories, anyway.
But the truth is, you've sinned (just as I have) and you are utlimately accountable to God and you are bitter and twisted about that fact and seek to escape by pretending God doesn't exist.
heloWelo 1 year ago
The list of quotes can go on and on. Hitler may have tried to use his "catholocism" to political ends but he was disowned by a number of Catholics:
"Rabbi Dalin also notes that prominent Catholics who were honored for their efforts on behalf of the Jews have pointed to Pope Pius XII as the inspiration behind their actions. The future Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, while still Cardinals Roncalli and Montini, respectively, received high praise for their efforts to shelter and rescue Jews.
heloWelo 1 year ago
Indeed, the Nuremberg prosecutor, General William Donovan, documented copious proof that the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity. The documents are now being posted online at the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. Indeed, the Nazis wiped out 3 million Polish Christians (see Poland’s Holocaust: 6 million citizens dead: (3 million Christians and 3 million Jews).
heloWelo 1 year ago
The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris [atheist propagandist] cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a “culmination” of Christianity.
heloWelo 1 year ago
The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as “troublemakers” were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance.
heloWelo 1 year ago
In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that “the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in.” Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler’s government became increasingly anti-religious.
heloWelo 1 year ago
One 1937 Nazi film, Victims of the Past, showed a retarded person accompanied by the narration: ‘In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply. The descendants of these sick people look like this!’
heloWelo 1 year ago
One 1937 Nazi film, Victims of the Past, showed a retarded person accompanied by the narration: ‘In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply. The descendants of these sick people look like this!’
heloWelo 1 year ago
British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith (1866–1955) wrote: ‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for a national policy. … The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’17
heloWelo 1 year ago
The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) wrote: ‘Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.’16
heloWelo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More "intelligent" comments from the nolobede TROLL. I think his vocabulary is limited to vulgarity. His own comments proving that they were not consistent with Christ's own teaching - however he tried to twist them.
Poor, immature, little nolobede. Still struggling with a sense of worth and significance - never able to see the truth staring him in the face.
heloWelo 1 year ago
More "intelligent" comments from the nolobede TROLL. I think his vocabulary is limited to vulgarity. His own comments proving that they were not consistent with Christ's own teaching - however he tried to twist them.
Poor, immature, little nolobede. Still struggling with a sense of worth and significance - never able to see the truth staring him in the face.
heloWelo 1 year ago
Hitler not motivated by religion?... THE FUCK HE WASN'T !!!
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922
nolobede 1 year ago
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
-Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922
nolobede 1 year ago
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
Adolf Hitler, 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
nolobede 1 year ago
"In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11
nolobede 1 year ago
Comment removed
nolobede 1 year ago
The TROLLS have no answers and yet again try to fling mud when in fact the ATHEIST dictators of the 20th Century are responsible for more attrocities than all the ATHEIST dictators before them.
Lets take a look: Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin - responsible for 100's of millions of murders. What a disgrace and the nolobede TROLL wants to defend them. How horrific.
No doubt nolobede is also a history denier too. nolobede, your empty philosophy and cowardice cannot be hidden by mudslinging!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Hitler was devote catholic.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - That has been totally refuted by many Authors, notably Richard Weikart as well as quotes from Hitlers own writings and those of his close associates.
You also make a moot point - the others still represent many millions alone!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo I think your original point was moot. So I just wanted to correct you. Go ahead, argue all you want but It's widely known. Nazi's wore "God with us" on their belts.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - As the real history shows, your comments are make believe - not correction.
History deniers will always try to come up with something to disassociate themselves from Hitler and the like. Especially given the clear association with Nietzsche and Darwin - Hitler just took their philosphies to their natural conclusions.
No-one in their right mind could conclude that the teachings of Christ are consistent with Hitlers actions. That's just pure denial and buring heads in the sand.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Make believe? As far as I know it is true. Sure, it could be wrong but why do all of the sources say it's true. Even in his book he talks about his christian God. Anyway the real "issue" you are trying to point out is that atheism makes people evil, this is false. Pope Gregory was a mass murderer too. So we're all the pople that made Christianity popular by conquering lands and converting people for control reasons, obviously not moral reasons.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - "As far as you know" - exactly. You've obviously fallen prey to atheistic propaganda. The subject is controversial because it doesn't suit your position. And you still haven't dealt with the hundreds of millions killed by the others. So, your smoke screen is not working. It's just fluff.
Clearly, atheism/darwinianism and the ntural outworking is FAR more murderous, by orders of magnitude, than even those trying to twist the teachings of Christ - as you do.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Now the real problem is not your religion. It's your psychological health. I know plenty of atheists that are perfectly normal, good people. They all have morals, they treat others the way they want to be treated, they don't try and convert christians to atheism. You obviously know nothing of human psychology or history before the 20th century if you thing atheism is the cause of "Hitler" and Stalin and Nero, it was something much more disturbing than that.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - Well, if you share the nolobede TROLL's worldview, you are a self-proclaimed denier of reality and purposefully live with a self defeating worldview.
In fact, I'm quite aware of History in previous millenia and the link between, Darwin, Nietzche and Hitler is very well established. Perhaps you are a Holocaust denier too. All of your heros, who also showed signs of great mental illness.
The real psychological problems are for those like yourself who want to change real history.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo That's so ironic. And holocaust denier?.. Okay pal, have fun.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@heloWelo So even if I was slightly misinformed, which I don't believe I am because I don't trust your word, you would call me a history denier off of that simple mistake? You're a fool. Your overzealous denfensiveness reveals the shakey foundation of what you say. It's only because that's what you want to believe, nothing more. Btw, do you believe everything you are told about history? Try checking multiple sources that wouldn't have any biased towards you thinking the wrong thing. Offical ones
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - You are more than "slightly misinformed" , you are grossly misinformed. If you parade as one who "knows" what they're talking about and twist facts to suit your feelings, then don't be surprised when real historical facts destroy your just so stories.
What you perceive as my "defensiveness" is twisted also. In fact, there's nothing wrong with defending a position - as you attempt to do but I do so with facts, you do so with your own made up distortions.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo It's an evident fact that the Nazis wore Gott Mit Uns, or "God With Us" on their belts, I don't see how you can say this is make believe. Google image it. Btw, if you look at the old testament, that's not a God I would believe in, more of an evil construction in minds of people wanting to controls masses of other people. I never said that Hitler was like Jesus, Hitler has some serious psychological problems, and a lot of charisma. Natural Selection has nothing to do with killing jews..
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - I used multiple sources, which were "official". Unless you describe sources from the Nuremburg trial as unofficial!
I get the feeling that you are just trotting out militant atheist diatribe without any real consideration of what you're saying. Clearly, you haven't studied from multiple sources.
Hitler refers to himself as a god. The Nazis gave thanks to Hitler for their salvation - not God. Therefore to wear "God with Us" on their belts was further praise to Hitler.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Noone is going to buy that, sorry. Even if I did agree with you, I would still find you disgustingly pathetic. You've been doing this for how long?...
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - You asked for official quotes, you got them. Then you deny that no-one will buy it. So, once again - MORE history denial by you.
Seems to me you'd accept anything, even by Mickey Mouse, as long as it agreed with your prejudice. I find that pitiful... truly. You must be very closed minded.
The mountains of evidence all show how Hitler planned to try to destroy Christianity as well as the Jews.
Your shallow outlook leaves you intellectually and factually stranded.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo Half of this arguement is in your head. I never said any of that had to do with his religion at all. Infact, I think that was my point. I'm more than confident that I'm much better off intellectually than you are. I don't make connections where there are none like you tend to do. The entire core of your arguement is irrelevant, I don't need your "official quotes" to know that.
Shenanigasm 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - Your problem is that you don't know the ins and outs of your arguments well enough. They are philosophically bankrupt. In other words, you don't understand your own position.
I make the connections because I understand the roots of your arguments. You just don't see it yet. Even what you think you know, you are inconsistent with.
The cores of my arguments are systemically reliable, whereas your jumbled claims are not. You asked for quotes and then deny them. Make up your mind!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@Shenanigasm - The Bible has spoken of false gods for millenia. Hitler's claims were not new.
Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruit". Clearly, even to a pre-schooler, Hitler wasn't showing "good fruit". By killing Jews and Christians and the helpless, you must be deluded to think it squares away with any true form of Christianity.
You have your hands over your ears and refuse to believe reason - the very reason Jesus would say "he who has ears to hear, let him hear". You refuse to.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Defend Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin...? Really? and now you add mre lies? Can you show me where I said that?... Didn't think so.
But lets add them all up...and why not throw in Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein for good measure... They ALL pale, compared to your murderous genocidal prick of a god. Your god murdered an entire planet full of innocents. Expects you to stone your own children, and kill everyone in an entire city if just one resident commits apostacy
nolobede 1 year ago
Comment removed
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo
THAT would be just a start... Shall we count the millions killed and those unknown numbers of violently murdered victims all slain in the name of your religion?
You can't count that high.
There is no comparison to the violence and murder posed by your god. Your religion has been the bane of mankind since it was plaguerized from the pagan religions before it. Your whole religion is a stolen myth.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
nolobede 1 year ago
Look how the TROLLS react - just filth and depravity, resorting to ad hominem attacks and bluff and bluster. Always the same - nothing of substance - just grandstanding and handwaving.
The TROLLS' claim that their case is so strong but have no answers even for the simple stuff. All they need to do is account for INFORMATION and LOGIC and yet despite weeks of searching the Net, they still don't have any answers.
Follow the evidence where it leads - atheism is a dead religion!!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"atheism is a dead religion!!"
Yet the numbers of Atheists grow... soaring, check the stats. While christianity dwindles in its own child molesting fodder, more people are becoming enlightened at every moment.
Your religion is like a ball and chain shackled to the ankles of humanity.
And in the not too distant future, we will cut off that ball and chain and leave you behind to rust.
Its happening today. It is a freight train staring you in the face. Better get off the track.
nolobede 1 year ago
Oh look - the other TROLL is back, also with nothing to say... as usual!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Sigh... always the same old shit.
Some fucktard uneducated creationist spewing the same shit and trying to pose information theory without making a thesis statement when a premis must be stated first.... but he knows we'll turn that shit right back at him. Yeah dumbass, you know I'll point it right back at you...
Wrong asshole, YOU wont don't give us your thesis, cause you KNOW you CANT tie a creator to logic or intelligence.
Third grade fail !
nolobede 1 year ago
This shit happens every time a philosopher / math teacher tries to understand Biology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
nolobede TOLL - wash your mouth out. You just appear silly now. You're obviously a TROLL without teeth and very little content.
If you can't answer the questions about INFORMATION and LOGIC - I don't think you'll manage a thesis.
I get the impression you like living in denial. Keep wearing those blinkers if it comforts you to deny reality. Bury your head in the sand, just to make sure.
Now, answer the simple questions and then we can move on...
heloWelo 1 year ago
Comment removed
nolobede 1 year ago
nolobede TROLL - still empty claims from you but NO specifics.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC from your worldview. As your conjectures require INFORMATION, you must have a FAULTY worldview - at best you are extremely confused.
You are a silly boy. Making such blanket statements does show your lack of cogent argument.
You need to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC from your worldview to gain some credibility otherwise, you remain a rabid evo fundamentalist.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Thesis fucktard.... give it to us or go away.
nolobede 1 year ago
nolobede - TROLL - stop foaming at the mouth when anyone questions you.
Being a rabid atheopath is obviously not helping you with your mental health. Calm down and look at the evidence.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC from your worldview, so it MUST be wrong. Or do you deny INFORMATION and LOGIC exist?
Perhaps you'd like to bury your head in the sand about those too.
The onus of proof it on you btw...
heloWelo 1 year ago
ALL of the evidence for Evolution, the ENTIRE COMPILATION of knowledge, proof and evidence gathered throughout the history of science, and ALL the scientists, academics and institutions of the world, would be stopped dead in their tracks.... by ONE single solitary piece of viable evidence... JUST ONE!
Yet, creationists toil in the practice of philosophising conjecture to fit their own baseless worldview. Too bad poppi... you come up short as has ALWAYS been done by those much smarter than you
nolobede 1 year ago
nolobede TROLL - you certainly seem to amuse yourself... have you been drinking too much again.
Your reading comprehension is obviously a struggle for you.
You've twisted what I said. Do pay attention. Your WORLDVIEW is PROVEN to be WRONG because it is IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION and LOGIC.
If you can't do that, your worldview is finished. Oh dear. Poor you.
Now come in from the playground, wash your mouth out with soap and water and try to be adult about things.
heloWelo 1 year ago
nolobede - TROLL - sadly, oh blinkered one, it is you and your faulty worldview which wants to "shortcut the process".
When you can't even account for LOGIC or INFORMATION in your worldview and claim fanciful fairytales (evolution) as facts, despite a worldview PROVEN to be false, one wonders again about your mental processes.
Once again you are deliberately denying the evidence before your eyes. Rather than more of your boorish rant - how about accounting for INFORMATION & LOGIC.
Yawn...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"worldview PROVEN to be false"
HAhahahahahahahahahah... OMG you ARE the most deluded fuck on YT.
You've proven Evolution wrong? Really?!!! WOW, when are you getting your Nobel? Wonder why its not on the news...
A most Ignorant fool. Your squirming like the rest of them is entertaining.
Seriously, its this easy... Creationism... Just ONE verifiable shred of evidence... is ALL you have to come up with.
Same ol same ol....................
nolobede 1 year ago
"... rock solid fact" for which you give no evidence - just foul language! You reveal your lack of credibility yet further.
You have yet to account for INFORMATION and logic in your worldview, yet you try to deride one that accounts for theirs by LOGIC and deduction.
Oh, wait - you can't account for LOGIC either. Hmmm... not a very strong argument. No wonder you just try to use HATE SPEECH - more of your TROLL tactics.
Come on, grow up, reel your neck in and engage in real debate!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"... rock solid fact" for which you give no evidence - just foul language!"
-Evidence?... denailism stagnates your ignornace... Evidence is mountainous... creationism though, still not a s-t-i-t-c-h.
"You have yet to account for INFORMATION and logic in your worldview"
-So you're having that comprehenion issue again? Evolution Theory explains it perfectly, try reading.
nolobede 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"No wonder you just try to use HATE SPEECH "
-Hate speech?... you mean writing the word "Fuck"?... the most versatile word in the English language?... get over it and grow up., do you think you'll go to hell? Oppressed much?... oh yes, I almost forgot that whole christian oppression thing you've got going.
"reel your neck in and engage in real debate!"
-If there were a debateable topic maybe... got one ?
nolobede 1 year ago
There is a term for people like you...
"Cdesign Proponentsists"
nolobede 1 year ago
That Evolution has/does/will happen?... is irrefutable, stone-cold, rock-solid FACT.
Its proven, testable, repeatable, observed and documented beyond doubt by anyone with a rational ability to reason.
Its an inescapable absolute.
And only those who so desperately grasp at any possible thread of hope to validate a myth, denyit at all cost, includinfg intellectual honesty.
No one can fool the fool better than the fool
State a thesis... ok so? Backing it up?... different story
Nice try.
nolobede 1 year ago
... sure, like you had an answer last time... (right!)
You've now had 2 weeks to do your homework, so you better come up with something other than hot air and empty statements like that last one!
If it's "so old and tired" it should be easy for you to rebut... oh, you still can't... better wait for you to go some more catch up, then!
Information: namely an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.
heloWelo 1 year ago 2
@heloWelo
Excellent. Looks like you may have gotten through the sixth grade! So now all you have to do is go by your definition and prove there is intent "intended purpose" in biological systems. Sorry, but evolution explains every argument... yours is not new. Creationists have been trtying for 150 years.
If you have nothing new, you bore me.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede - your understanding verges on stupidity. And that is not intended as an insult. Merely a statement of fact!
You clearly have NO understanding of biological systems if you ask such inane questions. Seriously - get educated in the subject and then have a grown up conversation.
You disappoint me - I thought you'd do better than that. Sadly, you follow the empty huffing and puffing of other stereotypical atheopaths, unable to engage in anything other than empty claims!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Its really ironic, that someone who claims to have scientifically valid answers, yet wants to shortcut the process of science.
You want to play the game, you have to play by the fucking rules.YOUR assertion, then YOU need to explain before asking others to explain something u have yet to define/prove. You play the bait game, & I don't go for bait.You want to assert biological systems are designed by intelligent means, then fucking prove it FIRST otherwise, its just creatard vomit.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede
See, people wth ACTUAL educations know better than to follow bait they've read from some Discovery Institute creatard dot org website. We scrutinize our sources, and THAT's what I'm doing to you... you can't stand it when someone smarter than you doesn't let you fling chum. See in science when you make an assertion, you need to back it up before bringing it into the academic venue for review. No shortcuts.
Sorry poppi, we don't waste time trying to disprove pink unicorns.
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo
"You clearly have NO understanding of biological systems if you ask such inane questions"
-Which then must say quite a bit of those that cannot answer the inane.
We don't have the claims remember?... you do, we'd just like you to pose a sngle shred of validity, just once, so we'd have something stimulatng to discuss. How about something new... anything? please, we crave it. Evidence for creationism stills sits at 0, zilch, nada, keep trying though, we wouldn't want to get bored.
nolobede 1 year ago
...'cause if you want to start that information theory argument again, you'll need to come up with something new, because its old and tired.
But first, you'll have to define "information."
nolobede 1 year ago
Once again - oh nolobede TROLL. I'm not sure which bit you don't understand but lets try it once more again for you... s l o w l y...
How do you account for INFORMATION in your materialist worldview?
How do you account for the LAWS of Logic?
You CANNOT because your worldview is faulty and therefore it would be foolish to trust it.
If it's "without meat" - go ahead and address the issue rather than your typical grandstanding and handwaving.
Not holding my breath...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Here... I'll put it in two words, so not only is it s-l-o-w, but simplistic as can be.
Define "information."
nolobede 1 year ago
Comment removed
nolobede 1 year ago
Lots of spouting by the nolobede TROLL and he still can't account for INFORMATION in his materialistic universe.
One who claims so much and offers so little. Nolobede acts like a TROLL and uses aggression and foul language to say "you can't cross this bridge". Yet his intimidation is powerless and his worldview intellectually bankrupt.
Typical neo-atheopath - attack the person and not the reasoning. When they can't answer, they bluff and bluster.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Speaking of spouting, you've peed yourself trying to make an argument without meat.
Try defining your question in a cognizant, grammatically correct English form, and maybe we'll think about making you look stupid again. You won't even have to do it for us.
nolobede 1 year ago
Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose are working with some powerful concepts, y'all should check it. Orchestrated Objective Reduction.
i'm just sayin...
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Conscience theory...
"There is no existing evidence for Penrose's objective reduction" - wiki
However I'll "keep it in mind."
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Actually, Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay at NIMS in Japan has experimentally verified that microtubules in the brain are "ballistic conductors", meaning they can conduct electrical signals at less than 1 ohm resistance. This was a prediction of Penrose/Hameroff that was not a prediction of standard interpretations of biophysics.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
Comment removed
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys Most notably, Dr. Hameroff's research, as director of the Anaesthesiology program at one of the world's best medical schools, is in the effects of anesthetic gas on the Van der Waal's London force inside the hydrophobic pockets of microtubule structures in the brain. Anesthetic gas erases consciousness, and it does this through disabling microtubule dynamics.
At this point, I wonder if you're hearing me.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Hearing you?... meaning?
Yes, I am familiar with the work. Moreso my wife, since she has a doctorate in psychology & has attended some conferences in AZ regarding "consciousness science" She said the kind of work done to understand the biological/physical/chemical/cognizant processes have been going on for a very long time. Neural/chemical/electrical aspects of the work are not exciting or groundbreaking since still, much of the interpretations are philosophical.
So what?
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede
And regarding theistic relevance? ...interpretive philosophy..
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede
Interesting... She's just more of a fan of proof than philosophy.
Philosophy helps us get to answers too, but interpretation should not pre-empt science.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede okay, you're right. thanks for playing.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Playing? Prize ?
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede The prize was accurate knowledge of the Orch OR theory, not just an inadequate wiki slogan. As of yet, you didn't get the prize.
But if you watch some lectures online of Dr. Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose discussing their work, you'd be back in the running.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Wiki, is not in my referencing list. Wiki is not peer reviewed and is avalilable for edit by joe blow. And yes, I am familiar with their work, and also Dr. Buttinksky here. My point is that it still goes no further than philosphy, and like everything else, I'll wait for the peer reviewed documented facts before buying in.
Berlinsky only spouts drivel that some are impressed with, regardless, it is still drivel. Words makes a thesis, results make a converstation
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay is working on the experimental verfication of the main elements of Orch OR, namely that microtubules act as superconductors in the warm medium of the neural circuitry, allowing for quantum coherence. Anirban works at the National Institute of Materials Science in Japan. He has found that microtubules are "ballistic conductors", meaning they conduct signals at less than 1 ohm resistance. That's a major, reproducible find, not anticipated by neuroscientists.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Ok, again so what? I think we pretty much covered this. Are you suggesting anything with it? I'd be interested in hearing if you are tying this in somehow with creationist pov. If not, and U R appreciating the science behind it, ok. But still irrelevant to the creation discussion. Berlinski is paid by Discovery institute to discredit evolution theory, wholly unsuccessfully because everything that comes out of Berlinkski's mouth, is just more baseless articulate drivel..
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede In 1879 JC Maxwell published a theoretical model, electromagnetism, that many thought could not be experimentally verified. Top scientists felt the theory was mystical. He was right. Hameroff and Penrose are suggesting that organisms have evolved ways of directly interacting with Planck scale geometry. If you take evolution seriously, the capacity for quantum computation in the brain is a massive evolutionary advance. There's now some evidence for entanglement in biology.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@nolobede Google should upload the Oct. 22, 2010 quantum biology conference lectures shortly. Hameroff's site keeps up-to-date on peer-reviewed quantum biology papers also. Good science often begins with a hypothesis that seems outlandish. Penrose's E=h/t equations are considered one of the major contenders for quantum gravity theory. I applaud your demand for evidence. You say you'll keep it in mind -- please do!
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Wiki, is not in my referencing list. Wiki is not peer reviewed and is avalilable for edit by joe blow. And yes, I am familiar with their work, and also Dr. Buttinksky here. My point is that it still goes no further than philosphy, and like everything else, I'll wait for the peer reviewed documented facts before buying in.
Berlinsky only spouts drivel that some are impressed with, regardless it is still drivel. Words makes a thesis, results make a converstation
nolobede 1 year ago
Comment removed
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
It's funny - those atheopaths below that froth at the mouth about intelligence CANNOT give an account for:
INFORMATION
LAWS of LOGIC
MORAL LAW
from their worldview. Kinda suggests it's bankrupt!
I'm still waiting for them to answer the questions but none seem to be able to offer anything other than handwaving, grandstanding, elephant hurling or Ad hominem attacks.
Nothing REASONable from the Disciples of Darwin on that front yet - still waiting...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Prove how they account for god.
They're irrelevant, it's just another irrelevant diversion. You're empty, it's always the same. JUST SHOW PROOF OF GOD.
What'd ya say?... oh yeah, still nothing. THAT is the argument, its over you've lost as always.
Were ALL still waiting for you to provide a shred of rational basis for your myth.
ANY !
Nothing... can you hear the silence?
Still an empty delusion.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede - "They're irrelevant" oh, is that right? So, DNA and Information it contains is irrelevant too then, by your standards!
I knew you were misinformed but that comment really shows the stark reality of how brainwashed you have become. I would have thought such a self-proclaimed authority such as yourself would know that!
So, as Information theory shows that Information can always be traced back to an intelligent source, the burden of prood lays with you and you hocus pocus ideas...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@nolobede - The SILENCE is emanating from you. You have been tried, tested and found wanting.
So, despite your handwaving and grand claims, all you can come up with to support your worldview is that "information is irrelevant".
I suppose you think Laws of Logic are "irrelevant" too!
What a disappointment - I thought you would at least try to cobble some cogent answer together - but alas, 't was a forlorn hope!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Prove god, disprove evolution, or fuck off.
Otherwise you don't interest me. You need something new.... and you havent the intellect to come up with anything you havent read off from some creationist website. Fuck your myths.Dembski has been debunked a thousand times. Come up with something new or jack off.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede - Having a temper tantrum isn't going to help your cause.
It doesn't detract from the FACT that YOUR worldview is SELF REFUTING and from which it's IMPOSSIBLE to account for INFORMATION or the LAWS of LOGIC.
Most reasonable people would reconsider their position if they were shown how illogical and self-refuting it is. But going by your ranting, you are clearly not very REASONable.
Btw, I like it here, I think I'll stay.
heloWelo 1 year ago
@nolobede - Yes, good arguments(not)... I could just as well say "you havent the intellect to come up with anything you havent read off from some" raving, evolutionism website.
Btw, that's not where I got it from. Information Theory is open to all - apart from the close minded that you appear to be... but I have suggested you do some more research before you blunder some more into the gaping wide holes in your worldview.
Don't tell me I didn't warn you...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Do you have a job or something... Do you sit at a computer for days on end with nothing productive to do with your life?
Go the fuck away.
Its nothing more than;
150 years of trying to discredit the fact of evolution. No one, anywhere at any time has been able to so. Its proven beyond doubt. Fact... evolution has/does/will happen in spite of your complete ignorance of the process.
It proves there is no need for a god to explain the diversity or origin of life
End of story
nolobede 1 year ago
...a myth, is a myth, is a myth.
Your god.... is just another of the same.
Too bad you cling so desperately to the myth, what a wasted pitiful life you must lead.
N
Myth... prove it otherwise or fuck off.... and we all know you'll never be able to....ever.
Sad fuck
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Kant responded to Hume, who said arguments for God's existence were merely arguments by analogy, which aren't demonstrative proofs, by saying all man can do is claim it is "actually possible" God exists. If it were "actually possible", this would ground a rational faith, but still not prove conclusive. There are thus two camps: those who believe God is actually possible, and those who think God is impossible. Neither camp uses demonstrative reasoning.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
I tthink you are limiting to 2 camps when there are more than a dichotomy of "god or no god."
I pitch my tent in the "nothing can be discounted fully, however absolutely no reason whatsoever to speculate that a god exists" Its not a matter of possible or not. It is a matter of how exponentially unlikely it is.
Finding truth, is a worthy effort. But if proving/disproving god is at all in the equation, of intent, then IMO the effort becomes non-credible.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede The argument from analogy is getting more interesting these days. Michio Kaku is pointing out humans will be able to create baby universes in a laboratory in the next 100 years or so. And the probability for intelligent life elsewhere is astronomically high, whether or not we find it. A civilization one million years more advanced than us would seem like God. And they might actually exist.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
"A civilization one million years more advanced than us would seem like God"
...and to a civilization a hundred years less advanced than us we might seem like gods.Yet it doesn't make us such, and certainly neither bolsters any notion that one exists.
nolobede 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
And lets remember that the "god is impossible" camp, has neither the charge nor the obligation to provide any demonstrative reasoning. This is just the same as always "burden of proof" discussion.
Which brings me back to why I can't stand this man Berlinsky, pure snake-oil, ambulance chasing lawyer type. Good at twisting empty dialogue to make it sound like it may have viability, yet never really does.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobedeKevin Kelly the tech guy said "God" functions as a technological device for mankind, questions of truth aside.The question for me is "what is true, what is false?"Berlinski points out the mechanisms of evolution are poorly understood, so as to threaten the theoretical structure.Read Stephen Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.There may be some things about human evolution that are so remarkable,it seems like we've been created by cosmic intelligence.(We have, in a sense)
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
The mechanisms of gravity are far less understood than the mechanisms of evolution. Yet that theory isn't questioned like evolution is.
Evolution theory is as strong as Gravity or electromagnetic theory, but Evolution theory, is the one that deems god as uneccessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Its always been a creationists target, futile as the efforts are.
Berlinski is no threat to Evo theory except for those that do not understand it in the first place
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede Good points, Nolobede. Now, consider the question posed by Sir Robert May: What portion of the available design space has evolution explored? The latest work in synthetic biology by Dr. Jason Chin is mind-blowing stuff -Artificial ribosomes, synthetic amino acids, and the feasibility of adding a third strand to DNA through genetic modifications of the food chain.The religious mind cannot presently integrate these advances, but neither can the majority of secular society.
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
"What portion of the available design space has evolution explored?"
- "Design" space?... none since none has been determined as "designed."
And "synthetic biology" is no more mind-blowing than using chemistry for the making of synthetic chemicals. it taking the science we already know, and doing something with it that we haven't found in nature.It's neither amazing, nor does it validate directed "design" in any way. Its interesting usage of known science.But again, so?
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede design space is a popular engineering term, used often to discuss the dynamics of evolution by good scientists. easy, Nolobede! the quantum biology workshop at Google Oct.22 2010 is being uploaded now. youtube.com/watch?v=pSe8mBWeeYM I ain't got an agenda, just want to appreciate what nature is doing. quantum mechanisms in biology are amazing!
cameronmichaelkeys 1 year ago
@cameronmichaelkeys
Yes... I am familiar with the term. I AM an Engineer, and obviously a skeptical one. That makes me good at what I do too. I won't disagree that anything in scientific exploration or advancement is interesting. But as one who has been educated and worked in the sciences since my first job, skepticism is what I do.
Everything in biology is amazing and exactly why nature is so much more astounding to experience rather than just explaining it away to a myth.
nolobede 1 year ago
Sorry, gotta go. You'll just have to keep making yourself look stupid without my help.
nolobede 1 year ago
I wonder why nolobede thinks he owns this comment area - oh that's right, because only militant atheists are allowed to comment!
And when they can't answer simple questions, they resort to rude or nasty comments.
Hardly the arguments of a winning philosophy!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
haha... no, we are realists and we know talking to you is like shitting into the wind. There's nothing more to say to you because you're just too stupid, seriously, that's not just a crude comment or a random ad-hominem, you really are just too damn stupid.
So prove god, disprove evolution, or fuck off.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede - How can you be a realist when you have a self-refuting worldview?!
In fact, you believe in something despite the evidence to the contrary. To continue believing in something which has been debunked is BLIND faith and just wishful thinking.
But anyway, as a determinist, you actually only ending up arguing with yourself - because you can't help what you or others think. So why argue? Oh, yeah - yuo can't help it etc etc
Sadly, by your own philosophy, you cannot be a free thinker...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Disprove evolution, prove god, or fuck off.
nolobede 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"I wonder why nolobede thinks he owns this comment area"
Hmmm... maybe you should count who has the most posts... see how obsessed you are?
No I don't own the comment area, I just owned you in it though.
nolobede 1 year ago
So prove god, or fuck off.
nolobede 1 year ago
Hmmm... lots of intelligent input by the atheopath nolobede! I think he's starting to froth at the mouth again!
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
Nope, he just knows its futile to talk to a lemming.
Prove evolution wrong, or fuck off.
nolobede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolobede - Information Theory states that Information can ALWAYS be traced back to an Intelligent source.
Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the evilutionist to show proof of:
INFORMATION not originating from an intelligent source.
LIFE arising from non-life
MORAL LAW - arising in a MATERIALIST worldview
LAWS of LOGIC - in a materialist worldview
etc etc etc
heloWelo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heloWelo
"Information Theory states that Information can ALWAYS be traced back to an Intelligent source."
That's not true, you are stating shit all the time that cannot be traced back to an intelligent source.
nolobede 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"lots of intelligent input by the atheopath nolobede"
Yeah, we're done... you could throw the worlds intellect at a mule and it will stay as stubborn and stupid as the day before. You won't get it, you can't... a complete waste of time and gray matter.
nolobede 1 year ago
@nolobede - Don't be too hard on yourself. You shouldn't refer to yourself as a mule... unless of course you are referring to your common ancestor which eventually became a mule and you became a human.
But why go? I'm still waiting for you to give an intelligent account for the list above.
Still can't huh? SHould give you a clue really, eh? Kind of a wake up and smell the coffee... before it's too late, sorta thing...
heloWelo 1 year ago
@heloWelo
"you are referring to your common ancestor which eventually became a mule and you became a human."
Ahh