Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[badgerx16]

Try to imagine the following scenario;

There exists an apparently infinite expanse, within which there are possibly billions of entities called galaxies. Each galaxy can contain many tens of millions of stars, and many of these stars are orbitted by rocky, gaseous, or icy planets.

Now, in one of the smaller galaxies, spiral in form, at the edge of one of the galaxy's arms, there is relatively small star, orbitted by 8, ( some say 9 ), planets. The third such planet exists in an orbit just far enough from the star that water can exist in liquid form. The fact that water is liquid between 1 and 99 degrees centigrade is actually in defiance of what might be deduced, based on the thermodynamic properties of similar and related molecules.

Subsequent to the establishment of liquid water on the surface of this planet, seemingly brought to it by asteroids long after it's original formation, and as a consequence of chemical and electro-magnetic interactions, some new molecules were created. These molecules began interacting with each other and in combination, after a long period of time, formed a complex association that became capable of self replication, and eventually became capable of growth, movement, and diversification of form.

 

All totally down to random chance.

 

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

1) As I have not seen sufficient evidence they are wrong. As if no sufficient evidence is provided it is logically impossible for both a and b to be true for a God that wants to be known, knows what it would take but refuses to provide it.

2) Nonsense. If a system can lead to polar oppositepostions... it is not a reliable path to truth.

Your post asked for my opinion, I gave it. You cannot ignore or dismiss my answer.

The above iis all in your opinion, and you are, I am ( not ) sorry to inform you, wrong.

Edited 18 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit... my post started with a no and explained why. The post reads...

"No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith."

But you kept ignoring it!

I missed it amongst the waffle...why the feck you didn't clarify that about a million posts ago I don't know. Awkward prick. 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I missed it amongst the waffle...why the feck you didn't clarify that about a million posts ago I don't know. Awkward prick. 

Missed it! You even quoted it! How did you miss something in a post you quoted? You then have the cheek to blame me for you not reading something you later quote!

Are you not even reading the things you are quoting? I suppose that makes sense given you keep ignoring rebuttals. 

[Matthew Le God]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Your post asked for my opinion, I gave it. You cannot ignore or dismiss my answer.

The above iis all in your opinion, and you are, I am ( not ) sorry to inform you, wrong.

A method that can lead to polar opposites being believed not being a reliable path to truth is not merely opinion it is demonstrably logically evident.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

A method that can lead to polar opposites being believed not being a reliable path to truth is not merely opinion it is demonstrably logically evident.

If that is what you believe then fine, but I reserve the right to disagree - without having to bend over backwards trying to explain it to you. Please try to understand what we have been trying to teach you ; people might hold views contrary to yours, possibly based on Faith rather than "demonstrable evidence", but to them this is sufficient and you have no right to demand that they justify their contrary position to you, or to lecture them about their "illogical" standpoint.

Edited 17 hours ago by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

17 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Try to imagine the following scenario;

There exists an apparently infinite expanse, within which there are possibly billions of entities called galaxies. Each galaxy can contain many tens of millions of stars, and many of these stars are orbitted by rocky, gaseous, or icy planets.

Now, in one of the smaller galaxies, spiral in form, at the edge of one of the galaxy's arms, there is relatively small star, orbitted by 8, ( some say 9 ), planets. The third such planet exists in an orbit just far enough from the star that water can exist in liquid form. The fact that water is liquid between 1 and 99 degrees centigrade is actually in defiance of what might be deduced, based on the thermodynamic properties of similar and related molecules.

Subsequent to the establishment of liquid water on the surface of this planet, seemingly brought to it by asteroids long after it's original formation, and as a consequence of chemical and electro-magnetic interactions, some new molecules were created. These molecules began interacting with each other and in combination, after a long period of time, formed a complex association that became capable of self replication, and eventually became capable of growth, movement, and diversification of form.

All totally down to random chance.

Deeply flawed and packed full of fallacies! It creates a straw man by falsely portraying the origin of life as purely random, ignoring natural selection and chemical laws. It appeals to incredulity, suggesting that because the scenario seems unlikely, it must be false. A false dilemma is implied, presenting only two options—chance or design—while ignoring other natural explanations. It also misuses probability, treating a rare event as impossible without considering vast time and space scales, and it misapplies the anthropic principle by implying that Earth's suitability for life requires intentional fine-tuning, rather than acknowledging we observe it that way simply because we exist here.

 

 

[revolution saint]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Deeply flawed and packed full of fallacies! It creates a straw man by falsely portraying the origin of life as purely random, ignoring natural selection and chemical laws. It appeals to incredulity, suggesting that because the scenario seems unlikely, it must be false. A false dilemma is implied, presenting only two options—chance or design—while ignoring other natural explanations. It also misuses probability, treating a rare event as impossible without considering vast time and space scales, and it misapplies the anthropic principle by implying that Earth's suitability for life requires intentional fine-tuning, rather than acknowledging we observe it that way simply because we exist here.

 

 

Clearly you have faith in ChatGPT......

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If that is what you believe then fine, but I reserve the right to disagree - without having to bend over backwards trying to explain it to you. Please try to understand what we have been trying to teach you ; people might hold views contrary to yours, possibly based on Faith rather than "demonstrable evidence", but to them this is sufficient and you have no right to demand that they justify their contrary position to you, or to lecture them about their "illogical" standpoint.

1 Peter 3:15 says:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

 

[badgerx16]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1 Peter 3:15 says:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

 

Quoting a book of fantasy and fairy tales ?

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Quoting a book of fantasy and fairy tales ?

That is irrelevant to it being a counter to your point I put in bold. 

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Jesus fecking wept. 

I'm off out for the evening. 

Adiós. 

There's always one pussy who ends up using the safety word.

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Deeply flawed and packed full of fallacies! It creates a straw man by falsely portraying the origin of life as purely random, ignoring natural selection and chemical laws. It appeals to incredulity, suggesting that because the scenario seems unlikely, it must be false. A false dilemma is implied, presenting only two options—chance or design—while ignoring other natural explanations. It also misuses probability, treating a rare event as impossible without considering vast time and space scales, and it misapplies the anthropic principle by implying that Earth's suitability for life requires intentional fine-tuning, rather than acknowledging we observe it that way simply because we exist here.

 

 

I was merely telling a science fiction story.

However ;

1) If the origin of life on Earth was not random chance, andt is not due to intelligent design, what other options are there ?

2) How does natural selection explain the creation of the first amino acid molecules ?

3) Chemical laws say that water should not be liquid at the temperatures it is.

Edited 17 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

That is irrelevant to it being a counter to your point I put in bold. 

So now the Bible is a reliable source ?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" - but this does not say that you are free to ridicule and dismiss the genuinely held beliefs of others.

[Matthew Le God]

29 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I was merely telling a science fiction story.

However ;

1) If the origin of life on Earth was not random chance, andt is not due to intelligent design, what other options are there ?

2) How does natural selection explain the creation of the first amino acid molecules ?

3) Chemical laws say that water should not be liquid at the temperatures it is.

1) An emergent property of matter in a universe with the right conditions. Not purely random, it depends on specific laws of nature and reliable chemistry.

2) I'm puzzled why you would think it should. You have conflated natural selection and abiogenesis. 

3) Not true! Water has strong hydrogen bonds and a type of intermolecular force caused by the highly polar O–H bonds.

These hydrogen bonds make water molecules stick together, requiring more energy to separate them into a gas.

This raises water’s boiling point dramatically, keeping it liquid between 0°C and 100°C.

[Matthew Le God]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So now the Bible is a reliable source ?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" - but this does not say that you are free to ridicule and dismiss the genuinely held beliefs of others.

I didn't say it was reliable. It demonstrably is not. I used it to show it is a Christians duty in their scripture to justify their belief when questioned.

Edited 16 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Jesus fecking wept. 

I'm off out for the evening. 

Adiós. 

Jesus fucking wept indeed.

Wait till he learns about Schrodinger's cat, that's really gonna break his black and white mind.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Jesus fucking wept indeed.

Wait till he learns about Schrodinger's cat, that's really gonna break his black and white mind.

On what is that based? Give an example.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

On what is that based? Give an example.

Have a look at your binary posts...

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have a look at your binary posts...

Such as?

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Such as?

Your binary posting history.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Your binary posting history.

Accusations without substance. Do better!

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

 3) Chemical laws say that water should not be liquid at the temperatures it is.

 

30 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

3) Not true! Water has strong hydrogen bonds and a type of intermolecular force caused by the highly polar O–H bonds.

These hydrogen bonds make water molecules stick together, requiring more energy to separate them into a gas.

This raises water’s boiling point dramatically, keeping it liquid between 0°C and 100°C.

Here is a non-scientific article explaining things;

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/may/11/water-weirdest-liquid-planet-scientists-h2o-ice-firefighters

 

"Water breaks all the rules."

 

EDIT;

If you do answer don't expect any further reply, I am giving this thread a miss for a while, I am fed up of banging my head against a brick wall.

Edited 16 hours ago by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Accusations without substance. Do better!

The substance is in your posting history.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it will change the more times you ask the question but in a slightly different way.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

The substance is in your posting history.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it will change the more times you ask the question but in a slightly different way.

Name one single example. If it is so common, it can't be hard.

Accusations without substance. Do better!

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Here is a non-scientific article explaining things;

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/may/11/water-weirdest-liquid-planet-scientists-h2o-ice-firefighters

 

"Water breaks all the rules."

My rebuttal gave an explanation to your claim. 

[The Kraken]

And there I was thinking that having a year or two off of Saintsweb would make MLG a better man. It’s just the opposite. I had faith too. How misplaced.
 

MLG, I’m more disappointed in you than I am in myself, but only just.