Well, in all fairness, I think it depends on the subject matter. Ethics, for example, requires some introspection. But your observation is right on the money when it comes to scientific inquiry and understanding.Quote from killthesunshine:
those that look inward for answers have their head up their azz and the results are easily predictable
Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
I am amazed at your lack of comprehension stu...
here is your article in pertinent part with my explanations in parenthesis.
"Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms," Dr. de Duve wrote in his textbook, "A Guided Tour of the Living Cell," "even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than one billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet.""
(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)
Then the article contintues...)
The hard part, he wrote, was getting from the simplest chemicals to the first specialized cells, after which "it took no more than 150,000 generations for an ape to develop into the inventor of calculus."
(JEM says... again Stu missed this point... evolution after the first specialized cells... but evolution did not cause the first cell per the sentence before.)
As to whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr. de Duve commented:
"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."
( Essentially science says by definition it must be chance even though De Duve and crick and others know abiogensis did not happen by chance on earth. )
But the succession of chances that created life did not operate in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including the conscious mind.""
here is your article in pertinent part with my explanations in parenthesis.
"Dr. Christian de Duve, a Belgian microbiologist awarded the 1974 Nobel prize for his investigation of the structures of cells, dismisses the panspermia notion as unnecessary.
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms," Dr. de Duve wrote in his textbook, "A Guided Tour of the Living Cell," "even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you. So you might as well accept, as do most scientists, that the process was completed in no more than one billion years and that it took place entirely on the surface of our planet.""
(JEM --- this is the quote STU does not understand...
here we see in plain english what I have been saying...
No chance of the birth of a bacterial cell by chance.... so science just accepts it happened on earth... (the unstated sentence being... God or at least cause unknown but not chance. Now to understand that this is what really means I provided the quote from Crick the founder of DNA who also says no chance of life from non life on earth. Stu of course dismisses science in favor of his preferred 1960s views.)
Then the article contintues...)
The hard part, he wrote, was getting from the simplest chemicals to the first specialized cells, after which "it took no more than 150,000 generations for an ape to develop into the inventor of calculus."
(JEM says... again Stu missed this point... evolution after the first specialized cells... but evolution did not cause the first cell per the sentence before.)
As to whether some guiding hand was needed for the process, Dr. de Duve commented:
"The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence."
( Essentially science says by definition it must be chance even though De Duve and crick and others know abiogensis did not happen by chance on earth. )
But the succession of chances that created life did not operate in a vacuum, he said. "It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with specific properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up. Among these numbers are life and all its wonders, including the conscious mind.""
Who could predict that you would lower the discussion to...
Quote from killthesunshine:
those that look inward for answers have their head up their azz and the results are easily predictable
Scientific inquiry is external.
Developing a theory is all internal.
Believing in a theory that has no evidence at its foundation is a belief system.
When people refuse to seriously look at the gaps on a theory, the lack of evidence of a theory, their own nature to see design in nature...and to rule out ID...is dogmatism.
...and no, my ID is not Creationism.
Developing a theory is all internal.
Believing in a theory that has no evidence at its foundation is a belief system.
When people refuse to seriously look at the gaps on a theory, the lack of evidence of a theory, their own nature to see design in nature...and to rule out ID...is dogmatism.
...and no, my ID is not Creationism.
I really don't know why you address the Christian stuff to me. I am not a Christian, though I wish more Christians would follow the teachings of Christ from the Sermon on the Mount.
I use the terms ID and non ID from a perspective of random ignorant blind chance vs. design.
Design isn't a Christian idea. Creationism is just the Christian reaction of atheistic politically driven hatred of Christianity.
I oppose teaching religion in school, just as much as I oppose teaching a theory of non ID in school. Both are just belief systems, and have no foundation in fact that is proved.
I use the terms ID and non ID from a perspective of random ignorant blind chance vs. design.
Design isn't a Christian idea. Creationism is just the Christian reaction of atheistic politically driven hatred of Christianity.
I oppose teaching religion in school, just as much as I oppose teaching a theory of non ID in school. Both are just belief systems, and have no foundation in fact that is proved.
Show me the evidence of random ignorant chance, please.
While you are at it, show me the evidence that life came from non life.
Thanks.
p.s. Please stop with the creationsim Christian stuff, I'm not on their side.
While you are at it, show me the evidence that life came from non life.
Thanks.
p.s. Please stop with the creationsim Christian stuff, I'm not on their side.
"It matters not one jot where life may have started, De Duve knows it didn't start with intelligent design."
Did De Duve say he knows it, but did not declare it?
LOL!!!
In any case, it does matter where life may have started...obviously it matters to you, as you can't even say that design is just as likely as non design...as there is proof for neither.
Did De Duve say he knows it, but did not declare it?
LOL!!!
In any case, it does matter where life may have started...obviously it matters to you, as you can't even say that design is just as likely as non design...as there is proof for neither.