Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 13
 [ 249 posts ] 
Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:yes, that explains why atheist have to invoke wild "theories" to overcome the arguments for the exístanse of God.

The universe came form nothing

The universe is eternal

There is an infinitely big multiverse

Black holes are portals to other universes

Jesus had a tween brother

Early Christians consumed hallucinatory mushrooms

There is no free will

There is no objective morality

Moral values are platonic objects

etc.

But I have to admit that members from this forum are too smart and would rather not to adopt a position and keep their world view ambiguous, without affirming nor denying anything.


:lol:

Invoke what wild theories? There is no evidence to assume a deity in the first place. Again, arguments are not evidence.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:29 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

MarsCydonia wrote:I would like to point that Leroy seems to have again forgotten how the burden of proof works....


Oh he knows perfectly well. It goes like this: LEROY doesn't have to support any of his contentions, however, when they are rejected, LEROY demands evidence for the null hypothesis.



MarsCydonia wrote: but most importantly:

What does this utter stupidity have to do with the Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis again?


He's publicly rehearsing his prejudice.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:36 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

he_who_is_nobody wrote: :lol:

Invoke what wild theories? There is no evidence to assume a deity in the first place. Again, arguments are not evidence.



The Wild Atheismasliasithsits Null Hypothesis Just A Theory
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:37 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1260Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
A drowning man will grab at anything that might keep him afloat, even if the tempest is of his own making! ;)



yes, that explains why atheist have to invoke wild "theories" to overcome the arguments for the exístanse of God.

Nobody has to invoke anything to "overcome" the arguments for the existence of God. Mostly because they all fail.

The universe came form nothing

The universe is eternal

There is an infinitely big multiverse

Black holes are portals to other universes

None of these are needed to not accept shitty cosmological arguments build on implausible, or demonstrably false premises. Or claims that haven't met their burden of proof.

Jesus had a tween brother

Early Christians consumed hallucinatory mushrooms

I don't even care about any of that. What matters it that christians today have no way of demonstrating that their millenia old myths and fables ever took place in actual history.

This, combined with the fact the many well-known cases of fraud not to mention self-deception makes belief in these ancient fables an unwarranted act of gullibility.

There is no free will

This one comes down to a matter of definition. It's word play. And nobody needs to argue about free will to "disprove" God. The God-story needs to meet it's burden of proof first.

There is no objective morality

Even if there were, that wouldn't mean that a God exists. If morals can be grounded in Gods nature, they can also be grounded in human nature.

Moral values are platonic objects

Never even heard this one before. Which just goes to show it isn't even necessary to argue about.

But I have to admit that members from this forum are too smart and would rather not to adopt a position and keep their world view ambiguous, without affirming nor denying anything.

No you're confused again.

You don't seem to undertand the ideas that
1. You only believe something when it has met it's burden of proof.
2. When you don't know, you don't know, you're not required to take up the anti-position on some claim, in order to not accept the claim.

Consider this scenario. Some guy comes to you with a large bag, puts his hand inside and pulls out a chocolate. He says the bag is full of chocolates. He opens the bag so you can look inside, it does indeed appear to be full of chocolates. There are way too many for you to count at a quick glance. Then he says "there is either an even, or an odd number of chocolates in the bag, right?" You agree, because those are the only two logically possible options. It is either an even, or an odd number.

Then he says "I haven't counted them, but there is an even number of chocolates in the bag". Do you believe him? Suppose you say "I'm not convinced", does that now mean you believe there is an odd number of chocolates in the bag? No. It just means that the claim "the number of chocolates is even" has not met it's burden of proof.

On the God question, you're the guy coming to me with a bag full of chocolates and making claims about it's contents. And I'm the guy who isn't convinced by your claims. That doesn't mean I'm claiming to know how many chocolates there are in the bag. Just that you merely claiming it doesn't make it true. I know this frustrates you, and you want us to come out and claim to know and defend positions of all sorts.

TOO FUCKING BAD. We're not requried to do that. Just as you are not requried to claim the number of chocolates in the bag is an odd number.

So, Leroy, pretty please with sugar on top, COUNT THE FUCKING CHOCOLATES.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

More screed from LEROY telling us what our position is.

There's really no point ever in engaging anything he says as he seems to think he can take both sides of every discussion, so he can just argue with himself. He's the kind of person who needs to argue in order to give the illusion that his position is equal, and his comprehension inhibits him from grasping anything alternative to that which he already believes.

As such, I won't be replying to him anymore, although I will surely be talking about him and his fundamentalist kind. Life's too short to waste on fools playing the fool.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:16 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Rumraket wrote:Then he says "I haven't counted them, but there is an even number of chocolates in the bag". Do you believe him? Suppose you say "I'm not convinced", does that now mean you believe there is an odd number of chocolates in the bag? No. It just means that the claim "the number of chocolates is even" has not met it's burden of proof.

On the God question, you're the guy coming to me with a bag full of chocolates and making claims about it's contents. And I'm the guy who isn't convinced by your claims. That doesn't mean I'm claiming to know how many chocolates there are in the bag. Just that you merely claiming it doesn't make it true. I know this frustrates you, and you want us to come out and claim to know and defend positions of all sorts.
.


yes excellent analogy, thanks for simplifying stuff.


in this example, and given that you are not providing evidence for an odd number of chocolates that would nullify the "even number hypothesis" you are tacitly admitting that there is a real possibility worthy of consideration that there is an even number of chocolates.

you are granting that the existence of a designer is possible and worthy of consideration,

for example,

given that we have so many fine tuning problems that cant be solved naturally and that would be solved by postulating the existence of a designer (the origin of life for example)

and given the existence of a designer is possible,

it is fare to conclude that a designer exists


in other words, if there are observations that would be explained if you grant that I have an even number of chocolates and this observations can not be explained with an odd number of chocolates, then it would be obvious that I have an even number of chocolates.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:26 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:yes excellent analogy, thanks for simplifying stuff.

in this example, and given that you are not providing evidence for an odd number of chocolates that would nullify the "even number hypothesis" you are tacitly admitting that there is a real possibility worthy of consideration that there is an even number of chocolates.

you are granting that the existence of a designer is possible and worthy of consideration,

for example,

given that we have so many fine tuning problems that cant be solved naturally and that would be solved by postulating the existence of a designer (the origin of life for example)

and given the existence of a designer is possible,

it is fare to conclude that a designer exists

in other words, if there are observations that would be explained if you grant that I have an even number of chocolates and this observations can not be explained with an odd number of chocolates, then it would be obvious that I have an even number of chocolates.

:facepalm: It appears Rumraket's dumbing down was not dumbed down enough for Leroy.

Or is it Leroy's fanatism that makes him incapable of rational thought?

"Magic is a possible answer to everything, so it is fare to fill the gaps wtith the god I believe in"
Even kept in the typo.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:35 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Either a cosmic hippo shat out the universe, or a cosmic hippo did not shit out the universe. One of these statements must be true.

There is evidence of cosmic hippo shit in the universe, ergo it's possible that a cosmic hippo shat out the universe.

You have to grant that it's possible... if not, then you need to provide evidence that the cosmic hippo does not exist.

Until then, you are obligated to consider my assertion that the cosmic hippo exists whenever I restate it, and my position stands equally to your claim that the cosmic hippo does not exist, or that it didn't shit out the universe.

There are numerous things in the universe that cannot yet be explained, but I can explain them with reference to the cosmic hippo and his proclivity for high-content informational universe pooping, ergo it's fair to conclude that a cosmic hippo exists, and that it shat out the universe, and consequently I am right about everything and you are all cunts because you don't lend credence to my fucking hippo! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:25 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Sparhafoc wrote:Either a cosmic hippo shat out the universe, or a cosmic hippo did not shit out the universe. One of these statements must be true.

There is evidence of cosmic hippo shit in the universe, ergo it's possible that a cosmic hippo shat out the universe.

You have to grant that it's possible... if not, then you need to provide evidence that the cosmic hippo does not exist.

Until then, you are obligated to consider my assertion that the cosmic hippo exists whenever I restate it, and my position stands equally to your claim that the cosmic hippo does not exist, or that it didn't shit out the universe.

There are numerous things in the universe that cannot yet be explained, but I can explain them with reference to the cosmic hippo and his proclivity for high-content informational universe pooping, ergo it's fair to conclude that a cosmic hippo exists, and that it shat out the universe, and consequently I am right about everything and you are all cunts because you don't lend credence to my fucking hippo! :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:


yes, I would provide evidencie against the cosmic hippo hypothesis


but you are correct, if my answer where "C" I would be implying that the hippo hypothesis is probably true and worthy of consideration.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:41 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1260Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Then he says "I haven't counted them, but there is an even number of chocolates in the bag". Do you believe him? Suppose you say "I'm not convinced", does that now mean you believe there is an odd number of chocolates in the bag? No. It just means that the claim "the number of chocolates is even" has not met it's burden of proof.

On the God question, you're the guy coming to me with a bag full of chocolates and making claims about it's contents. And I'm the guy who isn't convinced by your claims. That doesn't mean I'm claiming to know how many chocolates there are in the bag. Just that you merely claiming it doesn't make it true. I know this frustrates you, and you want us to come out and claim to know and defend positions of all sorts.
.


yes excellent analogy, thanks for simplifying stuff.


in this example, and given that you are not providing evidence for an odd number of chocolates that would nullify the "even number hypothesis" you are tacitly admitting that there is a real possibility worthy of consideration that there is an even number of chocolates.

you are granting that the existence of a designer is possible and worthy of consideration,

True that is implied by that analogy, which just goes to show the analogy breaks down on the point relating to the equal plausibility of the dichotomy.

Allow me to modify it a bit: Instead the guy now claims there is a magical wish-granting unicorn in the bag, but doesn't allow you to look inside. By telling him you are not convinced by his mere claim, have you somehow taken upon yourself the demand that you prove there is not a magical wish-granting unicorn in the bag? No. You are merely unconvinced by an implausible claim twhich hasn't met it's burden of proof.

It is not your job to disprove the claim, it is the job of the guy holding the bag to open it and show it's contents. To show there's something there, there.

Thank you.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Rumraket on Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:42 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1260Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:given that we have so many fine tuning problems that cant be solved naturally

I don't accept that assertion. As far as I'm aware, some string-theories account for the universal constants.

Of course, the problem with this idea is the same as the problem with the God-idea, that we now have to explain God, or the string theories instead of the constants. We are still left with something that has the property of existing (laws of string theory, or God) and we don't know why that is the case.

leroy wrote: and that would be solved by postulating the existence of a designer (the origin of life for example)

and given the existence of a designer is possible,

We actually don't know whether a designer is possible. It might be logically possible in the sense that we could imagine a creator-God of some sort that doesn't imply a logical contradiction, but is it actually physically possible? We don't know.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:47 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Rumraket wrote:[

True that is implied by that analogy, which just goes to show the analogy breaks down on the point relating to the equal plausibility of the dichotomy.


well, why not having an equal probability dichotomy? why not starting with the assumption that there is a 50% probability that a god exists, and look at the evidence with that starting assumption?

Rumraket wrote:Allow me to modify it a bit: Instead the guy now claims there is a magical wish-granting unicorn in the bag, but doesn't allow you to look inside. By telling him you are not convinced by his mere claim, have you somehow taken upon yourself the demand that you prove there is not a magical wish-granting unicorn in the bag? No. You are merely unconvinced by an implausible claim twhich hasn't met it's burden of proof.

It is not your job to disprove the claim, it is the job of the guy holding the bag to open it and show it's contents. To show there's something there, there.

Thank you.


granted, he would have to provide evidence for a unicorn, but the thing it that theist tend to provide evidence for God,


If he provides evidence for the unicorn you have to ether accept the evidence or provide a justification as for why that doesn't count as evidence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Rumraket wrote:Allow me to modify it a bit...



Add a dragon and a garage. ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Rumraket wrote:We actually don't know whether a designer is possible. It might be logically possible in the sense that we could imagine a creator-God of some sort that doesn't imply a logical contradiction, but is it actually physically possible? We don't know.


Speaking from personal experience, if it is a designer, then it is not one which operates under any design paradigms we comprehend; which itself contradicts the claim that design is apparent.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:46 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Rumraket wrote:
leroy wrote:given that we have so many fine tuning problems that cant be solved naturally

I don't accept that assertion. As far as I'm aware, some string-theories account for the universal constants.

Of course, the problem with this idea is the same as the problem with the God-idea, that we now have to explain God, or the string theories instead of the constants. We are still left with something that has the property of existing (laws of string theory, or God) and we don't know why that is the case. .



sure, but what we can do is test both string theory and God and see with hypothesis is better according to the standards typically used in science, (explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with known data, less ad hoc, etc.)

leroy wrote: and that would be solved by postulating the existence of a designer (the origin of life for example)

Rumraket wrote:and given the existence of a designer is possible,

We actually don't know whether a designer is possible. It might be logically possible in the sense that we could imagine a creator-God of some sort that doesn't imply a logical contradiction, but is it actually physically possible? We don't know



In you analogy of the chocolates, you are granting that the existence of a designer is possible.


we know that intelligent designers are at least possible, for example Aliens are at least possible,


so when I say that life was created by an intelligent designer, I am postulating the existence of something that is at least possible, after concluding that life was created by an intelligent designer, we can star an other conversation and determine who is that intelligent designer.

Mere intelligent design is at least possible and both of us would agree, you might argue that my specific God is no possible but that would be an other topic.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:51 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:well, why not having an equal probability dichotomy? why not starting with the assumption that there is a 50% probability that a god exists, and look at the evidence with that starting assumption?


Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates how biases his thinking is on this subject. Change god to fairy in the above and tell us if you think that is logical or how someone should go about looking for evidence?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:55 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates how biases his thinking is on this subject. Change god to fairy in the above and tell us if you think that is logical or how someone should go about looking for evidence?


I love the way he thinks probability works. It's so cute.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:14 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
leroy wrote:well, why not having an equal probability dichotomy? why not starting with the assumption that there is a 50% probability that a god exists, and look at the evidence with that starting assumption?


Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates how biases his thinking is on this subject. Change god to fairy in the above and tell us if you think that is logical or how someone should go about looking for evidence?


why don't we start with an initial assumption that there is a 50% probability that some sort of intelligent designer, (intelligent and powerful enough to create life in this planet) exists, and look at the evidence form that initial assumption?


if we ever agree that abiogenesis is better explained by design, we can have a second discussion and determine which design hypothesis is better, (God, Fairies, Aliens, etc.)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:17 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Once again, dandan/leroy demonstrates how biases his thinking is on this subject. Change god to fairy in the above and tell us if you think that is logical or how someone should go about looking for evidence?


why don't we start with an initial assumption that there is a 50% probability that some sort of intelligent designer, (intelligent and powerful enough to create life in this planet) exists, and look at the evidence form that initial assumption?


Why should we? Why the special pleading for an intelligent designer and not a fairy? Have you changed god for fairy and seen for yourself just how illogical that statement truly is? Beyond that, do you actually think people started by thinking the earth is round by assuming it was 50% probable?

leroy wrote:if we ever agree that abiogenesis is better explained by design, we can have a second discussion and determine which design hypothesis is better, (God, Fairies, Aliens, etc.)


That would require evidence of design and not just assertions on your part.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:39 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

he_who_is_nobody wrote:That would require evidence of design and not just assertions on your part.


It's amazing that an entire argument based on the contention of there being evidence for design is also permanently unwilling and incapable of offering any standardized metric that could be used to infer designedness.

As I've said before - one wonders why Creationist/IDers find it so hard. I mean, LEROY, obviously - he has never once been able to support a single instance of any drivel that's splurted from his figurative mouth. But why can't supposedly Creation-scientists (those whose effluent the likes of LEROY uncritically regurgitates) provide a robust metric of inferred design?

Science employs metrics of designedness in archaeology and physical anthropology, for example - these are direct observations which tally with known physical forces, such as sequential percussion bulbs on stone from being struck by an ancient forebear - a good archaeologist can see human implements where others would see only stones, and a good knowledge of archaeology or physical anthropology focused on discovering stone tools would be able to provide a coherent and comprehensive list of traits which would allow another person to employ the metric and test it independently.

Why can't Creationists do this with their supposed universal design?

At most, all one ever hears is an appeal to incredulity: but it's so complex - how could it have happened by chance?

But complexity is not a metric of designedness - in fact, any metric purporting to be able to detect designedness would be obligated to assume parsimony as a fundamental basis for the inferences. And of course, we see complexity arising from simple interactions all the fucking time, and there appears to be no need for a god tweaking each atom, or tugging on their quarks.

Rather, the true reason why Creationists/IDers and their propaganda outlets offer no metric at all is because they cannot produce any coherent metric that doesn't require preconceived belief; their assertion is rested squarely on a faith position which allows only corroboratory evidence, and must reject anything which fails to reflect their desired preconception.

My favourite example of this is the appeal to beauty, where wooists wibble on about the wonder of trees, of the beauty of birds singing, and the miracle of birth... while completely ignoring that forests are essentially battle-grounds where wars are waged on timescales greater than human lives, where bird song is basically one male telling another male to fuck off, and the 'miracle' of birth has historically killed ridiculous numbers of women and infants, where infants can be conceived and born with genetic defects, and the vast majority of life on this planet enters the world ready to run from the nearest predator.

The rub is that Creationist/IDers claim there is evidence of design in the world, but then they don't want to infer design when it comes to cancer, disease, parasitism, genetic deformity, depredation, natural disasters of any of the innumerable horrifying events than can happen to a living, feeling creature in a supposedly designed universe.

All the knowledge - the well-established complex interrogations of the universe, of the world around us, and of the real physical predicament humans are in is just brushed away - who needs to care about reality when there's an utterly stupefying magical hero-myth to subscribe to?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:24 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 13
 [ 249 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests