Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.

That's a sad state of affairs imo.

If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.
Click to expand...

Not so. He won't "ignore" hearing that voice. Listen to the interview (via the earlier link). I can't find fault with his reasoning. Actually, he admits that. some time in the past, he would've accepted such an event as prima facie proof and become a "believer". But since then, he has come across many instances of hoaxes and illusionists' tricks that he'd definitely investigate the possibility of such a voice being a fake.
 
SirRumpole said:
Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.

That's a sad state of affairs imo.

If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.
Click to expand...

I think you are jumping to conclusions by assuming he would not test it. He was simply noting that although he had previously indicated that hearing a big deep booming voice from out of a cloud might have convinced him that perhaps there was a God, in retrospect he thinks that there could be more likely explanations for such an experience and would no longer jump to the God conclusion straight away. It was a casual remark in part response to a question and hardly warranting in depth explanation of how he would approach such an unlikely event if it were to occur.

Dawkins constantly extols the scientific method as the means to discovery and knowledge, so it goes without saying that he would apply the scientific method to such a momentous event. But one hardly expect him to have to qualify every sentence in a casual conversation by specifying how he would arrive at every decision he makes.
 
pixel & bellnuit, fair enough. One would expect a sceptical initial reaction followed by testing of the theory that the voice was a hoax.

If he could not prove it was a hoax, I wonder if he would concede and say God exists or just say "oh well we may prove it's a hoax one day when we get more information".
 
SirRumpole said:
pixel & bellnuit, fair enough. One would expect a sceptical initial reaction followed by testing of the theory that the voice was a hoax.

If he could not prove it was a hoax, I wonder if he would concede and say God exists or just say "oh well we may prove it's a hoax one day when we get more information".
Click to expand...

I think he picked a bad example with that as it would be difficult to prove whether it was a hoax or not because he had set the bar too low as to what would constitute the existence of a deity. It would be difficult but not impossible to simulate the booming voice and unless one was able to react immediately and be completely cognisant of everything that was happening around him, it might be too late to subsequently expose the hoax. Perhaps he should have picked something like the voice saying it would stop the earth from turning for a minute or so and then return it to normal speed. That way it would be scientifically possible to determine if the earth stopped turning for a period.

Dawkins has always said that he cannot be sure there is no God and placed himself at 6+ on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being 100% certain there is a God and 7 being 100% certain there is no God). He has always said that if someone could prove to him there is a God, he would accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
 
From the other religion thread --
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=217&p=896760&viewfull=1#post896760

DNA is a coding system - the most advanced one in the known universe.

Codes, like languages, demand an intelligent source because meanings are necessarily assigned and imposed on the medium by the source.

Both sender and receiver must "know" those meanings or information transfers cannot occur, The assigned meanings are abstract and totally independent of the medium used to transmit them. You can understand this because we both know the abstract code of written English, though these words could be transmitted with sound waves, pen and paper, digitally via the internet, or even Morse code.

Believing that a code can develop without intelligence denies everything we know about logic, science, and human experience.

It is a scientific impossibility, a logical absurdity, and a leap of faith far beyond what theists take.
 
We have been through this, VC.

In my view, if Dawkins cared enough about the truth, he would be following this up, rather than a money making scheme off the non believers.
 
Tink said:
We have been through this, VC.

In my view, if Dawkins cared enough about the truth, he would be following this up, rather than a money making scheme off the non believers.
Click to expand...

tink, DNA is chemistry.

It would have grown in complexity over time, from the first very simple self replicating molecules through to where we are today, there are lots of things in nature that appear designed, but have been shown to be not designed, but developed of long periods of time through natural selection, eg the eye.

The arrguement you are putting forward is no different to the argument that was popular years ago where it was said a complex organ like an eye couldn't have evolved, but it has be shown exactly how even a complex organ like an eye can evolve over lots of incremental steps, each step giving the individual an advantage.

------------

Even if you talk about languages, languages themselves were never "designed", in all their complexity we see today, they developed from simple 1 word grunts etc, and over time different grunts were added for different things, and our voice boxes evolved to allow great diversity of sounds, and languages continue to evolve.
 
Tink said:
From the other religion thread --
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=217&p=896760&viewfull=1#post896760

DNA is a coding system - the most advanced one in the known universe.

Codes, like languages, demand an intelligent source because meanings are necessarily assigned and imposed on the medium by the source.

Both sender and receiver must "know" those meanings or information transfers cannot occur, The assigned meanings are abstract and totally independent of the medium used to transmit them. You can understand this because we both know the abstract code of written English, though these words could be transmitted with sound waves, pen and paper, digitally via the internet, or even Morse code.

Believing that a code can develop without intelligence denies everything we know about logic, science, and human experience.

It is a scientific impossibility, a logical absurdity, and a leap of faith far beyond what theists take.
Click to expand...

DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.

The chemicals make copies of themselves by interacting with other chemicals following the chemical laws, it is not a language in the sense that two minds are communicating using dna as a common language, its not like that at all, its chemistry.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Value Collector said:
tink, DNA is chemistry.

It would have grown in complexity over time, from the first very simple self replicating molecules through to where we are today, there are lots of things in nature that appear designed, but have been shown to be not designed, but developed of long periods of time through natural selection, eg the eye.

The arrguement you are putting forward is no different to the argument that was popular years ago where it was said a complex organ like an eye couldn't have evolved, but it has be shown exactly how even a complex organ like an eye can evolve over lots of incremental steps, each step giving the individual an advantage.

------------

Even if you talk about languages, languages themselves were never "designed", in all their complexity we see today, they developed from simple 1 word grunts etc, and over time different grunts were added for different things, and our voice boxes evolved to allow great diversity of sounds, and languages continue to evolve.
Click to expand...

It's "argument", not "arrguement". Isn't that right Sifu :D jk
 
Value Collector said:
DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.

The chemicals make copies of themselves by interacting with other chemicals following the chemical laws, it is not a language in the sense that two minds are communicating using dna as a common language, its not like that at all, its chemistry.

Click to expand...


Not sure it's going to do any good quoting an atheist web site to a Christian.

:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SirRumpole said:
Not sure it's going to do any good quoting an atheist web site to a Christian.

:D
Click to expand...



Well, that host is actually a former Christian, he was actually going to be a minister, but became an atheist while studying to be a minister, if the information is correct it shouldn't matter where it comes from, their answer to the Christian caller is scientifically correct.

I linked it, because the caller is making the exact claim tink just made, he got a good answer.

If the caller called a Christian show with the same question, I doubt he would get a proper answer, the host probably wouldn't understand the science and just be like "Yep, the hand of god is visable every where son"

I mean this is the quality of answers Christians give, beware the atheists nightmare hahaha, complete lack of understanding of the theory they are trying to disprove, and by the way the guys talking are meant to be leading experts on intelligent design.

In the video you can see they don't even know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

they set up phony journals and peer review each others nonsense, and have phoney colleges all to give them selves some cred, but its all baseless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DNA is chemistry.
Click to expand...

DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.
Click to expand...

All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.

That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you don't want to know.

Ignorance is bliss.
 
Biosemiosis org said:
All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.

That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you don't want to know.

Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about ?

What is your agenda ?

I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.
 
A lifelong atheist (not that it matters), a physicist, a professor emeritus, a thoughtful intellect -- a man who studies symbol systems for 50 years, becoming a most-revered expert on the subject, writes dozens of papers telling you that you are just completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong, and you refuse to even consider it. You do so because it doesn't fit well with your metaphysics, and for no other reason.

Man of science and reason.....yeah sure. :)
 
SirRumpole said:
What are you talking about ?

What is your agenda ?

I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Hello SirR,

My "agenda" is simple. We should not bathe ourselves in the self-satisfying idea that we are people of enlightenment, reason, and science ... then turn around and deny physical evidence.
 
I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

Frankly, no one needs to wonder where I am coming from. The material on Biosemiosis.org is accessible to any reasonable thinking person. No advanced degree required.
 
Biosemiosis org said:
A lifelong atheist (not that it matters), a physicist, a professor emeritus, a thoughtful intellect -- a man who studies symbol systems for 50 years, becoming a most-revered expert on the subject, writes dozens of papers telling you that you are just completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong, and you refuse to even consider it. You do so because it doesn't fit well with your metaphysics, and for no other reason.

Man of science and reason.....yeah sure. :)
Click to expand...

Is this the same dude that said rape and murder is not at all wrong and he'd do it if he can be bothered with the mess? :eek:

After 50 years of serious learning, that man still think he could tell people they're wrong and they'd all agree with him that they're wrong. Time well spent at that pool of wisdom.
 
Biosemiosis org said:
All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.

That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you don't want to know.

.
Click to expand...

you are just trying to blur the issue now, Dna isn't a sign or a symbol, it's not like a note written to communicate from one intelligent being to another based on an agreed mutual language.

All of life is a chemical reaction, the chemicals aren't symbols that are read and then followed, we can describe them like that but that's not what's happening, the chemicals are just doing what chemicals do, that's why you die when you drink poison, the chemical in the poison mess with the chemical reaction sustaining your life.

If you don't think life is a physical chemical reaction, try holding your breath and see what happens when you deny your body a key chemical in the reaction eg oxygen, you won't be living long.

all living things are an unbroken chain of chemical reactions dating back to the formation of the first self replicating molecules, that over time grew in complexity through the non random selection of randomly varying replicators.
 
Is this the same dude that said rape and murder is not at all wrong and he'd do it if he can be bothered with the mess?
Click to expand...

Lutz... like I asked before, do you simply HAVE to lie about what I said in order to communicate with me?

Is it not possible for you to be honest?

And if you TRULY believe that I said any such thing, then GO BACK AND READ it again with your brain engaged.

Otherwise, quite lying about what I said.
 
Top