| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 31:59:21 |
| Calls: | 492 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,078 |
| Messages: | 67,374 |
I see you have trouble with the concept of "if."
I don't. I addressed your
On 7/4/25 9:30 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I see you have trouble with the concept of "if."
Lol! Doubling down! Big SCORE on the Troll-O-Meter for
you!
If Don Pardo was here he'd be announcing your 10 extra
doses of your meds you just won...
There's no "If." Abiogenesis has never been observed.
Abiogenesis has never been achieved in a laboratory.
Nobody is "Studying" abiogenesis any more than they are
"Studying" unicorns.
No "If."
It ain't happening.
On 7/4/25 9:30 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I don't. I addressed your
Typical narcissist... thinks he's an expert, cherry picks
what to disputes, does so badly... can't admit to any
error...
Henderson wrote:
jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/1/25 12:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:50:05 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:44:02 -0700, Bob CasanovaI was referring to "Please cite the evidence against the
<nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:52:45 -0700, the following appearedYou mean Dawn? She's usually well-behaved. Or were you
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn FloodYou realize that you are holding this "discussion" with
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3. The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some
did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the
FSM, IPUs, etc.; name a single miracle; name a single
scientific paper in the last 40 years that appeals to
"God" as being an explanation for anything. (The
Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation
of QM.)
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics is not God. Otherwise, God would go around
collapsing wave functions as he observed them, before
humans got a chance to add their observations in.
Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave
function collapse) by humans is one of the most important
goals in the search for technologically viable quantum
computers. It has nothing to do with God.
someone who considers that "cite the evidence against [X]",
where X has not been observed (and, at least in the case of
the FSM, is basically a parody), is a valid request, right?
referring to the unfortunate post she was replying to?
existence of the FSM", a classic error in logic and/or the
rules of valid evidence, although that may have been a
sarcastic reference to an earlier comment by someone (JTEM?)
else; there's been so much crap in this thread that I'm
unsure.
Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am not aware of any mainstream
scientific papers being published in the last 10 years that provide
empirical evidence for anything beyond physicalism. As such, I,
as a human being, am completely free to place God in the same
category as FSMs or IPUs.
Dawn
ok, what are fsm and ipu?
The FSM created the universe in 4 days and then rested for 3 days.
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
so i searched, and it says finite state machine. how is it connected?
Dawn Flood wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Some explain to Dawn Davenport that Wiki isn't a legitimate
cite.
All Wiki is useful for is to establish that you didn't make
something up. The fact that it's in Wiki in no way excludes
the probability that it's made up, it just establishes that
you aren't the one who made it up.
If you can read, checked the articles CITED BY Wiki. These
is a chance you will find a legitimate cite supporting a
claim.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:42ea6kl14e750g85r9o0oo2p9ckn0pa1ak@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
name a single miracle; name a single scientific paper in the last >>>>>> 40 years that appeals to "God" as being an explanation for anything. >>>>DNA
DNA is a molecule that contains the specific instructions for the
synthesis of ~~~ every living thing~~~ The prime origin of these
instructions that are in digital code format could of necessity -
only- be from a source of Intelligence.
Our most awesome Creator.....
GOD
Okay, you didn't answer my question, and that is fine.
There has been abundant scientific evidence in the
last 40 years, as well an since the very beginning of
time telling us that there has been a super Intelligence
involved in our existence.
Such as what? Direct evidence, not indirect evidence.
I just posted direct evidence above..
If you can't see it, that tells us you don't want to see it.
But then that would tell us that you were a fool.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts
seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond
question." ~ Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
Opinion without supporting fact.
Rather the conclusion of a scientist after examining the evidence.
"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am
quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find
myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself
driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we
can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to
invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as
scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there
isn't." ~ Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe,
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:13:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/25 9:30 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I see you have trouble with the concept of "if."
Lol! Doubling down! Big SCORE on the Troll-O-Meter for
you!
If Don Pardo was here he'd be announcing your 10 extra
doses of your meds you just won...
Was he your boyfriend?
There's no "If." Abiogenesis has never been observed.
Neither has your brain.
Abiogenesis has never been achieved in a laboratory.
No one expects it to have been. First you need a self-replicating
entity that can evolve over millions of years from just replication
to being alive.
Nobody is "Studying" abiogenesis any more than they are
"Studying" unicorns.
No "If."
It ain't happening.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better umbrellas. Likewise, if
abiogenesis was not being studied, you wouldn't have something like
this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250528132057.htm
"Chemists at UCL and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology have demonstrated how RNA (ribonucleic acid) might have replicated itself
on early Earth -- a key process in the origin of life."
So you see how the word "if" works?
Check & mate!
On 7/4/2025 5:41 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:13:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/4/25 9:30 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I see you have trouble with the concept of "if."
Lol! Doubling down! Big SCORE on the Troll-O-Meter for
you!
If Don Pardo was here he'd be announcing your 10 extra
doses of your meds you just won...
Was he your boyfriend?
There's no "If." Abiogenesis has never been observed.
Neither has your brain.
Abiogenesis has never been achieved in a laboratory.
No one expects it to have been. First you need a self-replicating
entity that can evolve over millions of years from just replication
to being alive.
Nobody is "Studying" abiogenesis any more than they are
"Studying" unicorns.
No "If."
It ain't happening.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better umbrellas. Likewise, if
abiogenesis was not being studied, you wouldn't have something like
this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/05/250528132057.htm
"Chemists at UCL and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology have
demonstrated how RNA (ribonucleic acid) might have replicated itself
on early Earth -- a key process in the origin of life."
So you see how the word "if" works?
Check & mate!
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:13:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Abiogenesis has never been achieved in a laboratory.
No one expects it to have been.
First you need a self-replicating
entity that can evolve over millions of years from just replication
to being alive.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better umbrellas.
"Chemists at UCL and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology have demonstrated how RNA (ribonucleic acid) might have replicated itself
on early Earth -- a key process in the origin of life."
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:18:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Typical narcissist... thinks he's an expert, cherry picks
what to disputes, does so badly... can't admit to any
error...
You narcissistic troll.
On 7/2/2025 10:02 PM, JTEM wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Some explain to Dawn Davenport that Wiki isn't a legitimate
cite.
All Wiki is useful for is to establish that you didn't make
something up. The fact that it's in Wiki in no way excludes
the probability that it's made up, it just establishes that
you aren't the one who made it up.
If you can read, checked the articles CITED BY Wiki. These
is a chance you will find a legitimate cite supporting a
claim.
Then what religion was Professor Hoyle?
On 7/2/2025 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
"From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. I am
quite uncomfortable in this situation, the state of mind I now find
myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. I now find myself
driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we
can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to
invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . We were hoping as
scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there
isn't." ~ Sir Frederick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe,
Was Professor Hoyle an atheist?
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:13:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Abiogenesis has never been achieved in a laboratory.
No one expects it to have been.
Really? No one? You took a poll?
You're just doubling down, making shit up and hoping to covers
your stupidity (it doesn't).
First you need a self-replicating
entity that can evolve over millions of years from just replication
to being alive.
Says who? How was this determined? Where did you get this "Millions
of years" from? What? You made it all up? You're in free fall
fantasy, unable to distinguish your disorder(s) from reality?
If pigs could fly, we'd need better umbrellas.
Great. Still no abiogenesis being studied.
"Chemists at UCL and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology have
demonstrated how RNA (ribonucleic acid) might have replicated itself
on early Earth -- a key process in the origin of life."
What does "might have" mean in your native tongue?
And how was this determined to be a process?
Wow. You believe in bullshit and you're too stupid to even know it!
Wait a minute! You're one of those fake online "atheists," aren't
you? I can tell.
On 7/4/25 6:42 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 16:18:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Typical narcissist... thinks he's an expert, cherry picks
what to disputes, does so badly... can't admit to any
error...
You narcissistic troll.
Wow you're as original as you are bright... being neither.
So abiogenesis is a belief,
I bet
On 7/4/25 9:06 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
I bet
Lol! You're a sniveling little coward and intellectual
gnat! You read my reply FIRST and then stated the above.
"Idiocy suddenly becomes brilliance if you quote it!"
You're a narcissist so you need to see yourself quoted.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
I replied directly to you. Idiot.
Why these emotional spasms? Why not just accept reality?
As a fake atheist, you don't even have any "Evidence" for
the existence of atheists, as you won't accept personal
testimony!
Theists do have evidence. You may not find it compelling,
or your massive collection of mental disorders may block
you from thinking about it (only lashing out) but they
do have "Evidence."
The secret here is in the definition of "Evidence," nimrod.
They have science invoking God, although using a different
name -- "Observer" or even "Programmer" -- to avoid triggering
the idiots, and of course they have miracles and medical
miracles in particular but you have nothing.
Literally nothing!
YOU can't even support the existence of atheists, if you
forget to be a hypocrite and actually abide by your own
rules....
You're the furthest thing from "Science."
You're irrational.
On 7/2/2025 12:07 PM, jojo wrote:
Henderson wrote:
jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/1/25 12:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:50:05 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:44:02 -0700, Bob CasanovaI was referring to "Please cite the evidence against the
<nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:52:45 -0700, the following appearedYou mean Dawn? She's usually well-behaved. Or were you
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn FloodYou realize that you are holding this "discussion" with
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3. The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some >>>>>>>>>>> did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't
compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical
miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself
regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the
FSM, IPUs, etc.; name a single miracle; name a single
scientific paper in the last 40 years that appeals to
"God" as being an explanation for anything. (The
Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation >>>>>>>>>> of QM.)
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics is not God. Otherwise, God would go around
collapsing wave functions as he observed them, before
humans got a chance to add their observations in.
Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave
function collapse) by humans is one of the most important
goals in the search for technologically viable quantum
computers. It has nothing to do with God.
someone who considers that "cite the evidence against [X]",
where X has not been observed (and, at least in the case of
the FSM, is basically a parody), is a valid request, right?
referring to the unfortunate post she was replying to?
existence of the FSM", a classic error in logic and/or the
rules of valid evidence, although that may have been a
sarcastic reference to an earlier comment by someone (JTEM?)
else; there's been so much crap in this thread that I'm
unsure.
Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am not aware of any
mainstream
scientific papers being published in the last 10 years that
provide
empirical evidence for anything beyond physicalism. As
such, I,
as a human being, am completely free to place God in the same
category as FSMs or IPUs.
Dawn
ok, what are fsm and ipu?
The FSM created the universe in 4 days and then rested for 3
days.
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
so i searched, and it says finite state machine. how is it
connected?
Honey, what search engine did you use? If you used Google,
"Flying Spaghetti Monster" is above-the-fold, and so, such should
have been apparent to you!
Dawn
Welcome to my killfile, you freak.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/2/2025 12:07 PM, jojo wrote:
Henderson wrote:
jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 7/1/25 12:04 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:50:05 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:44:02 -0700, Bob CasanovaI was referring to "Please cite the evidence against the
<nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 15:52:45 -0700, the following appearedYou mean Dawn? She's usually well-behaved. Or were you
in sci.skeptic, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 16:32:00 -0500, Dawn FloodYou realize that you are holding this "discussion" with
<Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/29/2025 11:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
#3. The theists had evidence. Plenty of it. Maybe some >>>>>>>>>>>> did not find it compelling but even evidence that isn't >>>>>>>>>>>> compelling is still evidence. Let's start with medical >>>>>>>>>>>> miracles! And then there's the fact that science itself >>>>>>>>>>>> regularly invokes God for an explanation. Of course
they have to change the name to avoid triggering the
stupid people so instead of "God" they say "Observer"
in the Copenhagen interpretation. They say the
"Programmer" in the simulated Universe or even the
"Brain universe."
Please cite the evidence against the existence of the
FSM, IPUs, etc.; name a single miracle; name a single
scientific paper in the last 40 years that appeals to
"God" as being an explanation for anything. (The
Copenhagen Interpretation is not the only interpretation >>>>>>>>>>> of QM.)
"The observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum >>>>>>>>>> mechanics is not God. Otherwise, God would go around
collapsing wave functions as he observed them, before
humans got a chance to add their observations in.
Preventing decoherence (roughly the same thing as wave
function collapse) by humans is one of the most important >>>>>>>>>> goals in the search for technologically viable quantum
computers. It has nothing to do with God.
someone who considers that "cite the evidence against [X]",
where X has not been observed (and, at least in the case of
the FSM, is basically a parody), is a valid request, right? >>>>>>>>>>
referring to the unfortunate post she was replying to?
existence of the FSM", a classic error in logic and/or the
rules of valid evidence, although that may have been a
sarcastic reference to an earlier comment by someone (JTEM?)
else; there's been so much crap in this thread that I'm
unsure.
Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am not aware of any mainstream >>>>>> scientific papers being published in the last 10 years that provide >>>>>> empirical evidence for anything beyond physicalism. As such, I,
as a human being, am completely free to place God in the same
category as FSMs or IPUs.
Dawn
ok, what are fsm and ipu?
The FSM created the universe in 4 days and then rested for 3 days.
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
so i searched, and it says finite state machine. how is it connected?
Honey, what search engine did you use? If you used Google, "Flying
Spaghetti Monster" is above-the-fold, and so, such should have been
apparent to you!
Dawn
it was google, if you put fsm physics, you get that. i should have put
fsm god, that was the right one.
Let me just restore the link I
It's more a matter of irony than intelligence.
On 7/4/25 10:53 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
It's more a matter of irony than intelligence.
So the irony here is that you and the other online fakers
are so NOT intelligent that you try to enforce a standard
of evidence on the theists which you won't even apply to
yourself, much less meet that standard.
There's no "Evidence" for the existence of atheists, going
by your standards, and yet you pretend it's telling if a
theist can't "Prove" the existence of God.
"Evidence" isn't a French word meaning "Proof."
You don't even have evidence for the existence of atheists,
much less proof, yet you pretend you're reasonable demanding
that theists "Prove" the existence of God to your satisfaction.
That is dumb.
On 7/4/25 10:53 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Let me just restore the link I
Yeah, okay, distract & obstruct... typical narcissist.
You don't have evidence for the existence of atheists,
because you're an online faker and you online fakers
insist that personal testimony isn't evidence.
So you haven't any evidence for the existence of atheists.
I mean, that's retarded. No, wait; it's genuinely retarded.
You have, in your simpleton fashion, concocted a standard
of "Evidence" so ridiculous that you have zero evidence --
much less "Proof" -- for the existence of evidence. And you
did this because you are so lazy, so emotionally strangled
that you dare not engage in an honest debate with a theist.
WHY?
Can't you just get therapy?
that's you