if coke disturbed you because of a certain stance would you stop buying coke?
would you stop watching a sport if a certain view was politicized?.
would you boycott a certain product because you did not agree with the corporation’s opinions?
No. But I do tend to avoid (but not anything like a ‘boycott’) companies that have their ads interrupting what I’m watching on YouTube or that deliver physical or electronic unsolicited marketing.
People howling at the wind that they’re going to ‘boycott’ some global company because of xyz don’t seem to realise that the companies have usually already done the math.
nwt luke chapt 1.
41 well, as elizabeth heard the greeting of mary, the infant in her womb leaped, and elizabeth was filled with holy spirit 42 and loudly cried out: “blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruitage of your womb!
43 so how is it that this privilege is mine, to have the mother of my lord come to me?
The Bible explicitly sanctions abortion for adultery (Numbers 5:16-31), incorporating a superstitious ritual to determine 'guilt'.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Sea breeze:
So you believe that observable cause and effects are rooted in time, but the first (unguided) cause that created everything may not have been rooted in time?
No. Refer to previous.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Sea breeze:
So you believe that every effect has a cause except for the first one? Is that a fair statement of your position?
Again, no. Given the current understanding of how time and gravity are interrelated, it cannot be determined whether time even existed ‘before’ the initial expansion of the local universe. Beyond that, I don’t make any claim about what happened. But I certainly don’t subscribe to a special pleading fallacy about an infinitely complex magical sky friend that always existed.
Also, your discussion technique, with the leading questions and changing the subject without admitting that you’ve misrepresented my position, is a little tedious.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Sea breeze:
So, If I understand your assumption correctly, what you are saying is that everything we see is a result of natural unguided processes because we see them, making the probability (for us) exactly one.
Is that a fair assessment?
No. 🤦♂️
First off, I didn’t make an assumption. There is no evidence of any ultimate ‘cause’ other than natural processes. That does not inherently preclude a supernatural cause, but you would need to provide evidence of any proposed supernatural cause. Arguments from incredulity are not evidence for a preferred religious or otherwise superstitious or unfounded belief. The fact that something has happened means the probability that the thing has happened is one. Notions of assigning significance to humans seeing a particular thing as if the act of seeing it influences the outcome of past events are superstitious and irrelevant.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
It is true in a way that is unremarkable and entirely incidental to the discussion.
Unless you are claiming that ‘evolutionists’ (actually just biologists) assert that evolution ‘plans’ for specific outcomes before the process begins. Which would be an idiotic misrepresentation.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
You’ve rounded off the probability a little more than the slightly more accurate probability I provided, but it’s also suitable for the purpose here.
But the problem here is that you are assigning special value to a particular outcome, apparently imagining it’s some kind of ‘gotcha’. Back in reality, any order of the cards has the same probability.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
Sea breeze:
No they don't. Successful businesses and lives don't work like this at all.
Your response is entirely wrong at every level. Every shuffled deck of cards that currently exists is in an order that is 1 in 8x10^67. Every one of them is an improbable event. And that’s just cards.
You are confused between improbable events and specific desired outcomes.
What this means is that every time that a deck of cards has EVER been shuffled, since cards were invented, the order that they ended up was the first time they were ever in that order, or ever will be.
Wrong again. It means it’s extremely unlikely that two decks would be the same, but there is no mechanism to ensure that every outcome is actually unique.
Also, the order of a deck of cards does not favour any particular patterns as more stable, so it also is not directly comparable to chemical or biological systems.
recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.
it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.
think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.
The chance of a pack of playing cards being in any particular order is 8x10^67. By creationist ‘logic’, any shuffled deck of cards cannot exist because the probability of it happening is ‘too low’. The chance of a randomly shuffled deck being ‘in order’ (which you could think of loosely as a beneficial mutation) is exactly the same as the deck being in any other random order. Assigning special meaning to a specific order has no bearing on the actual probability of that order. It is only the probability of a predicted order that is low. Once it has already happened, the probability that it happened is exactly one.
Improbable events occur all the time. And when conditions are more favourable for particular combinations of improbable events over other less favourable conditions, it is inevitable that complexity will arise. This is particularly the case in chemistry (and by extension, biology), where particular combinations are more stable than others, making them more likely than just ‘random chance’. This is long before you get to the concept of ‘natural selection’ in more complex biological systems.
