Stu vs Noble prize winners again. Stu knows they do not any support for their statements. What a joke. Stu, try reading what they write. If someone says there is no change it can happen by chance.... what does that leave you with? get it.
Nothing of the kind has been proven. If you delude yourself into thinking such things are even provable from within the universe to what exists outside of or prior to the material universe, you just end up as deluded as the atheists. Acceptance that we cannot know is the act of faith, so why would someone of faith try and sink to the level of the materialists? Sounds like your faith is shaky to me, as you try to bolster it with materialism. It is one thing to make ontological arguments on the basis of pure logic, but quite another to make flawed arguments on the basis of incompleteness, which is the history of the physical and material sciences...
It is a hard fact for some to accept, but the opinions of scientists, is not in itself science. History is littered with opinions of scientists proved to be false over the advancement of science. Just as the opinions of judges influence the legal process, their opinions are not generation of laws, though it may appear that way from the ignorant point of view. Science is a process independent of the opinions of scientists. The more you try to use a scientist and his/her opinion to support religion, the more your faith appears to be void of true spiritual experience... The spiritual experience transcends the limits of the human intellect, so making intellectual rationalizations for or against God is a fools play. Ontological arguments are the only purely reasonable arguments out there, and they have never been proved true or false on a purely logical level, nor have they been rendered true or false by any scientific experimentation. On a purely personal level, I believe your faith has been shaken, simply because you were raised in a religion that was to be taken completely on faith, and your intellectual mind has some problems with taking things completely on faith, so you scramble to find some supporting evidence to give yourself some comfort. True spiritual experience and true faith needs nothing external to support it, nor is there any real need to convert or convince someone else who is devoid of that spiritual experience and faith is true for the person who has that experience. I have never said the atheists are wrong in their belief systems, just that they have no real logical foundation to dismiss the spiritual experience and faith, and they have no better standing to proselytize their beliefs on the theists as the theists have the right to proselytize their faith onto the non believers.
Thanks for the dissertation it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt why you need an expert in certain areas. Because it is apparent you do not have the training or experience in either science or Law to have a valid opinion, I understand why you think every opinion is worthless. Without proper experience and discernment everything seems to be as worthless as your opinion. But, lucky I do have training and experience and I am licensed by two states to give my opinion on the subject of law. And I tell your post proves why the states are wise to make people take Bar exams. You were dead ass wrong. 1. You seem to not understand the difference between statutory law and common law. The U.S. Supreme Court judges make LAW. Last I checked CT did not even have statutory law, it was all common law. Judges make common law. I am still laughing my ass off. Your post proves the opposite of what you were trying to argue. It is the funniest thing you have ever written. It has to be the most embarrassing troll moment ever. You prove why one must go with the experts when searching for scientific or legal answers. 2. Regarding science again a little legal training might have helped you understand the concept of expertise. And when a trier of fact realizes you need expertise to have a valid opinion. in many cases to have a valid opinion you have to have a firm grasp of the science and math. In other words you have to be an expert. When a noble prize winner says that random chance could be the cause of the birth of a bacteria because there is not enough time for it to happen you... you 777 do not have the background to even challenge him ... You do not know if his conclusion is scientific or not. Until you have some other expert offering a contrary opinion, I choose the nobel prize winner's scientific understanding over yours. . Is it your position he can not support his statement in with science? âIf you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one⦠Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.â - Christian de Duve. âA Guided Tour of the Living Cellâ (Nobel laureate and organic chemist)
On evolution, abiogenesis, and blind watchmakers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 I'm not picking a side.
You don't have knowledge of what I was/am trained in. Keep guessing... Or make your own arguments, which are continually filled with emotionalism and logical fallacy. I'm not going to stop you from repeatedly flying off the handle and making a fool of yourself.
A man's got to know his limitations---Dirty Harry, Magnum Force. Good not to pick a side, especially when neither side can win...it is an eternal stalemate. Play for the draw long enough, the impatient one makes a fatal mistake.
you sure are a simple minded fellow arent you. the relevent fact is this fellow started out a christian then spent years in christian indoctrination then spent 12 years as a priest and in the end rejected it all because of a lack of evidence.
The relevant fact is the man's mind is subject to mistake...so having made what he believes is a mistake, he now believes he is not making a mistake...when it is the same mind at work, a faulty mind to begin with. You can educate a faulty mind forever, and it remains by nature faulty.
I updated my post as you were posting 777. It does not matter what you were trained in. you were so wrong on judges not making law... you proved the need for experts --- you could not have been more wrong than when you said judges do not make law.