Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by ScriptReadsMe, Jul 17, 2017.
ID is just creationism with window dressing.
Gould's punctuated equilibrium is where it's at
There are sessile life forms.
Argument from incredulity
Intellectual God of the gaps. This doesn't prove designer, imo. Though, I do believe in one
Heretic - God doesn't need a wand. You'll learn this when He waves his immaterial non-hand to smite thee into thine eternal damnation, that He allows in His great power and mercy.
This what I was getting at
I smoked a bunch of DMT and saw aliens creating people.
Make about as much sense as any other theory I suppose
That makes no sense. Incredulity means being unwilling/unable to believe something. I fail to see how pointing out the organization and coherence in the universe is 'unwilling to believe something'.
Does it even matter if we're all just in a computer simulation?
To assert there is simply too much organization for a scientific explanation is a gapped theory, so the charge of incredulity kind of fits.
And yet, the argument from design and the Goldilocks argument are often taken really seriously within circles that debate about this shit. Even if the incredulity argument sticks, it doesn't mean that bracketing the possibility of a creator is the single most logical path forward.
that's not what the article suggests at all. where did you get that?
The abstract states:
No evidence to explain something = God
I didn't assert there is too much organization for scientific explanation. That's not what I said at all. Clearly science has explanations for almost everything but typically those explanations explain the how, not the way.
Why is organization inherent to existence? Why does gravity exist? Like we just take it for granted that matter has mass and that mass attracts other things via it's gravitational field but WHY? Why are there physical laws inherent to the nature of reality? Why do life forms naturally organize themselves and develop into more and more complex organisms?
They have cilia, which is used to propel them. Cilia is present everywhere. When you spit phlegm lol, the phlegm is propelled towards the mouth using cilia. The article doesn't openly suggest first life was designed but I think it`s implicit
it does neither. point to where you think it even hints at this.
Even if the most primitive life form could thrive by photosynthesis alone, and this is a big if, the research refutes the idea that last common ancestor got its motile organs by symbotic means (f.ex. an spirochete hijacking an archaea, like Jack Reacheround suggested. We're slowly deviating from the main topic lol
If last common ancestor could move aptly in any direction, how did the motile mechanism get there in the first place? Then the research refutes the idea that it was due to a life form absorping another and using it as one of its organs. What does that leave you with? You tell me
Yeah but how else can they try to show off how much more intelligent they are than those religious morons
It leaves a question that needs to be researched, not filled in with "God did it".