you really are quite the douchebag, you know that right ? consider yourself lucky that i continue this conversion despite your lack of ability to communicate with people in a respectable manner.
Alas, I consider myself quite unlucky, what with having to read the piles of manure you post (and which you, presumably, think are intelligent). Of course, I could let it go and simply ignore you. But that has been the cause of many backwards steps in our history, and I, for one, don't want to allow your kind of mysticism to claim the mantle of science.
science attains probabilities dealing with mechanical processes. certain truth is impossible, and so is knowledge of the metaphysical.
If by metaphysical you are referring to something that transcends the physical and/or the laws of nature" then I will state simply: the metaphysical and the supernatural are the realm of mystics and not the realm of logic and they don't interest me. The physical and the natural interest me.
you dont know anything. you can say something seems to be a certain way, but you can never prove it. you can only increase the strength of your conviction over time through repeated experience of the same phenomena. whether or not that phenomena will always occur the way you experience it to occur is completely unknown to you.
Of course - science is empirical and everything in science is falsifiable. Of course, the more we observe and understand certain things or events, the more certain we are about certain aspects of those things or events. You say that as if it's a bad thing...
yes, energy , material, existence itself is a complete mystery.
That depends.
You consider their origin to be a mystery worth solving, and use that to argue that either (a) science, is somehow, defective, for not having deciphered things already; or (b) that science and reason aren't the exclusive tools by which we acquire knowledge about our surroundings, but part of a larger toolset, one which includes mysticism and faith.
yes i do strongly encourage you to take some basic philosophy. an intro to modern philosophy class would be perfect. that will cover thetime period when men of reason realized that the true nature of the universe was outside of our grasp and that nothing could ever be proven, so they stopped focusing on the metaphysical and began studying the objects around them. ah, the birth of science. founded on acceptance of the impossibility of knowledge.
It's quite amazing how you can twist reality into knots like that. The birth of science wasn't founded on the "
acceptance of the impossibility of knowledge", but rather on the acceptance that knowledge is possible, the Universe is rational and can be understood, and that natural truths are more important than vaticinations about the supernatural.
if you feel like discussing an issue with someone will not lead to progress, then simply dont discuss the issue with them. you dont have to act like an arrogant piece of shit just because somebody isnt accepting your logic. even if your logic is sound.
on bacteria, you originally dismissed skepticism about the ability of bacteria to form spontaneously by asserting that the process had been observed in a laboratory. there is a difference between lifeless material evolving into a life form and an already living organism evolving into a different living organism. which one are you claiming has been observed ?
As I explained clearly, I was refuting the assertion from the blob you copy-pasted about the
evolution of bacteria. Specifically, the bit that said: "
The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their evolution."
on the statistic/probabilities. yes i completely understand. i was agreeing with you in my post. i guess you didnt understant that i was in agreement and took my rewording of your assertion to be some kind of attempt at skewing it into something different.
No, you really aren't in agreement if you believe the bits you copy-pasted about the probability of certain optical isomers combining, or that whole thing about flipping a coin 400 times and getting head 400 times in a row. In fact, your other statements, such as this gem: "
although something might be extremely improbable, if you increase the chances to the point where it becomes probable then its likely to occur.. yes, of course. " about the issue lead me to believe you have no idea about statistics at all.
how does something lifeless gain intelligence and start directing other lifeless particles to start acting ?
This question is so horrible that it's almost hard to believe it's meant seriously... You jump from lifeless to intelligence to direction/cooperation. It's like your brain is a pool of liquid from which words emerge, disconnected and devoid of any meaning, purely at random, and that you just string together on the off-chance that the final concatenation of those random bits will make sense.
how do single celled bacteria sense things outside their bodies and coordinate/communicate with other bacteria ?
Different "sense" modalities and different communication mechanisms develop - evolution and natural selection explain this sort of phenomenon fairly well. Hell, we see all sorts of evidence
are you actually alive? do you even actually exist? if the world is purely physical like most modern atheists assert then you actually dont exist to any extent. there is no such thing as you. and it is this position that is currently prevailing in the scientific community.
More nonsense floating to the surface. So basically, unless something supernatural exists, this natural existence in meaningless and devoid of essence. Now your true colors are showing tbombz. Remember for chastising me for treating you like "a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual"? Statements like that are why I do.