(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote: I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

No theory of abiogenesis has been proven. That's true. Each one in particular must be examined for its strengths and weaknesses if its plausibility is to be accurately gauged. I haven't seen anyone push a particular theory of abiogenesis yet, but this thread is officially a behemoth, and I haven't read every post.

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're anywhere close to certainty regarding any one theory of abiogenesis- BUT! I am more inclined to assume a naturalistic origin of life over a supernatural one. Occam's razor is a handy tool. It doesn't prove anything one way or another, but its good for cutting away highly implausible scenarios even when one cannot definitively prove any one option.

A brand new F-16 found on the dark side of the moon is quite implausible. But it's more likely that we will discover an F-16 on the moon than a unicorn in my backyard. However unlikely, at least there is a way we could imagine an F-16 getting to the moon. F-16s exist. Rockets that can reach the moon exist. Unicorns (as far as we know) do not.

As to the immortal soul thing, sure, I guess you've presented Biblical justification for believing in it... not that I really care. Maybe it indicates that I should stick to speaking on other matters (like things that actually exist in the real world) and leave the believers to debate Biblical claims.

Anyway, I'm not saying any of this to refute your claims about NDEs... I'm more so telling you why your claims aren't going to go very far here. And it's not because we're unreasonable. Quite the contrary.

Comparing NDE nonsense to Abiogenesis is absurd The former is pseudoscience which you have failed to defend . The later is a well evidence concept of biology you have failed to successfully attack. And comparing Abiogenesis to ID is even dumber for the same reason . And no your a denialist of abiogenesis not a skeptic. And your probability is total bunkum and has been exposed as such. And once again hoyles fallacy ..

---

[/url]

Quote:http://the-formula.org/ndes-absolutely-p...ng-brains/

Quackery site

Quote:[url=http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-death-the-science-and-significance-of-near-death-experiences-1.3884084]http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-d...-1.3884084

Shame on the CBC for wasting my tax dollars promoting pseudoscience

If that was your best case for the fact NDE's are caused by brain chemistry . Then your case is even weaker then i thought .

(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 22, 2018 at 10:04 pm)Grandizer Wrote: But the accident isn't necessarily an example of a supernatural event, and neither are the experiences of NDE necessarily examples of a supernatural event. You still need to provide the evidence that NDEs are due to supernatural phenomena. I've yet to see this evidence that clearly points to such things and is not easily accounted for by naturalistic explanations.

So far there is no proof of either out of body experiences or biogenesis.

You got that right. There is proof for neither out-of-body experiences nor biogenesis (which is the postulation that life only arises from other forms of life). Glad we agree.

(March 23, 2018 at 2:10 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote: I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

No theory of abiogenesis has been proven. That's true. Each one in particular must be examined for its strengths and weaknesses if its plausibility is to be accurately gauged. I haven't seen anyone push a particular theory of abiogenesis yet, but this thread is officially a behemoth, and I haven't read every post.

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're anywhere close to certainty regarding any one theory of abiogenesis- BUT! I am more inclined to assume a naturalistic origin of life over a supernatural one. Occam's razor is a handy tool. It doesn't prove anything one way or another, but its good for cutting away highly implausible scenarios even when one cannot definitively prove any one option.

A brand new F-16 found on the dark side of the moon is quite implausible. But it's more likely that we will discover an F-16 on the moon than a unicorn in my backyard. However unlikely, at least there is a way we could imagine an F-16 getting to the moon. F-16s exist. Rockets that can reach the moon exist. Unicorns (as far as we know) do not.

As to the immortal soul thing, sure, I guess you've presented Biblical justification for believing in it... not that I really care. Maybe it indicates that I should stick to speaking on other matters (like things that actually exist in the real world) and leave the believers to debate Biblical claims.

Anyway, I'm not saying any of this to refute your claims about NDEs... I'm more so telling you why your claims aren't going to go very far here. And it's not because we're unreasonable. Quite the contrary.

(Bible Dictionary | U Unicorn:Entry)

 Unicorn. A wild ox, the Bos primigenius, now extinct, but once common in Syria.  The KJV rendering is unfortunate, as the animal intended is two-horned.

I find it interesting that there are many things that can seem implausible until we understand the science behind it. While it is true that we can't see spirits it is also true that air is not opaque. If air were opaque we would all be in the dark. However we are in the dark about many things. One of those things is the two-split experiment:

https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-goin...-observed/

(March 23, 2018 at 2:01 pm)He lives Wrote: (Bible Dictionary | U Unicorn:Entry)

 Unicorn. A wild ox, the Bos primigenius, now extinct, but once common in Syria.  The KJV rendering is unfortunate, as the animal intended is two-horned.

I find it interesting that there are many things that can seem implausible until we understand the science behind it. While it is true that we can't see spirits it is also true that air is not opaque. If air were opaque we would all be in the dark. However we are in the dark about many things. One of those things is the two-split experiment:

https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-goin...-observed/

I wasn't referring to the mention of unicorns in the Bible... just the plausibility of them in general (for examples sake).

Mind if I ask what your beliefs are concerning the big bang/evolution? I apologize if you've already said; long thread, didn't catch everything.

Did you just try to sell the absurd notion that aurochs....cattle.......were unicorns? The KJV doesn't seem to have any trouble calling cattle cattle anywhere else.

Air, btw, is translucent..which is a partially opaque state. It's why we're in the blue.

(March 23, 2018 at 3:44 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Comparing NDE nonsense to Abiogenesis is absurd The former is pseudoscience which you have failed to defend . The later is a well evidence concept of biology you have failed to successfully attack. And comparing Abiogenesis to ID is even dumber for the same reason . And no your a denialist of abiogenesis not a skeptic. And your probability is total bunkum and has been exposed as such. And once again hoyles fallacy ..

---

[/url]

Quote:http://the-formula.org/ndes-absolutely-p...ng-brains/

Quackery site

Quote:[url=http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-death-the-science-and-significance-of-near-death-experiences-1.3884084]http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/decoding-d...-1.3884084

Shame on the CBC for wasting my tax dollars promoting pseudoscience

If that was your best case for the fact NDE's are caused by brain chemistry . Then your case is even weaker then i thought .

Too much time and money has been wasted on abiogenesis. There is no verifiable evidence for abiogenesis. It is leading people down a dead end road.

(March 23, 2018 at 2:33 pm)He lives Wrote: Too much time and money has been wasted on abiogenesis. There is no verifiable evidence for abiogenesis. It is leading people down a dead end road.

Wrong about that.

(March 23, 2018 at 1:11 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 22, 2018 at 9:35 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: As I said before Heisenberg did not say that. It was from Heinz Otremba. But your article might be forgiven for citing Heisenberg. It's commonly misattributed to him...

Much snipped for focus.

Quote:...I agree with your points and your argument. However by agreeing I would like to point out that everyone should also be skeptical about abiogenesis as there is no solid evidence to it's extraordinary claims that life began from some hypothetical primordial soup that was thought to exist on the pre life earth. This sounds too much like the fictional story of Frankenstein. At least in the story of Frankenstein body parts were used to bring him to life. You may say that life on earth is evidence of abiogenesis. However life on earth can also be used as evidence of intelligent design. In fact I am very much a skeptic of abiogenesis. The chances of the biogenesis Hypothesis ever happening are 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. It would be more likely to find a brand new F-16 on the dark side of the moon. I therefore would like to know why anyone would trust in the abiogenesis hypothesis?I don't see it as being of any more value to anyone than ID since neither one have been proven.

Aaaaand here is the reset!

Abiogenesis has not appeared once in the last eleven pages but our new troll is taking a hammering so he reintroduces it now by way of a distraction. Classic troll manoeuvre and oh so fucking obvious.

(March 22, 2018 at 12:01 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Matthew 5:22
Of course, the verse doesn't prevent me from calling you an illiterate closet-minded moron with the IQ of a brain-damaged chihuahua.  Actually, since the book is total trash, it doesn't prevent me from anything, you're the one who seems to think that the so-called words of your godboy have any meaning.

Nor does it quell me from calling you a fool.
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In post #581, you said:  "Our planet is 3 dimensional yes, but our existence is 4. The fourth being time. without the measure time the objects defined by the measure of length width and height are frozen in place. So again yes while science can indeed well define the objects found readily in the three dimensions it has no protocol to account for what s lost to time, besides guessing"

Quote:This post is so badly constructed that it is impossible to be certain which fantasy you're rambling about this time. (pun intended)
We exist in three dimensions.  Time is not, and never has been, (in our solar system anyway) a "fourth dimension". 

That is an uneducated assertion/persumption. do you vet anything before you speak?
This is why I called you a fool. you speak without forethought or knowledge, and seeming don't care how stupid you come off so long as your grammar is correct.. I am not angry with you nor do I hate you. your actions/thought patterns simply qualify you to be defined by that word. To me having my facts straight are as important if not of greater importance than how I come off based on sentence structure.

That said if you had any inclination to vet anything besides what you think you already believe, you would have come across this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

The crux of the arguement is here:
In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the Fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity.

Do you understand that bit? Based on the idea that time is the 4th dimension EIN-FRIGGEN-STEIN'S Theories of special and general relativity would not exist. So again how stupid are you to argue against me with nothing more than a feeling that you are right about this?

Quote:Time is simply a numerical measure of the movement of the earth and has no bearing or influence upon the three dimensions. H,L,W.  (As the article I posted clearly stated.)  To someone who is uneducated, time is measured by the "movement" of the sun and moon.  "Lost to time" makes no sense - either something from the past has been saved in some medium, or it is no longer accessible.  Science does not "guess" - it extrapolates probabilities from the available data - what can be gleaned from the past that has been saved in some medium.  You seem to be implying that science cannot provide any information about things "lost to time", or that time contains some sort of "spiritual information" that science can't access.  

Quote:Have you been hanging out with Rik and taking some psychedelic mushrooms?

idk who that is.