God Co-equal With Nature.

[Andrew66]

Three of these forms are more unreliable (by a large margin), than the other. Anecdotal evidence is the same thing as testimonial, it's just some dudes saying what they think they saw. So you really only listed three. Analogical just mean making analogies, I don't see how that is even a form of evidence because by definition, it is using metaphors. So really you have listed only two forms of evidence. Empirical and measurable or some guy saying what he thinks happened... they are not equal to each other, there is a reason why science doesn't use anecdotal evidence.

Davin wrote

I think that metaphor being the only "evidence" you have to reach a hypothesis, is enough to disregard the hypothesis. It's like building your argument on a house of cards.

Are you serious?.

In science any hypothesis is not known for sure empircally in advance, why else would one do a study to check the hypothesis.?! A hypothesis is exactly driven by evidence such as anaological.

For example in coronary artery research - a problem for years with stent technology is that the cells in the artery often grow into the stent after deployment to cause re-narrowing (called re-estenosis). So, a very bright researcher one day proposed the hypothesis, that maybe a cancer fighting drug (which generally stops cell growth) may - if added to a stent - would stop the phenomum. This hypothesis was based on analogic type data. Good thing (it turned out the hypothesis was correct)- now a days drug eluting coronary stents are common place and renarrowings in the stent have been significantly reduced.

I think what you are trying to say is that as an argument you may be suspect to some of my premises - (but I note that so far no was has been able to satisfactory refute them).

[Andrew66]

Sol wrote

Why only two, surely there are an infinite number of possibilities.

Not true, what was presented was a dichomy, if not 1 than 2, and if not 2 than 1.

I read your objections, I'm not trying to be dismissive but honestly, I don't find any of them persuasive or frankly of any relevance whatsoever.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Not true, what was presented was a dichomy, if not 1 than 2, and if not 2 than 1.

Your hypothesis is handicapped by you being mortal, WIW you presume to offer a whole 2 possibilities. Do you know Jerry?

[Sol]

Andrew66 wrote

Not true, what was presented was a dichomy, if not 1 than 2, and if not 2 than 1.

ffs

Andrew66 wrote

I read your objections, I'm not trying to be dismissive but honestly, I don't find any of them persuasive or frankly of any relevance whatsoever.

so, you know how that feels then..... good.
Do you actually re-read your own driveling nonsense at all...?

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

Not true, what was presented was a dichomy, if not 1 than 2, and if not 2 than 1.

I read your objections, I'm not trying to be dismissive but honestly, I don't find any of them persuasive or frankly of any relevance whatsoever.

Andrew

You may think that the big, bad satan worshipers are ganging up on you for the sheer hell of it 'cos that's what they do.

Nope.

You are attracting some bad press because you are talking bollocks by presenting theories as though they are believable, real possibilities and logically-based. Sadly, they are non of these things.

I'm not going to go over the logical errors. Sol's done an excellent job of that.

About all you can say of your theories, with any degree of confidence, is that, well, they are theories is all.

Did advanced intelligence develop before the existence of the Universe?

To prove that, you have to show that sufficient time was available. To show that, you need to show that time existed before the universe existed. Have you done any of this? Nope. You have merely stated that this is a real possibility. Well, er, no. Not if you can't show that time existed before the universe existed. And, basically, you can't.

Like I said, you have build a house of cards which rests on fresh air.

Face it.

Now, back to the naughty step.

[Smellyoldgit]

I would dearly love to see you folk use the word 'theory' as educated scientists understand it - not as a creationist dickwad theotard would - perhaps this little piece from the interweb archives may help. Once you've read it, go back, remove 'theory' add 'anally produced made-up drunken wank' - then we may get somewhere.

[mondrian]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I would dearly love to see you folk use the word 'theory' as educated scientists understand it - not as a creationist dickwad theotard would - perhaps this little piece from the interweb archives may help. Once you've read it, go back, remove 'theory' add 'anally produced made-up drunken wank' - then we may get somewhere.

I have a 'theory' that life didn't exist before the interweb.

Discuss.

Nah, really, let's think about for all of 5 micro seconds.

Can anyone find any evidence, on the interweb, that man existed before the interweb existed?

No.

There you go then.

'Theory' proved.

[Smellyoldgit]

*sigh* - and this is why the christards think they're 'debating' with rational folk on a level playing field, when all they're doing is assigning conveniently lower standard interpretations to selected words. Wankers.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

Three of these forms are more unreliable (by a large margin), than the other. Anecdotal evidence is the same thing as testimonial, it's just some dudes saying what they think they saw. So you really only listed three. Analogical just mean making analogies, I don't see how that is even a form of evidence because by definition, it is using metaphors. So really you have listed only two forms of evidence. Empirical and measurable or some guy saying what he thinks happened... they are not equal to each other, there is a reason why science doesn't use anecdotal evidence.



Are you serious?.

In science any hypothesis is not known for sure empircally in advance, why else would one do a study to check the hypothesis.?! A hypothesis is exactly driven by evidence such as anaological.

For example in coronary artery research - a problem for years with stent technology is that the cells in the artery often grow into the stent after deployment to cause re-narrowing (called re-estenosis). So, a very bright researcher one day proposed the hypothesis, that maybe a cancer fighting drug (which generally stops cell growth) may - if added to a stent - would stop the phenomum. This hypothesis was based on analogic type data. Good thing (it turned out the hypothesis was correct)- now a days drug eluting coronary stents are common place and renarrowings in the stent have been significantly reduced.

I think what you are trying to say is that as an argument you may be suspect to some of my premises - (but I note that so far no was has been able to satisfactory refute them).

Andrew

I have been deeply moved by your theories. Here's my movement:

[mondrian]

Dear Abby

Last year, I met a wonderful girl and hope to marry in spring.

I've told her about my father who is serving a life sentence for armed robbery. I've told her about my mother who is serving a 6 year sentence for drug dealing. I've even told her about my sister who's serving a prison sentence for prostitution. My problem is, Abby, how on earth do I tell her that my brother is a christian?

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Are you serious?.

Yep.

Andrew66 wrote

In science any hypothesis is not known for sure empircally in advance, why else would one do a study to check the hypothesis.?!

Yes, it is true that hypothesis are not known for sure in advance, that is why no scientist accepts a hypothesis as true. It's just a hypothesis after all.

Andrew66 wrote

A hypothesis is exactly driven by evidence such as anaological.

The hypothesis for dark matter is not. But it also is not accepted as true because there is not enough valid evidence to support it.

Andrew66 wrote

For example in coronary artery research - a problem for years with stent technology is that the cells in the artery often grow into the stent after deployment to cause re-narrowing (called re-estenosis). So, a very bright researcher one day proposed the hypothesis, that maybe a cancer fighting drug (which generally stops cell growth) may - if added to a stent - would stop the phenomum. This hypothesis was based on analogic type data. Good thing (it turned out the hypothesis was correct)- now a days drug eluting coronary stents are common place and renarrowings in the stent have been significantly reduced.

That's all well and dandy for your example, it doesn't contradict anything I've said. While they did not have the evidence to support the hypothesis, it was not held as true and could easily be refuted simply by claiming that it didn't have enough evidence to support it. It's the claimants job to provide the evidence to support their hypothesis, no one else need to take it seriously until it does have supporting evidence. Having an idea about how something might work is just fine, but pretending that one can determine how something works without testing to make sure, is insane.

Andrew66 wrote

I think what you are trying to say is that as an argument you may be suspect to some of my premises - (but I note that so far no was has been able to satisfactory refute them).

No. I'm saying precisely what I intend to say, but you are clearly demonstrating the lack of ability to comprehend what I'm saying. Otherwise, when you think of what I'm trying to say, it would be closer to the words I've written.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

For example in coronary artery research - a problem for years with stent technology is that the cells in the artery often grow into the stent after deployment to cause re-narrowing (called re-estenosis). So, a very bright researcher one day proposed the hypothesis, that maybe a cancer fighting drug (which generally stops cell growth) may - if added to a stent - would stop the phenomum. This hypothesis was based on analogic type data. Good thing (it turned out the hypothesis was correct)- now a days drug eluting coronary stents are common place and renarrowings in the stent have been significantly reduced.

Awe, Andrew, ffs, you just get worse.

Let's take the case of the cancer drugs and the stent. Cancer drugs do retard cell growth. It is a proven fact. To incorporate such a drug into a stent to prevent re-estenosis is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis because at least one of the hypothesis' components is a provable fact. Of course it requires testing via clinical trials etc because you are playing with people's lives here. Yes, there could be some unforeseen side-effects but that's what testing is for. My point is though that it isn't that great a leap of faith to believe in the hypothesis that stents incorporating cancer drugs prevent re-estenosis. Of course, the dosage and specific/range of drugs have to be determined etc., but as I say, the leap of faith required ain't that great because the hypothesis contains an element which is provably true.

Your 'hypothesis' about advanced intelligence is totally different. It contains elements which none are provably true. Therefore, to link the re-estenosis example with your 'theory' is complete and utter bollocks and typical of the christian way. They link something which is demonstrably true with an ass-hole theory in the hope of achieving truth by association.

Andrew, ffs, stop being a prick.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

Your 'hypothesis' about advanced intelligence is totally different. It contains elements which none are provably true. Therefore, to link the re-estenosis example with your 'theory' is complete and utter bollocks and typical of the christian way. They link something which is demonstrably true with an ass-hole theory in the hope of achieving truth by association. .

OK smarty pants..

The hypothesis is that a super being would evolve given an infinite series of changes of state.

Element 1:
The process whereby evolution of lower life forms to higher more complex life forms over a finite series of changes of state is clearly known to the point of fact in science.

Element 2:
The longer the series of changes of state the more evolution can be accomplished. This is also a factual, self evident statement.

So "Smarty" - are you saying evolution isn't true. ??

I suggest you actually think before responding to me - your responses are often so weak and simple minded it verges on being a waste of time for me to even respond to them.

[dogpet]

You tell 'im Andrew.
But why add only one more layer of complexity when there are so many out there?

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

OK smarty pants..

The hypothesis is that a super being would evolve given an infinite series of changes of state.

Element 1:
The process whereby evolution of lower life forms to higher more complex life forms over a finite series of changes of state is clearly known to the point of fact in science.

Element 2:
The longer the series of changes of state the more evolution can be accomplished. This is also a factual, self evident statement.

So "Smarty" - are you saying evolution isn't true. ??

I suggest you actually think before responding to me - your responses are often so weak and simple minded it verges on being a waste of time for me to even respond to them.

Oh, ffs, here we go again using terms such as 'hypothesis' instead of the scientifically correct term 'something I mused about for all of 5 micro seconds whilst taking a shit'. And here we go again, chistians misquoting us atheists. And here we go again, christians taking things to illogical conclusions. It was ever thus.

Yes, I agree with Elements 1 and 2. I never disagreed. All I said was that your logical arguments are full of shit.

HOWEVER, if Element 2 were true of the past, then we would be over run with super beings of advanced intelligence or, at the very least, there would be more than one. And, there would be evolutionary evidence. According to you christians, there's only one god and man ain't yet seen evolutionary evidence of past super intelligence. So, super beings didn't evolve in the past, at least not on this planet.

Whether super beings evolve in the future is pure conjecture and, if I were a gambler, I wouldn't bet on it, given how much man has fucked up the world we live in.

BTW: You now realise that the scripts that the bible is based on don't say that mary was a virgin don't you? You see, if you believe such obviously logically-flawed shit, your so called 'hypothesis' ain't worth fuck all 'cos it emanates from a brain which is warped by christianity.