My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

@Leadfoot,

Sometimes conditions prevail in which evidence is supersidious to fantasy. NOT every case deserves equal support. However both eserve careful consieration >I feel Ive been giving ID plenty of tchnical attention and have concluded that its wanting.
Even Admiral Mcraven had to learn GPS coordination over "dead reckoning" sailing of his AIR CRAFT CARRIER.

Nice try though, I didnt want to leave you looking for some Codex Juris

1 Reply

@farmerman,

No surprise, Didn’t think ya could..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

another leadfoot stretch. I can argue that the Cookie Monster is a species that relies upon handouts heavy in carbs and sugars and chocky chips.
I could, and quite well, the concept is simple and without the esxistence of any valid evidence anything I say would go. but Id Only deliver it in a classroom of 5 year olds. I always hoped for themore mature intellects in my classes

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I could, and quite well, the concept is simple and without the esxistence of any valid evidence anything I say would go. but Id Only deliver it in a classroom of 5 year olds.

You’re just like Frank, only take on lightweights.

I noticed you haven’t responded to my invitation to continue our discussion on ‘Proteins'.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

If you want to make a plausible case for ID than start with UFO's, extra terrestrial AGI, or even some sort of demi-god outside of this Universe that gave rise to our own.

As incredible as those are they are more plausible than invoking an actual God with a mind. We would have to extensively debate why a true God of ALL Reality CANNOT have a MIND or be anything like the Abrahamic God we heard on the Bible. The traditional concept is full of contradictions and expert Theologians are the first ones to admit them across the all spectrum of religions worldwide.

I am sincerely not sure you want an honest open debate on that topic!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am sincerely not sure you want an honest open debate on that topic!

Then you would be wrong about that. That is what I would like most of all.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Well tell me this God of yours is within time or outside time? Lets start there.
There is plenty more to debate like what is a mind at its essence, a problem solver, that HAS problems precisely because it has partial incomplete information about the world.

While this is not a problem for a demi-god or an AGI, because those also don't control all domains of reality and thus have a specific incomplete POV, an agenda and a narrative, as and also keep problem solving at an upper level of understanding, it is DEFINITELY a problem for the traditional definition of a true God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

You want BOTH God be GREAT and a MIND, but you cannot have both, so what do you choose?

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

You want BOTH God be GREAT and a MIND, but you cannot have both, so what do you choose?

Why would anyone let a peer define one's God for them? That is a false choice. The God I found was both, in measures I had not even imagined.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I already did when I posted some textual information by Phil Cohen, or Larry Mullen,or Whitney Clavin. It does require you to do a little reading because I dont do your learning for you. Further, I will not spoon feed what I think, thats indoctrination.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Also, the more mature intellects dont run from ork beyond them either they want to know it well, or the hell with it.
Youve stayed with one "blief system" so far unable to produce any evidence other than a single statement (of which I wont rpat yet again)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I mase the challnge waay back that you seem to feel that life begins and ends only with proteins and nucleic acids.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

As I thought you are not interested in an open and honest debate otherwise you would have addressed well know problems on the Metaphysics of the Abrahamic God raised by Theologians themselves long ago.

You say you found something but you cannot explain what it is or how it makes sense. That is of no use to me nor anyone that abides by Reason!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I already did when I posted some textual information by Phil Cohen, or Larry Mullen,or Whitney Clavin. It does require you to do a little reading because I dont do your learning for you. Further, I will not spoon feed what I think, thats indoctrination.

Without a doubt, the most cowardly way of declining a discussion of anything I’ve ever read.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

You say you found something but you cannot explain what it is or how it makes sense. That is of no use to me nor anyone that abides by Reason!

Who said I can’t explain it? I don’t recall anyone asking. And beyond that, virtually everything I’ve posted on A2K has been a reflection of how and why it makes sense. I’m certainly open to anyone who questions my reasoning, but telling me to go read this or that book or go debate this or that dead philosopher or theologian is the tactic of those with no fist in their glove.

And that pathetic attempt by farmer was just shameful. Right, if you explain something in your own words and reasoning - That’s indoctrinating people, he says!. What the **** can you do with that?

Why the **** even be here if that’s your position?

Why the **** am I here

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

SO obviously we will continue an argument only on one level of unerstanding, your beliefs that
1Lifes too complex to have arisen in any othr manner beside Intelligent Design
and now

2. The origin of life is only tied to the existence of nuckeic acids.
The papers Ive presented you were the developing literature on lifes chemical origins.

AS I SAID, Im NOT GOING TO explain papers by the three scientists/authors because were I to do that it would be me merely being guilty of indoctrination. Instead , the grad school base of larning is "Farmer, teach thy own self". Then we discuss an we either add these findings to our stores of knowledge or you deny them out of principle or you show us where the topics need more.

Quote:

Without a doubt, the most cowardly way of declining a discussion of anything I’ve ever read.

If you wish to play at science, I think you should step up and enjoy what many others add to the story.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

When they add something, I do.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

AS I SAID, Im NOT GOING TO explain papers by the three scientists/authors because were I to do that it would be me merely being guilty of indoctrination.

This quote from Mr. Feynman's Twitter feed explains the real reason you won’t.

“Richard Feynman
@ProfFeynman
·
Jan 21, 2018
If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.”

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

First off I am speaking my mind, and I formulated concrete questions that you IGNORED, although some of those questions that I arrived at for myself long ago are obviously not a novelty as Philosophy is old.

So I will go step by step and ask you again, is God within time or outside time?
I can assure I WILL dismount any argument you can make for the classical Abrahamic God to be a mind. So pull on the gloves go back to my previous posts and ANSWER the questions! If you are honest be it don't claim it!

PS - Farmarman is debating at another level on which I agree with but I am giving you ID on a plate for the sake of arguing that what it follows if by any chance ID was to be true is far from being what you think. What it follows it is not the Abrahamic God by any means. That is the point I want to make!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

As I see it from my own pov you will lose any attempt at debating life base on the statistical and probabilistic perspective, you would have to step on Metaphysics which you won't. The problem is that be it Multiverse or Universe Reality is ONE, not two or three or infinity, and on the block Universe approach on which time is not fundamental but a sort of illusion, a phenomena, Life is just a brut fact!
The question is as meaningless as asking why do we have matter rather than pure energy because there was a bit more matter at the beginning than antimatter. Speaking from the POV within time it is the case that it happened period. From the block Universe POV it was always the case and there was ZERO probability Reality could be otherwise.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

You may be right but I doubt that a non biochemical array explains anything about the origins of life. As you know, evolution and origins of life really are two distinct pursuits. Science doesnt seem to buy anything about a mtaphysical connection to lifes origins because its a search, not a debate. And as such, a search uses as many tools as can be repeated.
Theres series of papers and a good book by a guy named Bob Hazen.His hypotheses are on the evolution of actual minerals on arth from theHadean till the present.

ID is based on a very few postulates , all of which are non repeatable in scope and are most often based on posing points of argument like "How can life arise naturally when its so complex". Thats merely a question posed out of disinterest or denial in the mechanics of biochemistry and crystal structure

0 Replies

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know