Complexity? Really?

[Whitefire13]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Whitefire13

Uh, just for clarification…

ARE you claiming you are a “trained scientist”?

Yes, I do so with the hop of reducing the insinuations that I don’t know what “science” means or that I don’t understand the “scientific method” and so on

I don’t believe you.

You have repeated demonstrated your overwhelming ignorance.

You are not a scientist in the most basic of understanding of Science.

I think you have taken this word and appropriated it for your bad-faith distortions of reality …

Epistemology - Scientific Theology, Secular Science

[Nyarlathotep]

@Sherlock-Holmes

The term “complexity” though has formal definitions and informal everyday usage.

For sure. Could you please supply the exact definition you are using so I can perform some calculations? Or are my suspicions accurate; that you are just hand waving? I’m already convinced the latter is the case, but I’d be willing to reverse course if you’d throw a bone my way.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

I asked for a theory and was handed a hypothesis.

Then you should have said an hypothesis is the same a theory, as an example of a stupid claim.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Nyarlathotep

I’m sticking my neck out here and assuming you don’t have the proof. Would be a great time to make me look stupid by posting it…

I already have, several times. If the presence of the universe had a scientific explanation then that would mean the universe existed before it existed.

That’s just a subjective claim, I do wonder as a “trained scientist” why you keep using the word proof as well, rather than evidence?

@Sherlock-Holmes

The explanation for it (like all scientific explanations) would be in terms of matter, laws, energy, fields - yet the presence of these are what we seek to explain!

So we don’t know what the state was prior to big bang, yet you think it is a credible explanation to make claims based on us not knowing, still not seeing the problem are you? What is it about the phrase I don’t know that makes it anathema to religious apologetics?

@Sherlock-Holmes

Basically science offers no prospect of explaining the origin of a material system,

And you know this how exactly? Dear oh dear, I hope you didn’t expend any money on this scientific training, I really do.

@Sherlock-Holmes

it can only ever describe how an already existing system changes.

You don’t know what (if anything) existed before the big bang, and yet are making sweeping claims based on not knowing. Does this really need to be spelled out to a “trained scientist” before you desist from these risible absolutes? It goes without saying that none of this remotely evidence any deity.

@Sherlock-Holmes

We must seek a non-scientific explanation or we must conclude that it has always existed and had no start, no beginning, take your pick.

We must do no such thing, that’s a false dichotomy fallacy if ever I saw one, I feel I now must press you for details on this “scientific training”, was it from a theological college by any chance? I mean really, page after page after page, and here we are back at your original god of the gaps polemic, this is poor stuff.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes, I do so with the hop of reducing the insinuations that I don’t know what “science” means or that I don’t understand the “scientific method” and so on. Frankly in a discussion like this we should be focusing on the strength of our opponents argument not their education, their job, their personality.

The derogations were based on your arguments and claims about science. Your unevidenced claim is a pretty obvious attempt to create an appeal to authority fallacy, It was you who introduced the unevidenced claim, and now when questioned want to pretend it has less relevance than your arguments, when it was precisely the poor nature of some of your claims about science that prompted you to offer the fallacy? In my life I’ve met plenty of people who were well trained, and none the less clueless for it btw.

You derided me for asserting there are scientific facts, I asked you if you really believe science does not know anything to be true, you failed repeatedly to answer. I find your claim more and more dubious I must say, or your grasp of language is being outdone by such hubris.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Read this, a comment made by Noam Chomsky once:

In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor’s degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible—the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

Yet you felt the urge to boast about scientific training? What does that imply?

@Sherlock-Holmes

No. I have never even seen the site until a few days ago when searching on this subject.

What did you search for?

@MrDawn

You do know if you’re lying, the mods can look up your IP address and trace that back to your service provider.

He’s scientifically trained man, course he fucking knows…

Anyway now I say that, in what field, where, and what academic qualifications have you achieved @Sherlock-Holmes, if you don’t mind me asking?

Oh I have no scientific training at all btw, before you ask. Not unless you count GCE O level in physics and biology of course? Oh and I had a chemistry set as a child?

@Nyarlathotep

That doesn’t look remotely like a proof. For example: what is the first premise?

I think he may be misusing the word proof, I did query this earlier, and got no answer, but then I am not “scientifically trained”.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Incorrect and irrelevant.

Why so coy, it is very relevant or you wouldn’t have made the boast.

@Sherlock-Holmes

It is irrelevant to the subject, to the thread.

So you raised it, but when challenged to evidence it, it suddenly becomes irrelevant? Hmmm…

@Sherlock-Holmes

Evaluate what the other person says without any reference to their personal traits, background, belief or prejudices.

We were, you didn’t like the inferences, and so made the claim??? A claim that is now inexplicable irrelevant when you’re asked to evidence it. You must see how that looks right?

@CyberLN

will you be sharing the particulars of the scientific training you’ve claimed to have? Or will you be coming up with another reason not to do so?

Oh I’m not remotely scientifically trained, but I can take a pretty good stab at that one…

@Sherlock-Holmes

None of what I say about myself can help you decide on the validity or invalidity of my arguments

…aaaaaand yet you made the claim, Watson you astound me!

@Sherlock-Holmes

I refuse to discuss myself at the level of detail you demand, it is frankly none of your business too,

Is that why you raised it in a public forum?

That reminds me I have a Nobel prize in…er…something, but I refuse to discuss it.

[Whitefire13]

Me? I’m just a rural red-neck, BUT you don’t see me bragging about it to, you know, impress you all with my vast knowledge on a variety of subjects!

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Nyarlathotep

For sure. Could you please supply the exact definition you are using so I can perform some calculations? Or are my suspicions accurate; that you are just hand waving? I’m already convinced the latter is the case, but I’d be willing to reverse course if you’d throw a bone my way.

I only used it to ask another what he meant by it, if I used it in another way (and I might have) then please quote the sentence and I’ll be happy to explain.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@WhoAreYou

This is a relay synthesis they didn’t make the RNA from scratch.

"Gooal’!! Oh, no the score has been disallowed, team god have removed the goalposts and set them up in the next field over…

[Sheldon]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

"Gooal’!! Oh, no the score has been disallowed, team god have removed the goalposts and set them up in the next field over…

Quality, see this you fuckers, make me larf and you get the lurve…kudos…a single sentence that has all the hallmarks of the basis of a Monty Python sketch.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

@WhoAreYou

This is a relay synthesis they didn’t make the RNA from scratch.

"Gooal’!! Oh, no the score has been disallowed, team god have removed the goalposts and set them up in the next field over…

This is the kind of answer I expect if I ever get the details from the argument that we can’t make the basic components of life. In the end is it going to boil down to we can’t make atoms/molecules out of nothing? If that is the case I wish they would just save us a lot of time by starting with that; instead of having to pry it out of them, one layer at a time, just to reach a jackpot of dogshit.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Nyarlathotep

@Sherlock-Holmes

I already have, several times. If the presence of the universe had a scientific explanation then that would mean the universe existed before it existed.

That doesn’t look remotely like a proof. For example: what is the first premise?

I’ve decided to not send anymore responses until you provide this proof you repeatedly told us exists (or amend your claim). I don’t think you are serious.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Nyarlathotep

That doesn’t look remotely like a proof. For example: what is the first premise?

1. All scientific theories are expressed with reference to laws and material quantities.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Nyarlathotep

This is the kind of answer I expect if I ever get the details from the argument that we can’t make the basic components of life. In the end is it going to boil down to we can’t make atoms/molecules out of nothing? If that is the case I wish they would just save us a lot of time by starting with that; instead of having to pry it out of them, one layer at a time, just to reach a jackpot of dogshit.

We can’t make life.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

We can’t make life.

I can’t make a cake, but if anyone is going to suggest this infers it requires supernatural magic, then I’m going to clutch my belly, kick my legs in the air, and laugh my cock off.

Another tedious and asinine god of the gaps polemic.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, and we have irrefutable objective evidence that humans evolved like all living things.

[Whitefire13]

The deity simply died (no evidence of “no beginning/no end”) and the evolved material universe that resulted in “we” are just “body parts”. BANG

[CyberLN]

@Sherlock-Holmes

We can’t make life.

We can’t? My parents did.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Sherlock-Holmes

[1] All scientific theories are expressed with reference to laws and material quantities.

Can you post the whole thing?

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

All scientific theories are expressed with reference to laws and material quantities.

Is it not obvious he has no idea what a ‘Law’ is?

[Sheldon]

@Cognostic

Is it not obvious he has no idea what a ‘Law’ is?

Er, scientifically trained, ahem!

At least he hasn’t said we can’t have laws without a law giver, I can feel my piss boiling at the mere prospect of such facile idiocy.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Sherlock-Holmes

We can’t make life.

That sounds more like a plea to the very hard working and talented teams all over the world who are working on and (if the academic papers are true) getting very close to doing it.

Of course that means fundamentalists like our guest that I quoted will have to find another theist rock to die on or crawl under.
BTW the “creation” of life is expected within the next 10 years.

I so want to see that happen.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Sherlock-Holmes

We can’t make life.

Yet. We can’t make life yet.

[Cognostic]

I think he means, ‘We have not yet discovered the process by which life came about.’ It’s kind of like that ‘Law’ stuff he was not understanding earlier. To make, requires a maker. Why would we make something that simply occurs naturally? Guess what? The list of shit we didn’t make is frigging long. When you get right down to it, no one has made anything. The best we have done is restructure things that were already here. A lot of stuff was already here. What exactly does he mean “Make Life?” When was life ever made? So the argument is… We can’t do something that occurs naturally, therefore God? We can’t do something that has never been done before, therefore God? I’m not understanding the argument. I have never set foot on the moon, therefore god? I have never caused a tornado, therefore god. I can’t make it rain, therefore god? Is this really the best he can do?