The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Lorizael
Ben: I'll fire back another salvo at you when I'm feeling less lazy. I swear.
Why bother? He's been called out on the Dawkins thing twice now (originally by ORD and then by you in post #78) but chooses to ignore the challenge and keep spewing the same ****. Ben never lets reality intrude on his delusion. When it does he will selectively ignore facts and continue on his blissful way.
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
Ben, I don't want this debate to continue any longer. It's ranged too far outside its original scope. I brought up three original points, which I'm going to reiterate here.
1) Who cares what Dawkins believes; he's a raving loon.
I think we can both agree on this.
2) I doubt he believes that. If he's a decent scientist, that's probably just one of the ideas he thinks may be reasonable given the current evidence.
It turns out I was correct on this one. Unless you can find a source that explicitly shows that he believes intelligent aliens flew across the cosmos and seeded life on Earth, I think most of this discussion becomes moot.
3) Believing that aliens seeded Earth with life is far easier to accept than believing in God, because believing in God requires acceptance of a supernatural entity which it is logically impossible to prove the existence of.
This is the only point I'm trying to make. You agreed with the two main points in my previous post, namely that we could assign a probability to the veracity of Dawkins' claim (even though we don't have the data to do so now), and that we could never assign such a probability to claims made about God.
Given all of that, I believe the only reason you cannot accept my claim is because of your belief that the origin of life is essentially a theological rather than a scientific subject. This is an unfair assumption to make, because it assumes the correctness of your theory from the very beginning.
Additionally, you never provided me with an alternative method to determine the reasonability of a claim that does not involve logic. You merely plopped in the word God.
Unless you can do so, arguing on your grounds (that the origin of life is theological) is even more unfair.
So, if we return to using logic to discuss the reasonability of a claim (which we must do in the absence of a specific alternative), we see that you have already agreed with my claim. As far as I'm concerned, this concludes the debate.
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
So it's easier to believe in intelligent alien design then ID.
This is the only point I'm trying to make. You agreed with the two main points in my previous post, namely that we could assign a probability to the veracity of Dawkins' claim
Well yeah, you could pull a number out of your ass, but that wouldn't tell you anything. I said just the opposite that you couldn't assign a probability to the potential of alien life, because we don't know the parameters or even the biochemistry. The same is true of God because we cannot prove his existence through a replicable experiment, as we cannot control God.
Given all of that, I believe the only reason you cannot accept my claim is because of your belief that the origin of life is essentially a theological rather than a scientific subject.
Yes, I believe so, and science hasn't proven me otherwise. The origins of life cannot be proven through empirical means. Even if we were capable of creating life in the laboratory, we would be left with the puzzle of determining exactly how it happened here on earth.
This is an unfair assumption to make, because it assumes the correctness of your theory from the very beginning.
How so? I'm issuing a challenge, do you see any way that science could prove the origin of life through an empirical means? It's the same problem that arises through history. All we can do in History is assess reliability and come up with the most plausible explanation, and even that will contain errors. It's not an empirical method.
Additionally, you never provided me with an alternative method to determine the reasonability of a claim that does not involve logic. You merely plopped in the word God.
My challenge is this. The alternative explanation offered by Dawkins does not solve the problem at all. Dawkins actually seems to admit there is evidence of intelligent design, and his answer is that it is because we were made by aliens.
Unless you can do so, arguing on your grounds (that the origin of life is theological) is even more unfair.
It is theological in origin given this explanation by one of the foremost scientists of the day.
As far as I'm concerned, this concludes the debate.
Maybe to you. I consider this a capitulation. Thank you Lori.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
So it's easier to believe in intelligent alien design then ID.
You make two claims in your post based on this quote by Dawkins. They are:
Dawkins actually seems to admit there is evidence of intelligent design, and his answer is that it is because we were made by aliens.
It is theological in origin given this explanation by one of the foremost scientists of the day.
Both of these statements, as evidenced by the bolded portions above, are untrue. Clearly, Dawkins does not believe that aliens actually seeded life on Earth.
Further, he never admits that there is evidence for design in evolution; he admits that there could be. Given that he has no evidence to the contrary, this is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Lastly, your claim that Dawkins believes the origin of life to be theological in nature is simply ridiculous.
Well yeah, you could pull a number out of your ass, but that wouldn't tell you anything. I said just the opposite that you couldn't assign a probability to the potential of alien life, because we don't know the parameters or even the biochemistry. The same is true of God because we cannot prove his existence through a replicable experiment, as we cannot control God.
I already stated that we don't have the data to assign such a probability at this time. The difference, however, is that it is impossible to get the data for God and theoretically possible to get the data for aliens.
Yes, I believe so, and science hasn't proven me otherwise. The origins of life cannot be proven through empirical means. Even if we were capable of creating life in the laboratory, we would be left with the puzzle of determining exactly how it happened here on earth.
How so? I'm issuing a challenge, do you see any way that science could prove the origin of life through an empirical means? It's the same problem that arises through history. All we can do in History is assess reliability and come up with the most plausible explanation, and even that will contain errors. It's not an empirical method.
I believe you may have a fundamental misunderstanding about how scientists go about "proving" things. Scientists do not attempt to verify and test every instance of a phenomenon, nor do they need to.
If scientists can show that a theory works given a particular set of circumstances, then that theory is useful and can be used by scientists to answer questions and make predictions.
Scientists have no need to directly observe anything and in fact don't in many, many cases. Quantum mechanics is a good example of this. Another good example includes a much simpler scenario, which is that if the variables of a scenario are the same in one place as they are in another potentially inaccessible place, there's no need to test the scenario in the inaccessible place. You can trust the data you can retrieve so long as you trust that the variables are the same in both conditions.
If scientists can create conditions that mirror those that theoretically existed in the early days of the Earth and show through experimentation that life arises in such a scenario, then they have all the information they need to make use of their theory. "Proving" this, by way of time travel or whatever, is absolutely unnecessary.
If you want to claim that we can't know the conditions of primordial Earth then you will again be completely failing to understand how scientists draw conclusions. Science is absolutely filled with inferences and indirect observation and second or third hand data.
If you don't accept any of these tools as being useful or accurate, then you must also accept that the scientific method is inherently flawed as a way to generate information about natural phenomena, and that every discovery and theory made by every scientist in modern history is right only by accident.
I already stated that we don't have the data to assign such a probability at this time. The difference, however, is that it is impossible to get the data for God and theoretically possible to get the data for aliens.
I don't think it would be possible to get the data on either, if the aliens are that intelligent and advanced.
They'd just capture you and by the time they were done you would be lucky to have enough memory to find your way home again.
If scientists can show that a theory works given a particular set of circumstances, then that theory is useful and can be used by scientists to answer questions and make predictions.
So have scientists shown that their theory of aliens coming down to earth and seeded it with life has any factual basis?
Scientists have no need to directly observe anything and in fact don't in many, many cases.
It depends on the subject matter. There has to be some observation, even in quantum mechanics to verify the results.
You can trust the data you can retrieve so long as you trust that the variables are the same in both conditions.
Fair enough.
If scientists can create conditions that mirror those that theoretically existed in the early days of the Earth and show through experimentation that life arises in such a scenario, then they have all the information they need to make use of their theory. "Proving" this, by way of time travel or whatever, is absolutely unnecessary.
I'm not suggesting time travel, I'm simply saying that lab conditions are not the same as those in real life. Not only would you have to set things up perfectly, you'd have to show how the conditions would naturally arise.
My second question, is how are those experiments going anyways? Have you got any intelligent life yet?
If you want to claim that we can't know the conditions of primordial Earth then you will again be completely failing to understand how scientists draw conclusions. Science is absolutely filled with inferences and indirect observation and second or third hand data.
And those inferences are less accurate then those observations we have first hand. We are making conjectures, which may or may not be correct. Each of those conjectures we make introduces substantial error.
If you don't accept any of these tools as being useful or accurate, then you must also accept that the scientific method is inherently flawed as a way to generate information about natural phenomena, and that every discovery and theory made by every scientist in modern history is right only by accident.
Hardly. That's an insult to the scientific theories which have been confirmed through direct observation. You make it sound like direct observation is impossible, where in most cases, that is the standard. Look at Einstein. His theory of special relativity produces a substantial number of effects which can be replicated in an experiment.
As for the quantum mechanics, you can do experiments too that verify the principles behind them. It's as simple as doing double slit refraction, or even Zeeman effects. To show that energy can be quantised isn't that hard.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Originally posted by MrFun
Atheists are seriously missing out on the good that can come from having a belief in God (either Islam, Judaism, or Christianity).
What about Buddhists, Shintoists, and Hindus? (just to name those non-Monotheistic religions that come to mind?)
To me the fact that religious folk after 5500 of recorded history can;t agree on even the number of gods and what their roles are in the universe if the best possible evidence against the idea that any of them have it right.
Heck, even the three faiths that you mentioned, which all supposedly worship the very same diety, can't agree on its teachings, values, aims, mores, or even actions.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't think it would be possible to get the data on either, if the aliens are that intelligent and advanced.
They'd just capture you and by the time they were done you would be lucky to have enough memory to find your way home again.
This introduces a ridiculous number of assumptions and can't be taken seriously as an argument. Just because those aliens might be so sufficiently advanced as to appear as magic to us now doesn't mean they will in the future. It is possible - technically, theoretically, not out-lawed by the laws of physics possible - that we could gather the required data on aliens. This is impossible with God.
So have scientists shown that their theory of aliens coming down to earth and seeded it with life has any factual basis?
No such theory exists, and no reputable scientist - as far as I know - has made the claim.
My second question, is how are those experiments going anyways? Have you got any intelligent life yet?
I'm sure you're aware of the fact that we have setup conditions that have produced the very basics of life. Science moves slowly. Again, we don't need all the answers now.
Hardly. That's an insult to the scientific theories which have been confirmed through direct observation. You make it sound like direct observation is impossible, where in most cases, that is the standard. Look at Einstein. His theory of special relativity produces a substantial number of effects which can be replicated in an experiment.
This is a philosophical viewpoint of mine, but I do, in fact, believe that direct observation is impossible. I believe that all we have are degrees of indirect observation.
What about Buddhists, Shintoists, and Hindus? (just to name those non-Monotheistic religions that come to mind?)
To me the fact that religious folk after 5500 of recorded history can;t agree on even the number of gods and what their roles are in the universe if the best possible evidence against the idea that any of them have it right.
So because there is disagreement, that means none of them can be correct? That's a logical fallacy right there. Just because they all disagree doesn't rule out the fact that one is right and all the rest are wrong, or even that some of them are right about certain things, and others right about other things.
Heck, even the three faiths that you mentioned, which all supposedly worship the very same diety, can't agree on its teachings, values, aims, mores, or even actions.
I would argue they are for the most part substantially in agreement with each other, which is what CS Lewis argues in the abolition of man.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
This introduces a ridiculous number of assumptions and can't be taken seriously as an argument. Just because those aliens might be so sufficiently advanced as to appear as magic to us now doesn't mean they will in the future.
And why do you assume the aliens will not continue to progress too? Is there a hard cap out there?
It is possible - technically, theoretically, not out-lawed by the laws of physics possible - that we could gather the required data on aliens. This is impossible with God.
I don't believe we can collect information on them without their consent. I think they would know long before we do whether we are approaching them, and they would likely take the first step to initiate contact.
No such theory exists, and no reputable scientist - as far as I know - has made the claim.
Dawkins isn't a reputable scientist?
I'm sure you're aware of the fact that we have setup conditions that have produced the very basics of life. Science moves slowly. Again, we don't need all the answers now.
What, they haven't made monkeys out of soup and lightning bolts?
This is a philosophical viewpoint of mine, but I do, in fact, believe that direct observation is impossible. I believe that all we have are degrees of indirect observation.
Ahh, forgive me then. That's more question of perception and a very good one at that. My apologies.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
What about Buddhists, Shintoists, and Hindus? (just to name those non-Monotheistic religions that come to mind?)
To me the fact that religious folk after 5500 of recorded history can;t agree on even the number of gods and what their roles are in the universe if the best possible evidence against the idea that any of them have it right.
Heck, even the three faiths that you mentioned, which all supposedly worship the very same diety, can't agree on its teachings, values, aims, mores, or even actions.
The disagreements on how to believe in God comes from legitimate, real differences in culture - so the basis for the differences in belief in God are well-founded and I do not think those differences disprove the existence of God.
I'm a faithful Christian, but I differ from other Christians in that I believe Islam and Judaism are equally legitimate religions of faith in God as they are based on different cultures. I do not believe in the maxim that one way is the only way/right way to believe in God.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Tweet
Comment