Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

These videos might be good if you prefer your own bias to actual learning. The fact is, we don't yet have all the answers. We can only give the best explanation based on available evidence. As we learn more, our explanations become more rounded. The trouble is, people will believe just about anything, regardless of evidence. For example, that there's a God. There's no evidence for a God, but some people believe it anyway.

That said, who is chanting "water did it"? Because the only person making that claim here is you. Water did not "do it", I'm not aware of anyone suggesting it's the case. Why do you keep repeating this point as though it's relevant? I mean, people may well be snickering because what is being written (water did it) that is hilariously inept and funny?

People are working on finding the answers, and that is the very best we can do. Demanding all the answers right now is silly and dishonest. And quite how you reject "robotic repetition" while pushing your God is irony at its finest.
Working hard? Working hard to find answers requires honesty and objectivity. Two things that your scientists lack.

As to water, no they aren't directly saying that water consciously coded DNA. However, by describing water as being essential to DNA coding, that is exactly what it amounts to. BTW If indeed the information in the videos is flawed, then please specifically point out the flaws. If you can't, then your objection is tantamount to chanting:

"Is not!"
 

Working hard to find answers requires honesty and objectivity. Two things that your scientists lack.

Not so at all.

Science is looking at evidence objectively and finding answers without bias.

By all means have religious beliefs if you want - but don't pretend that is based on evidence and is without bias
 
Not so at all.

Science is looking at evidence objectively and finding answers without bias.

By all means have religious beliefs if you want - but don't pretend that is based on evidence and is without bias
But your so called scientists are biased and are not objective. Also, calling quackery science doesn't magically transform it into science no matter how many times you might claim it to be science. The evidence very clearly indicates that your claims are mere quackery posing as science.

BTW
My belief in a creator is based on evidence. That you choose to disqualify it as evidence is really of very little concern to me.

Also again:

If indeed the information in the videos is flawed, then please specifically point out the flaws. If you can't, then your objection is tantamount to mindlessly chanting:

"Is not!"
 

Last edited:
But your so called scientists are biased and are not objective. Also, calling quackery science doesn't magically transform it into science no matter how many times you might claim it to be science. The evidence very clearly indicates that your claims are mere quackery posing as science.

BTW
My belief in a creator is based on evidence. That you choose to disqualify it as evidence is really of very little concern to me.

Also again:

If indeed the information in the videos is flawed, then please specifically point out the flaws. If you can't, then your objection is tantamount to mindlessly chanting:

"Is not!"


My comment wasnt about your video - but making the general point that science is objective and aims to look at evidence without bias - something religion does not do at all

Which is fine, nothing wrong with beliefs or faith - as long as you are not claiming your religious view consists of evidence or objectivity
 
My comment wasnt about your video - but making the general point that science is objective and aims to look at evidence without bias - something religion does not do at all

Which is fine, nothing wrong with beliefs or faith - as long as you are not claiming your religious view consists of evidence or objectivity
Same as you, I have absolutely nothing against any belief if it is based on legitimate evidence and objectivity .
 
Unlike religion, science doesn't work on beliefs though.
Religion is not illogical nor lacking evidence for its conclusion of a creative mind being the cause of what is being perceived in nature. What is illogical about concluding that a code needs a mind to code it? Much to the contrary, insisting that a code doesn't need a mind to code it is unscientifically illogical.

BTW Everything that is claimed to be science is not science. Some of it is based on wishful thinking and a pathological aversion against certain ideas. Such personal aversions seriously INTERFERE with the scientific method, and its fair evaluation of the evidence at hand.
 
Last edited:
BTW Everything that is claimed to be science is not science. Some of it is based on wishful thinking and a pathological aversion against certain ideas. Such personal aversions seriously INTERFERE with the scientific method, and its fair evaluation of the evidence at hand.
.. and money, don't forget the money. And the ghoulish calculation of these elites. Just as every shoe store had an X-ray machine, every home has wi-fi. --or that is the hope.
 
I think that the "intelligence" man has assigned to a creator is a reflection of our own intelligence. I don't think it is how the universe "IS". That "is"ness is beyond any manmade conception of intelligence. To accept this as being true means that both our most profound, enlightened, advanced scientific understanding, is mere drivel to what "it" really "IS". So why waste our precious life, each moment with useless speculation, when we could be using our time, for useless activity. :)
 
Same as you, I have absolutely nothing against any belief if it is based on legitimate evidence and objectivity .
As an agnostic I try to be even handed. Religion, believe in it or not, was a cornerstone in the development of probably every civilization. It provided a definition for right, wrong, and morality, the glue that bound segments of human civilization together.
 
The only way l could claim to have a fish be part of my existence would have had it climb out of a large body of water, walk into my kitchen and jump into my frying pan. Now that would be magic. What is magic? Something you thought could never happen, but it did.
 
I think that the "intelligence" man has assigned to a creator is a reflection of our own intelligence. I don't think it is how the universe "IS". That "is"ness is beyond any manmade conception of intelligence. To accept this as being true means that both our most profound, enlightened, advanced scientific understanding, is mere drivel to what "it" really "IS". So why waste our precious life, each moment with useless speculation, when we could be using our time, for useless activity. :)

Should the intelligence that SETI detects in a code it might receive from outer space, be considered merely a reflection of our own intelligence and be ignored as insignificant? Would it be useless speculation to delve on its significance?

The Suggestion: A relevant short Story
By Radrook

The SETI scientist, and project administrator, David Stanton, had initially ignored the suggestion since it had seemed utterly ridiculous. Yet, the religionist, Mr. Salazar, had been insistent on being heard, and so Stanton had agreed to hear his argument in person.

Yes, they had attempted to casually ignore his strange idea. Yet, his stubborn persistence prevailed. Phone calls, letters, emails, and last but definitely not the least, his persistently contacting local city newspapers in different states and prominent magazine editors had fomented a deep interest until people began giving his idea serious consideration and the entire SETI effort was suspected to be a totally futile, and unnecessarily expensive enterprise.

Eventually, SETI began to be seriously affected as private financial contributions, and the vital government funding, began to dwindle. So a formal refutation of his idea became a matter of survival and a formal and recorded interview had been scheduled.

The day for the interview had finally arrived, and David Stanton found , Eduardo Salazar, casually seated in his office's waiting room. Salazar was a relatively young man in his late thirties, and definitely not the wise old philosopher type that Stanton had been expecting.

“Mr. Salazar?” Stanton uttered as unemotionally as he possibly could.

“Yes! That is me." Salazar responded, while stiffly stretching out a hand for a handshake

“Step right this way!” Stanton replied, as he slowly turned his back and led him towards his office.

Salazar ignored the gesture and followed him in. He noticed that there were many SETI themed photographs on the office wall. Most prominent was the one of the Allen Telescope Array with which SETI scanned the stars for a detection of any extraterrestrial signal. Some others were NASA photographs taken by space telescopes ranging from visible light, to infrared, x-ray, etc.

"Have a seat Mr. Salazar!” Stanton uttered coldly, and then proceeded to slowly lower himself into the high-backed, black leather office chair behind the massive rectangular mahogany desk, and to gaze intently at Salazar over his tinted bifocals.

Of course, Salazar had not been expecting an effusively warm reception. After all, he knew full-well that his idea was posing a serious challenge to the SETI project, and that he was rightfully being deemed to be a very dangerous man. Yet, despite his aversion to being treated disrespectfully, Salazar forced himself press on stubbornly because he felt it his moral Christian obligation to stop the double standards that were characteristic of the SETI charade.

“So what is it that we can do for you, young man?" Stanton finally said rhetorically, after an unusually long silence.

“Well, first Mr. Stanton, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to personally explain myself."

“Explain yourself?” Stanton uttered coldly, while nonchalantly lighting his expensive pipe, leaning back casually and regally in his plush seat, and puffing away until smoke was produced.

“Yes! I’m here to clarify my concept so that there might be absolutely no misunderstandings!" Salazar responded, while swiping away the smoke that had drifted his way while Stanton eyed him suspiciously.

“Misunderstandings?" Stanton replied, leaning slightly forward in his seat.

“But there are absolutely no misunderstandings Mr. Salazar. You see, son, we know exactly what you are proposing. We simply don’t agree with it. But since your idea, if indeed we can call it that, has drawn the attention of our financial benefactors, we thought we might humor you by at the least hearing you out. Especially since you agreed to have this interview recorded for posterity.” Stanton said while casually gesturing towards the location where the hidden cameras had been placed.

“I appreciate the gesture Mr. Stanton.” Salazar replied while starting to feel that he had maybe made a serious mistake.

"You see Mr. Salazar, we consider your idea ridiculous." Stanton added immediately.

“Yes, I am very aware of that Mr. Stanton, but the crucial question is why?" Salazar said, while squinting a brown suspicious eye.

"Why what?" Stanton responded, blushing while blinking rapidly in confusion.

"Why do you choose to consider my concept ridiculous?" Salazar calmly responded.

"Because any fool can see that it is utterly ridiculous? That's why!" Stanton shot back after a long pause.

“Obviously," he continued, "you don't, and certainly can’t have the faintest idea of what is involved in our meticulous search for extraterrestrial intelligence, Mr. Salazar. Otherwise you would not be objecting to our methods." Stanton said, and then rapidly proceeded to wipe the profuse perspiration that had gradually coalesced on his pale, furrowed brow with his silk, white handkerchief.

"But that is not a rebuttal, now is it Mr. Stanton?” Salazar responded, while grinning slightly.

“Instead, that is merely an objection. You see, Mr., Stanton, a rebuttal would be for you, Mr. Stanton, to explain why I must accept your explanation about a signal being from an intelligent source, when that signal could have easily arisen all by itself given the enormous amount of time that our universe has had to easily produce it without absolutely no help from any extraterrestrial intelligence"

"But that is utterly insane!" Stanton immediately shot back, while unintentionally and angrily biting down on his pipe, and wincing and grimacing from the sharp pain that it had produced on his front teeth.

"You see! Nature simply doesn't behave in that way! Entropy would prevent it!" he added nervously after removing the pipe from his thin lips, and casually placing it on a square, glass ashtray on the table.

"Obviously the nature of such a signal clearly indicates the characteristics of an organizing intellect. How else could it consistently display prime numbers in a sequence?" Stanton added.

"As I just explained, Mr. Stanton, given the billions of years that the universe has existed, such a signal being produced all by itself becomes inevitable." Salazar said smugly.

"Now, do you really expect us believe that Mr. Salazar?" Stanton said, after rising to his feet and pointing a quavering accusatory index finger at Salazar.

"What do you take me for? A fool?" Stanton shouted.

"Not at all Mr. Stanton. Just as you are not taking us for fools when you claim that DNA coded itself for the exact same reasons." Salazar responded, and then casually sauntered out of the SETI office with a broad smile on his satisfied religious face.
 
Last edited:
Should the intelligence that SETI detects in a code it might receive from outer space, be considered merely a reflection of our own intelligence and be ignored as insignificant? Would it be useless speculation to delve on its significance?
No, of course we shouldn't ignore it.
I remember a story something like that, but I don't think it was SETI. Impossible numerical coincidence in incoming radio waves or something. When nothing came of it, I assumed it was someone's wishful thinking. I think most of our information today consists of untruths and outright lies.
 
Last edited:
Religion is not illogical nor lacking evidence for its conclusion of a creative mind being the cause of what is being perceived in nature. What is illogical about concluding that a code needs a mind to code it? Much to the contrary, insisting that a code doesn't need a mind to code it is unscientifically illogical.

BTW Everything that is claimed to be science is not science. Some of it is based on wishful thinking and a pathological aversion against certain ideas. Such personal aversions seriously INTERFERE with the scientific method, and its fair evaluation of the evidence at hand.


well again, as I said before, my posts aren't about whether or not there is a creative mind behind it. I dont insist there is or isnt.

As I said before, one can accept science and a creator behind it - they are not mutually exclusive concepts.

and of course there are things claiming to be science that are not - that's why peer reviewed studies/evidence is so important.

Not singular claims of science or evidence.
 
well again, as I said before, my posts aren't about whether or not there is a creative mind behind it. I dont insist there is or isnt.

As I said before, one can accept science and a creator behind it - they are not mutually exclusive concepts.

and of course there are things claiming to be science that are not - that's why peer reviewed studies/evidence is so important.

Not singular claims of science or evidence.
Absolutely not necessarily so. Peer review and things tagged as evidence among those who are cunningly in collusion can prove worthless.
As I said, the concept that the DNA code is only possible because of a coding mind is a totally rational conclusion. What is patently irrational is to casually claim that the emergence of information on how to assemble living organisms and the meticulous arrangement of the information into a code just magically happily happened all by its mindless self.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

You can think idea scientific research and peer reviews are some sort of cunning collusion while religious creationism is somehow valid evidence - but I do not.

People can follow science with or without believing in a mind behind it - your idea of rational isn't everyone's.

Conversation just going in circles now so I am out unless anyone else has anything new to say.

Feel free to repeat your view again if you like.
 
I disagree.

You can think idea scientific research and peer reviews are some sort of cunning collusion while religious creationism is somehow valid evidence - but I do not.

People can follow science with or without believing in a mind behind it - your idea of rational isn't everyone's.

Conversation just going in circles now so I am out unless anyone else has anything new to say.

Feel free to repeat your view again if you like.
Your view of what is my view is incorrect. Please note that I do not consider all creationist claims as being equally valid. For example, I don't subscribe to the Young-Earth idea. Neither do I consider all scientists dishonest and as being wrong in all of their conclusions. However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists. After all, the many attempts at deceiving the public clearly demonstrates what they are capable of doing in their attempts to propagate their atheistic idea. In short, I don't share your unqualified trust in their honesty.


BTW
The conversation would not go around in circles if you were to concede that your idea that codes code themselves is irrational.​
 
Last edited:
Your view of what is my view is incorrect. Please note that I do not consider all creationist claims as being equally valid. For example, I don't subscribe to the Young-Earth idea. Neither do I consider all scientists dishonest and as being wrong in all of their conclusions. However, I don't share the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists. After all, the many attempts at deceiving the public clearly demonstrates what they are capable of doing in their attempts to propagate their atheistic idea. In short, I don't share your unqualified trust in their honesty.


BTW
The conversation would not go around in circles if you were to concede that your idea that codes code themselves is irrational.​
May somebody up there help us if ghoulish science should ever completely dominate the spirit of man.
 
the seemingly blind trust that atheists tend to have in the trustworthiness of these people simply because they are scientists.
I don't know if trust is exactly the right word, but I do know that I as an atheist don't trust in the scientists themselves, rather I sometimes trust in the information they provide and decide that there is enough evidence to support a particular theory (such as evolution).
 
I don't know if trust is exactly the right word, but I do know that I as an atheist don't trust in the scientists themselves, rather I sometimes trust in the information they provide and decide that there is enough evidence to support a particular theory (such as evolution).

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. --Socrates
and
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. --Albert Einstein
and
I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? --Albert Einstein
 


Back
Top