Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It seems you would prefer all theories to be suppressed until absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Hmmm. Not sure how science would progress much under those circumstances, but it is obvious why religion likes to try.
'Atheist bulls
t' is perhaps therefore unproven scientific theories. Like evolution and fossils being really old presumably. ///ajd said:
&
It seems you would prefer all theories to be suppressed until absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Hmmm. Not sure how science would progress much under those circumstances, but it is obvious why religion likes to try.
. .
I'll correct you on that one.It seems you would prefer all theories to be suppressed until absolutely proven beyond all doubt. Hmmm. Not sure how science would progress much under those circumstances, but it is obvious why religion likes to try.
. .
Firstly England has a hypothesis, not a theory.
Secondly I have asked for more discussion on this hypothesis two or three times on this thread. Would like to hear more about it, nothing seems forthcoming.
Can I ask you, do you misinterpret so readily because you have something wrong with you, or is it intentional?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Do you have anything meaningful to say to back up the comments you've made, or will you continue to twist and turn and ignore them?You can't make comments like that and not back them up, because otherwise it means you have nothing. It's not an exam, there are no right or wrong answers, but you could at least give some examples of the "atheist bulls
t" you mention, rather than attempt to make me look silly.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not even sure what you mean there, are you saying that others see the "atheist negativity and bullst" that you alone said? Perhaps they do, but that has no bearing on my replies.I'm still wondering what the "atheist negativity and bulls
t" is. I'm just wondering, is it the language they use, the way they come across, or the fact they don't believe in a god? Simple question, not one that needs an in-depth discussion, just a clear response.I really don't like your method, so condescending, I haven't been with you, why are you with me?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Here is the full article from quanta, quoting theory many times. It is really a tad pedantic to wave the "its just a hypothesis" flag, isn't it? This is a sharp cookie from MIT, not some 3rd rate poly.https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
This more detailed version does highlight some interesting ideas; it fits neatly with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It will be interesting to see if the name Jeremy England becomes recognised in years to come.
Rather than debate the science, I'm more interesting in the theological implications if it is proven. It is quite a big gap to close for the theists.
///ajd said:
Here is the full article from quanta, quoting theory many times. It is really a tad pedantic to wave the "its just a hypothesis" flag, isn't it? This is a sharp cookie from MIT, not some 3rd rate poly.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
This more detailed version does highlight some interesting ideas; it fits neatly with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It will be interesting to see if the name Jeremy England becomes recognised in years to come.
Rather than debate the science, I'm more interesting in the theological implications if it is proven. It is quite a big gap to close for the theists.
I read that one yesterday. Doesn't really add more.https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
This more detailed version does highlight some interesting ideas; it fits neatly with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It will be interesting to see if the name Jeremy England becomes recognised in years to come.
Rather than debate the science, I'm more interesting in the theological implications if it is proven. It is quite a big gap to close for the theists.
He's a clever lad but doesn't automatically mean he's right, but would be interested to hear how he gets on with it in the coming years.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But it does add more than the independent summary.He goes onto consider the link between entropy and the idea that replication in itself is potentially a way of dissipating energy. He then goes onto make the link that RNA replication could itself be just an extension of that law. Hence the replication of RNA and DNA could be linked to thermodynamics.
Its sounds so simple, and obvious. Yet to be proven but already seems intuitively very plausible.
I'm still interesting mainly in the theological implications. Do you have a view on that?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Play games? Err, it's you that messed up your own quoting, I had to "quote all" to get the responses in my replies.I'm astounded at the tangent you've taken.
Please tell me, because I am actually asking, and it's not a loaded question, what is the "negativity and bulls
t" atheists have spread? You said it, I'm simply asking what it is. You can say that you find it offensive because of your own beliefs - that's a valid answer - but all I've been met with is ridicule and bizarre, round-the-houses responses that don't make any sense.If you can't answer, just say so. If you won't, for whatever reason, then we're done. Just say "I refuse to answer", don't take the piss out of me for asking you a simple question.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff