DAFC.net
Home 19 April 2019 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sat 26 Jan 13:11

A Templeton prize winner saying"The remarkable properties we associate with life are not going to come about by accident"...ooofftt.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Sat 26 Jan 13:50

Work of the devil......

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 03:05

Quote:

richie5401, Sat 26 Jan 13:11

A Templeton prize winner saying"The remarkable properties we associate with life are not going to come about by accident"...ooofftt.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies


The Templeton prize is a crock of shiiit.
It's given out by a religious institution to scientists who say something that can be latched onto by the religious or say something a bit nice about religion.
It is certainly not a credible scientific prize and your omission of this fact is very telling.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 09:51

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Sun 27 Jan 03:05

Quote:

richie5401, Sat 26 Jan 13:11

A Templeton prize winner saying"The remarkable properties we associate with life are not going to come about by accident"...ooofftt.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/26/i-predict-great-revolution-physicists-define-life-paul-davies


The Templeton prize is a crock of shiiit.
It's given out by a religious institution to scientists who say something that can be latched onto by the religious or say something a bit nice about religion.
It is certainly not a credible scientific prize and your omission of this fact is very telling.


All awards fall into the "you kissed our booty" category.

I Hope You're Ok Today....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 10:48

"All awards fall into the "you kissed our booty" category."

All Awards ?

Don't many recognise selfless acts or achievements ?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 12:31

I'm not claiming it is a credible scientific prize SIF,just that Paul Davies is a Physicist and held views contrary to many.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 13:42

Thousands of scientists are Christians. Only Aethiest Scienists are credible though.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 13:45

)Edit

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[81]Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry,[82] 65.3% in Physics,[82] 62% in Medicine,[82] 54% in Economics.[82][82]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology



Post Edited (Sun 27 Jan 13:47)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 15:03

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sun 27 Jan 10:48

"All awards fall into the "you kissed our booty" category."

All Awards ?

Don't many recognise selfless acts or achievements ?


I was a little too general there admittedly.

I Hope You're Ok Today....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: veteraneastender  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 15:30

You are quite right though in general terms - a bunch of “awards” are self appreciation societies.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 20:04

Quote:

veteraneastender, Sun 27 Jan 15:30

You are quite right though in general terms - a bunch of “awards” are self appreciation societies.


Particularly at the higher end shall we say.
In fairness you were on point with your example,made me think....I certainly meant no disrespect to the genuine celebration of the selfless or worthy.

I Hope You're Ok Today....

Post Edited (Sun 27 Jan 20:04)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: renegade master  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 22:24

I opened this expecting to read about the Iconic Dunfermline Nightclub. Imagine my utter disappointment reading this nonsense!!!!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Sun 27 Jan 22:30

Quote:

PARrot, Sun 27 Jan 13:42

Thousands of scientists are Christians. Only Aethiest Scienists are credible though.


Scientists who are Christian fundamentalists are not credible.
If Christian scientists leave their religious beliefs out of the equation when drawing their conclusions then they are credible.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 02:01

Hmmmmmm!

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 07:12

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Sun 27 Jan 22:30

Quote:

PARrot, Sun 27 Jan 13:42

Thousands of scientists are Christians. Only Aethiest Scienists are credible though.


Scientists who are Christian fundamentalists are not credible.
If Christian scientists leave their religious beliefs out of the equation when drawing their conclusions then they are credible.


And what about scientists who sell their science for coin?
You know the "thank you for smoking" kind?

I Hope You're Ok Today....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 09:47


... Or the, You used to be a monkey, these phoetuses are almost identical, and Piltdown man types.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 12:33

Haeckel was a very naughty boy.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 15:28

Quote:

richie5401, Mon 28 Jan 12:33

Haeckel was a very naughty boy.


Despite admitting the images are false and being severely repremanded, said images are still used in school textbooks.
Figure that one out.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 15:35

Lying to support a theory?I'm don't believe it.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 18:10

Quote:

PARrot, Mon 28 Jan 15:28

Quote:

richie5401, Mon 28 Jan 12:33

Haeckel was a very naughty boy.


Despite admitting the images are false and being severely repremanded, said images are still used in school textbooks.
Figure that one out.


Where is Piltdown man is used in textbooks.
Show me, cause that's a f...ing lie.

Plus it was scientists who showed it to be a forgery/fake.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 18:13

Quote:

Rastapari, Mon 28 Jan 07:12

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Sun 27 Jan 22:30

Quote:

PARrot, Sun 27 Jan 13:42

Thousands of scientists are Christians. Only Aethiest Scienists are credible though.


Scientists who are Christian fundamentalists are not credible.
If Christian scientists leave their religious beliefs out of the equation when drawing their conclusions then they are credible.


And what about scientists who sell their science for coin?
You know the "thank you for smoking" kind?


True, but thats how science works, other test the claims and prove them to be false or not.
But yes there are those who are less trustworthy that's for sure.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Mon 28 Jan 22:34

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Mon 28 Jan 18:10

Quote:

PARrot, Mon 28 Jan 15:28

Quote:

richie5401, Mon 28 Jan 12:33

Haeckel was a very naughty boy.


Despite admitting the images are false and being severely repremanded, said images are still used in school textbooks.
Figure that one out.


Where is Piltdown man is used in textbooks.
Show me, cause that's a f...ing lie.

Plus it was scientists who showed it to be a forgery/fake.


Terry whenever I debate with you I try to remain friendly regardless of the gulf in our beliefs. No need for this.

Read the post again. It is Haekels phoetuses I was referring to.
Piltdown man and other fakes ( worst of all being the current Lucy are examples of profiteering "scientists"

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 07:04

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Mon 28 Jan 18:13

Quote:

Rastapari, Mon 28 Jan 07:12

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Sun 27 Jan 22:30

Quote:

PARrot, Sun 27 Jan 13:42

Thousands of scientists are Christians. Only Aethiest Scienists are credible though.


Scientists who are Christian fundamentalists are not credible.
If Christian scientists leave their religious beliefs out of the equation when drawing their conclusions then they are credible.


And what about scientists who sell their science for coin?
You know the "thank you for smoking" kind?


True, but thats how science works, other test the claims and prove them to be false or not.
But yes there are those who are less trustworthy that's for sure.


I disagree, for every science telling you something's good for you there's one telling you it's bad, science has been bought, like religion.
Both are easily bent for money.

I Hope You're Ok Today....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 09:29

I agree.

People are not often swayed by "facts".
We tend more to focus on the version of facts that fits what we want to believe.

Mostly we don't seriously concider what others say. Our minds tend to be focussed on our next "fact" in response.

You only have to look at Trump and Brexit to see how near impossible it is to change settled minds regardless of evidence.

To change a mind usually requires changing a heart (spirit).

Matthew 13:14-15 English Standard Version (ESV)

14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
    and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
15 For this people's heart has grown dull,
    and with their earsthey can barely hear,
    and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
    and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
    and turn, and I would heal them.’



Post Edited (Tue 29 Jan 09:47)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 12:26

"Science has been bought,like religion..Both easily bent for money"Pretty much spot on and has been the case for quite a while.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 14:14

What's the relevance of Haeckel's foetuses? (spelling, Parrot) Isn't it very old theory that has long been discarded by mainstream science?


Quote from Wiki:

" the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to "biological mythology"[1] by the mid-20th century.[2][3]"

Can't see the relevance of Piltdown man either, a very old hoax.


Do you religious guys seriously judge modern science by old hoaxes and theories that have long been discredited ?

No that would be bonkers.

Must be fishing.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 15:01

Science should be judged by repeatable experiments.How you interpret those results will inevitably vary.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 16:00

I think science is pretty much judged by repeatable experiments. I don't think interpretation of the results will INEVITABLY vary a lot. Peer review leads to consensus.

I think that's how science works. Scientific papers get published. They are peer-reviewed. If there's disagreement then someone publishes another paper, to challenge the previous one.

"Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication... No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else's unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn't necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results."
(source: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16)

Seems like a good system.

Note the potential for further developments. Science isn't fixed, it's an ongoing process of enquiry.

So it seems to me!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 16:17

It depends what study is being reviewed.If it's say a theory of how an non oxygen atmosphere can evolve to an oxygenated atmosphere.The experiments are rather lacking.Doesn't stop many believing it happened.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 21:47

Well for anyone interested in how oxygen came to exist in our atmosphere, there seems to be plenty of experimentation and analysis of fossil and other evidence, eg rocks, going on in the search for clues and answers. The researchers seem to be getting somewhere.

It's a bit of a specialist subject but even a cursory read suggests to me serious work is being done on it. And there's a gradually growing understanding. No-one claims to know for certain. I think it's fairly early days in this field.

That's how it seems to me folks! (Rapidly becoming my catchphrase.)

Here's the relevant article I read for any who are interested:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110816112118.htm.


Rich,
I guess you're really trying to make a broader point, about how people can often believe things without knowing much about them. That's a big interesting subject. I don't even know what it would be called. Anybody care to shed some light on that one?



Post Edited (Tue 29 Jan 21:51)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Tue 29 Jan 23:38

'fraid not OAUTP there is only analysis of rocks in their present condition.No scientist can tell anyone what properties it held when it was formed.Therefore it a very inexact science.

Well there certainly is a limit to what science can do.That line sometimes gets really blurred whether consciously or not.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: onandupthepars  
Date:   Wed 30 Jan 00:38


Ref: richie5401
Tue 29 Jan 23:38

<<< 'fraid not OAUTP there is only analysis of rocks in their present condition. No scientist can tell anyone what properties it held when it was formed.Therefore it a very inexact science. >>>

D'you not think any useful knowledge can be gained from studying rocks?
I imagine people who study them - geologists - know a lot about their formation, the properties they had during their formation and can read a lot from what remains.

Anyway, I'm getting more interested in how beliefs are formed. I've got a few questions I'd like to answer such as, how are beliefs formed? And why do I disbelieve some of the things that other people believe? Could take some considerable time to understand - if I ever can - being as they are questions concerned with the great largely undiscovered territory of the mind.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Life
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 30 Jan 12:35

Sure.The boffins tells us the age of rock determines the age of the earth.They know nothing of the formation properties unless they were there.

They assume what is happening today has been constant for millions of years.Uniformity is a neat trick in the Paleontologist tool kit.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


f=[], target=[], forgotpass=[] ,
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email: