Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Tito24 on March 01, 2012, 05:38:30 AM



Title: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Tito24 on March 01, 2012, 05:38:30 AM
GOD damn this is so fckng annoying i want to bust her face in!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 05:48:11 AM
Actually, I think she owned him.  His big thing in this video is that "similarities" in DNA "prove" evolution.  She says similarities do not prove evolution.  She is right, similarities do not prove anything. 

He can't do better than that?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: da_vinci on March 01, 2012, 05:50:06 AM
The look on her face aside tells - "Dumb".. Nuff' said.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 05:51:55 AM
She may "look" dumb, but if you watch the vid, she owns the argument clearly.  His only PRO is his arrogance, which will only work on the gullible and low self esteemed.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: XXXII/LX on March 01, 2012, 06:04:59 AM
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 06:07:12 AM
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.



LOL what FACTS were they?

Pls elaborate?  What exactly did she "avoid"?

Love a good analytical discussion with other intellegent folk, when I can find them...


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Tito24 on March 01, 2012, 06:20:09 AM
its quite comical, dawkins is constantly saying there IS evidence for evolution, plenty! , she acts as if thats his belief that there IS evidence for it.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Marty Champions on March 01, 2012, 06:24:06 AM
all gravity and nutrients spawned all life



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 06:24:17 AM
its quite comical, dawkins is constantly saying there IS evidence for evolution, plenty! , she acts as if thats his belief that there IS evidence for it.



Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a religion, and that is what she points out.  

Myself, I can easily believe many people are mutated from apes.  Super low IQ's, ape like features, etc...    


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Marty Champions on March 01, 2012, 06:27:36 AM
planets were formed by collisions in space, this is also how stars are made, how do you think people were made then?

collisions=gravity

and

nutrients


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 06:28:31 AM
planets were formed by collisions in space, this is also how stars are made, how do you think people were made then?

collisions=gravity

and

nutrients

Soylent Green.......   is ...... PEOPLE!


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 01, 2012, 06:30:34 AM
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: XXXII/LX on March 01, 2012, 07:40:11 AM
LOL what FACTS were they?

Pls elaborate?  What exactly did she "avoid"?

Love a good analytical discussion with other intellegent folk, when I can find them...

Her line, "God created each one of us" completely discredits anything she has to say IMO. It's 2012, are we still to believe in Bronze age myths?

She never directly answers any questions he asked her. She just fired off some precanned bullshit in order to dodge the question.

"Concerned women for America", oh brother.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: RadOncDoc on March 01, 2012, 07:50:14 AM
Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a religion, and that is what she points out.  

Myself, I can easily believe many people are mutated from apes.  Super low IQ's, ape like features, etc...    

Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 01, 2012, 07:51:38 AM
Everything points out to evolution. But can you prove god didn't create us in that way just to trick us?  ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: da_vinci on March 01, 2012, 07:52:46 AM
Not really, she asks for proof, and he says "similarities in DNA" and THAT is the best argument he makes.     It is true, that for many, their passion for evolution is like a reli

Science is /positive/, it means - there's no object to "believe in", as it's based on a scientific method. If that dumb whore has something MORE CONSTRUCTIVE to offer as an explanation, instead of evolution (the most proven scientific theory of all. Even pope accepts it ffs) - I'd be eager to hear it. Oh wait.. she's just a stupid female who believes in fairy tales.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 01, 2012, 07:53:22 AM
Isn't wolves and dogs an example of "macro"evolution.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: XXXII/LX on March 01, 2012, 08:01:20 AM
Isn't wolves and dogs an example of "macro"evolution.

No. God made dogs.  ;D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: MikMaq on March 01, 2012, 08:14:51 AM
The problem ain`t evolution itself, the problem is the  belief that is a worked out system. It ain`t most of evolution is still a mystery.


did life as we know it come from outer space, some sort of space god we got no fricking clue.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 01, 2012, 08:20:23 AM
Actually, I think she owned him.  His big thing in this video is that "similarities" in DNA "prove" evolution.  She says similarities do not prove evolution.  She is right, similarities do not prove anything.  

He can't do better than that?

  Bwa ha ha ha ha ha...go back to eighth grade biology class, retard.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: MORTALCOIL on March 01, 2012, 08:22:23 AM
Love the way creationists twist facts. Evidences will never stop the questioning so by this absurd way of thinking, the fact that a theory can always be discussed will still allow creationism to be the only truth. How fucked up is that? Even if you can't prove evolution 100%, you disprove all the fairy tales those bigots believe in. They will tell you that the hand of god is still there somewhere even thoguh Adam and Eve have disappeared from the picture.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 01, 2012, 08:34:47 AM
Drive through Tennessee. Creationist ground zero.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Dr.Ill on March 01, 2012, 08:35:51 AM
My question is:  why has evolving stopped?   ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 01, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
did life as we know it come from outer space, some sort of space god we got no fricking clue.

Has nothing to do with evolution.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 01, 2012, 08:53:20 AM
Natural sciences are formed based on observation. It's not strict in the mathmatical or logical sense, as there are is no axiomatic system whatsoever and we use many assumptions, like "if it works 100000 times, it will work for 100000th time" which obviously may not hold. Especially evolutionary science by definition is doomed to base on the facts that we have now to prove something about the past. We live too short to observe any kind of evolution, so what we have is DNA and other proofs which may not satisfy everyone, but well, that's all we're ever gonna have. On the other side we have belief based on book wrote by arabs and jews thousands of years ago.

Non-scientists should not discuss science. I'm sorry, but fuck off.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Dr.Ill on March 01, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
Natural sciences are formed based on observation. It's not strict in the mathmatical or logical sense, as there are is no axiomatic system whatsoever and we use many assumptions, like "if it works 100000 times, it will work for 100000th time" which obviously may not hold. Especially evolutionary science by definition is doomed to base on the facts that we have now to prove something about the past. We live too short to observe any kind of evolution, so what we have is DNA and other proofs which may not satisfy everyone, but well, that's all we're ever gonna have. On the other side we have belief based on book wrote by arabs and jews thousands of years ago.

Non-scientists should not discuss science. I'm sorry, but fuck off.

Please give us your extensive science background.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 01, 2012, 09:13:42 AM
Please give us your extensive science background.

Theoretical Computer Science Bsc
Theoretical Computer Science Msc (in progress)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Natural Man on March 01, 2012, 09:17:27 AM
She looks happier than him tho. And obviously she contributes more to mankind than him. What is he contributing to mankind exactly?

Also, let's hope for him that God truly doesnt exist lol...


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: da_vinci on March 01, 2012, 09:23:32 AM
She looks way dumber than him tho.

Also, I hope that the real god is the one I preach (not some "mojo" or "alach")...

Fixed.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: XXXII/LX on March 01, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
She looks happier than him tho. And obviously she contributes more to mankind than him. What is he contributing to mankind exactly?

Also, let's hope for him that God truly doesnt exist lol...

Do you make a habit of making up shit when you don't understand something, ie God?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Dr.Ill on March 01, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
Theoretical Computer Science Bsc
Theoretical Computer Science Msc (in progress)

With how much time has passed, why has human's not evolved into a different species?  Second question, we manipulate cells the same way, bilions of time over without difference, does it not blow a hole in that theory?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: da_vinci on March 01, 2012, 09:32:41 AM
With how much time has passed, why has human's not evolved into a different species?  Second question, we manipulate cells the same way, bilions of time over without difference, does it not blow a hole in that theory?

How "much time"? Have you at least any idea of how LITTLE time has passed, when looking from a point of EVOLUTION (hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes even millions and millions, until something significant "happens", speaking in a context of mutation and change in a specie).

How we manipulate? What are you talking about?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 01, 2012, 09:51:31 AM
creationists dont necessarily deny evolution. she is a horrrible representative of the group.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 01, 2012, 10:17:58 AM
She looks happier than him tho. And obviously she contributes more to mankind than him. What is he contributing to mankind exactly?

Also, let's hope for him that God truly doesnt exist lol...

What did he contribute to mankind? He's professor of biology, read his works for christ's sake. Oh wait, you can't understand them.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Megalodon on March 01, 2012, 10:19:44 AM
Richard Dawkins never claimed to be an athiest:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: MORTALCOIL on March 01, 2012, 10:25:23 AM
She looks happier than him tho. And obviously she contributes more to mankind than him. What is he contributing to mankind exactly?

Also, let's hope for him that God truly doesnt exist lol...

Not with you on that. She does not look happy at all. She has that typical bigot behavior, hypocritical smile and good mannered which still doesn't cover up the fact that she hates every single person with different ideas then her own. Her agenda isn't even hidden, she's just a conservative lobbyist. I don't see the contribution here. At least, he's an author and scientist with a body of work to show for. You can even criticize it which makes it worth something. On the contrary of that woman who's hiding behind "values" she's pushing as a way to make herself more important.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Tito24 on March 01, 2012, 11:16:44 AM
Not with you on that. She does not look happy at all. She has that typical bigot behavior, hypocritical smile and good mannered which still doesn't cover up the fact that she hates every single person with different ideas then her own. Her agenda isn't even hidden, she's just a conservative lobbyist. I don't see the contribution here. At least, he's an author and scientist with a body of work to show for. You can even criticize it which makes it worth something. On the contrary of that woman who's hiding behind "values" she's pushing as a way to make herself more important.

x2


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 01, 2012, 11:19:04 AM
If we all came from 2 people 6,000 years ago, then why are we different colors.

That's all I want to know.

We would all look so damn similar that it's not funny if that were the case.

There would only be one "race", but yet we have so many... Obviously an evolutionary output of some sort.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Dr.Ill on March 01, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
If we all came from 2 people 6,000 years ago, then why are we different colors.

That's all I want to know.

We would all look so damn similar that it's not funny if that were the case.

There would only be one "race", but yet we have so many... Obviously an evolutionary output of some sort.

Not only did Almighty God confound the language at the tower of Babel but also the races because the word confound taken to its root meaning literally means to mix.
Remember what you allow yourself to think, see, hear, say and do literally set into motion God’s
creative powers that form the matrix of life’s reality you find yourself now walking so be circumspect,
putting your mind, eyes, ears and tongue on what is good, positive and constructive.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 01, 2012, 11:25:37 AM
Not only did Almighty God confound the language at the tower of Babel but also the races because the word confound taken to its root meaning literally means to mix.
Remember what you allow yourself to think, see, hear, say and do literally set into motion God’s
creative powers that form the matrix of life’s reality you find yourself now walking so be circumspect,
putting your mind, eyes, ears and tongue on what is good, positive and constructive.


Yeah... That story is what is called a lie.

Do you think they built towers taller than the Sears Tower in Chicago? The World Trade Center?

God cared about tall buildings 6000 years ago, but now, they are totally cool?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Dreadlifter on March 01, 2012, 11:30:05 AM
creationists are one of the things that really get my blood boiling. Idiots plain and simple.

Yes i am a scientist, but they'd annoy the heck out of me even if i wasn't.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: chris-a on March 01, 2012, 12:37:32 PM
Not only did Almighty God confound the language at the tower of Babel but also the races because the word confound taken to its root meaning literally means to mix.
Remember what you allow yourself to think, see, hear, say and do literally set into motion God’s
creative powers that form the matrix of life’s reality you find yourself now walking so be circumspect,
putting your mind, eyes, ears and tongue on what is good, positive and constructive.



please, please, please, just

fuck.right.off.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Parker on March 01, 2012, 01:04:11 PM
creationists are one of the things that really get my blood boiling. Idiots plain and simple.

Yes i am a scientist, but they'd annoy the heck out of me even if i wasn't.
Staunch scientists annoy me, staunch creationists annoy me...all because they tend to hold onto their own dogmas, and not seeing that their mindset is alike---it's either "my way or no way".


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 01, 2012, 01:15:43 PM
With how much time has passed, why has human's not evolved into a different species?  Second question, we manipulate cells the same way, bilions of time over without difference, does it not blow a hole in that theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment)

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/)

Evolution right in front of your eyes. If you wish to have any credibility in this debate whatsoever, at least quickly glance through the wiki page and then come back.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: james_hetfield on March 01, 2012, 01:32:55 PM
My question is:  why has evolving stopped?   ::)

Sorry dude but are you rolling your eyes at that statement or with it?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: james_hetfield on March 01, 2012, 01:44:04 PM
With how much time has passed, why has human's not evolved into a different species?  Second question, we manipulate cells the same way, bilions of time over without difference, does it not blow a hole in that theory?

Dude that is such a weak argument. The Earth is supposed to be 4.5 billion years old and it is estimated that life has been around for 3.5 billion. Which means it took that long for us to evolve from the simplest organisms to where we are at now.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Parker on March 01, 2012, 01:49:52 PM
Dude that is such a weak argument. The Earth is supposed to be 4.5 billion years old and it is estimated that life has been around for 3.5 billion. Which means it took that long for us to evolve from the simplest organisms to where we are at now.
Are you trying to say that "God" needed time to perfect his recipe? And that he needs to raise the temp a little bit?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 01, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
creationists dont necessarily deny evolution. she is a horrrible representative of the group.
No. They just encompass it within their nonsense. Once you start lying, why stop? 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: hardgainerj on March 01, 2012, 02:02:40 PM
Please give us your extensive science background.
phd in broscience


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 01, 2012, 02:25:43 PM
phd in broscience
That's got to be comparable to an internet degree, I figure. 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 03:49:05 PM
Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.

Thanks, an intelligent and educated member, very refreshing.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 01, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
Staunch scientists annoy me, staunch creationists annoy me...all because they tend to hold onto their own dogmas, and not seeing that their mindset is alike---it's either "my way or no way".
People of science have the ability to  doubt.   ;)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
I don't give a shit if it's true or not, but just like some extremist and confused religious people, some (actually many) scientists seem to be fanatical in their attitudes in the absence of solid proof.

However put all your doubts aside, as I have found PROOF, I have found the MISSING LINK!

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP6oKuRrBDtUNJy456qGeIn24j-t1U_VT9paa0YVlyaJX8tckVrAod0iIoTQ)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: kh300 on March 01, 2012, 04:04:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2idR1cC1Qtk


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 01, 2012, 04:55:28 PM
No. They just encompass it within their nonsense. Once you start lying, why stop? 
Do you honestly think that every single "creationist" is lying when they say they find the idea of a creator to be more plausible than the idea of a self caused/uncaused universe? 

I understand the theory of evolution, I know how the process works. I understand astrophysics, I am familiar with most all the details of the current theories as to the laws of physics and the history of time. All these ideas, these scientifically tested and observed phenomena make a great deal of mechanical sense to me.  But the question arrives in my mind - what is that energy that makes up everything and is constantly creating and changing and causing thing to happen, giving birth to life and the earth and human experience?  what is this energy that appears to have a will to create and shape things?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: PJim on March 01, 2012, 05:08:20 PM
Luring the retards as per


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wes on March 01, 2012, 05:13:34 PM
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/collegeotr/images/blogs/1b1d97d22eba364b1b57aa9a7a69a24f.jpg)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: the trainer on March 01, 2012, 05:19:31 PM
I made a thread like this before called evolution is a lie and i was owning all the darwin believers and they got so pissed and emotional that they complained to the moderators and had the thread moved.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: the trainer on March 01, 2012, 05:27:24 PM
GOD damn this is so fckng annoying i want to bust her face in!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo


Of course you want to bust her face in when you believe in something and somebody is about to shatter your belief human emotions comes into play you get angry rather than face the truth that your beliefs where wrong.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 01, 2012, 05:27:31 PM
I made a thread like this before called evolution is a lie and i was owning all the darwin believers and they got so pissed and emotional that they complained to the moderators and had the thread moved.

getbig, the forefront of science revolution.  ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: bic_staedtler on March 01, 2012, 05:41:26 PM
Dawkins is losing is touch.  However, to be fair, this woman keeps her composure.  I do find it strange that when an atheist is asked of scientific proof of species-to-species evolution (and can't produce and direct evidence), the religious folks cheer.  Then the athiests ask the religious folks for the scientific proof of God (and can't produce direct evidence), then they cheer too.

Dawkins is wrong in saying that the theory of evolution is 'scientific fact'.  It's not.  Were it so, I'd say just about everybody would know about it.  Yes, it sure does look like fact but just cause Dawkins says so don't make it so.  And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape.  Yet they haven't found it.

God folks should stick to what they know. 

This woman made some good points: it's the atheists who came up with eugenics.  But the religious tyrants of the world have caused plenty of death and suffering in the name of any number of 'gods'.

Both camps are in the wrong.  If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you.  That's why it's called faith.  And for those who don't believe, that's their decision.  It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point?  This debate will never be solved, ever. 

But Dawkins needs a paycheck somehow, doesn't he?  I wonder what Christopher Hitchens is doing right....now...

AS FOR ME, it's TIME FOR SOME OILY THONGED MUSCLEMEN to PRANCE AROUND FOR ENJOYMENT OF MANY!


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: gcb on March 01, 2012, 06:55:36 PM
Fuck you people are stupid - science is based on inferring from observations. If you can't do that then say goodbye to all the technology that exists now - TV, computer, internet, electronics you name it. Just because you start looking at biology doesn't mean the scientific method somehow becomes invalid.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 07:03:02 PM
Fuck you people are stupid - science is based on inferring from observations. If you can't do that then say goodbye to all the technology that exists now - TV, computer, internet, electronics you name it. Just because you start looking at biology doesn't mean the scientific method somehow becomes invalid.

No I think you are the one lacking in observational and analytical skills.   Observation can help us learn and succeed, piece the pieces together etc, but observing a similarity, even a strong similarity,  between two objects/subjects does not automatically prove evolution to be an absolute fact.  This can be applied to many other scenarios. 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: gcb on March 01, 2012, 07:08:14 PM
No I think you are the one lacking in observational and analytical skills.   Observation can help us learn and succeed, piece the pieces together etc, but observing a similarity, even a strong similarity,  between two objects/subjects does not automatically prove evolution to be an absolute fact.  This can be applied to many other scenarios. 


No I think you want to believe what you want to believe - there is even less proof for God than there is for evolution - of that I'm certain. Evolution doesn't just observe one similarity it observes many similarities in species across a very wide spectrum.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 07:11:17 PM
No I think you want to believe what you want to believe - there is even less proof for God than there is for evolution - of that I'm certain. Evolution doesn't just observe one similarity it observes many similarities in species across a very wide spectrum.

I didn't even mention GOD.  You have just made it clear your analytical/thought processes are very poor.   


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: gcb on March 01, 2012, 07:12:33 PM
I didn't even mention GOD.  You have just made it clear your analytical/thought processes are very poor.   

Oh my god - you didn't mention him oh dear. Suddenly that invalidates the rest of my argument.  :o ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on March 01, 2012, 07:14:57 PM
Oh my god - you didn't mention him oh dear. Suddenly that invalidates the rest of my argument.  :o ::)

I hope you have good muscle genetics, cos your brain genetics are poor.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: gcb on March 01, 2012, 07:15:51 PM
I hope you have good muscle genetics, cos your brain genetics are poor.

Yes because you always win arguments with muscles instead of insulting people.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wes on March 01, 2012, 07:17:42 PM
Both camps are in the wrong.  If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you.  That's why it's called faith.  And for those who don't believe, that's their decision.  It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point?  This debate will never be solved, ever. 
BINGO


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: slaveboy1980 on March 01, 2012, 07:30:55 PM
some came from the anus


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 01, 2012, 08:00:18 PM
Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.

As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 02, 2012, 02:57:22 AM
And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape.  Yet they haven't found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Oh yeah sorry, between man and ape no-one can provide you since we didn't come from apes.  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: no one on March 02, 2012, 03:14:19 AM
If we all came from 2 people 6,000 years ago, then why are we different colors.

That's all I want to know.

We would all look so damn similar that it's not funny if that were the case.

There would only be one "race", but yet we have so many... Obviously an evolutionary output of some sort.

this is now outdated. scholars widely agree that a site in turkey has been identified as being 12000 years old.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on March 02, 2012, 03:19:46 AM
this is now outdated. scholars widely agree that a site in turkey has been identified as being 12000 years old.

Not much to go to 4.5 billion now.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: no one on March 02, 2012, 03:23:35 AM
Not much to go to 4.5 billion now.

fuck dude. it a massive step just getting science and scholars to admit a civilisation existed 12k years ago.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Tito24 on March 02, 2012, 03:28:18 AM
getbig, the forefront of science revolution.  ::)

haha "the trainer"  might be a best seller writer you never know ;D


only on getbig :o :o


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 02, 2012, 05:36:17 AM
Not much to go to 4.5 billion now.

We are on the way!!!


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Lord Humungous on March 02, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   

Dr Chimps is obviously a wayyyyyy more intelligent than any Creationist. Excellent grammer!


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Euro-monster on March 02, 2012, 05:49:21 AM
Dr Chimps is obviously a wayyyyyy more intelligent than any Creationist. Excellent grammer!

I didnt read this thread at all ...but.. i just wanted to say Hi LH...whats up?.... ;D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: MAXX on March 02, 2012, 06:05:38 AM
so what I se people dumber than her on getbig.com every day :D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Lord Humungous on March 02, 2012, 06:05:46 AM
I didnt read this thread at all ...but.. i just wanted to say Hi LH...whats up?.... ;D

Hey! Whats up man!  8)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Cableguy on March 02, 2012, 11:14:13 AM
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.



Geez, what a stupid bitch. Guess we're all products of incest...  ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: hematocritter on March 02, 2012, 11:25:00 AM
lol @ creationists/evolutionists/anyone who thinks they know how everything works. No one knows what the fuck is going on, how it all started, and how it all ends.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Tito24 on March 02, 2012, 11:27:36 AM
i dont think dawkins ever claimed to know everything and rules out a creator.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wavelength on March 02, 2012, 11:31:51 AM
Creationists. Are there any stupider people, I ask?  Be like talking to a parrot.   

Yes there are. Scientific positivists and pseudo philosophers like Dawkins.
Both are wrong.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 11:40:51 AM
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)

this is a good post. except the part where you said creationists dismiss logic outright. there is much logic behind the idea of a creator. just no logic sufficient to prove such a thing exists.  certainly the concept of causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe. the idea of substance itself, any kind of substance, seems to require some kind of supernatural origin being that anything that extends is infinitely divisible. the human experience and the existence of life out of lifeless material grabs me by the balls and makes me think there is definitely a reason for life to exist.. and reproduction is just simply not it.

of course none of that proves anything. but its all stil based in the realm of logical ideas. 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wavelength on March 02, 2012, 11:44:33 AM
i dont think dawkins ever claimed to know everything and rules out a creator.

Maybe not but since he doesn't understand the restrictions of natural science, all his statements are mute in the end.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: XFACTOR on March 02, 2012, 11:53:00 AM
Oh brother. Yes clearly "owning" the arguement by completely avoid the facts he's stating.  ::) Anyone that believes the entire human population was spawned by 2 people is just down right dumb.



I agree with what you're saying here and the statement in general.  But She definitely works him in this debate.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 02, 2012, 12:17:43 PM
Yes there are. Scientific positivists and pseudo philosophers like Dawkins.
Both are wrong.

You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: RadOncDoc on March 02, 2012, 12:19:12 PM
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)

We've had this conversation here before. And while I respect your opinion, I disagree. Again, you
are discrediting creationism not on it's scientific merit or ability to explain observed phenomena, but based on
your definition of science. Evolution and Creation Science can explain similarities in DNA, but Creation science
isn't a valid explanation because evolutionists (who are mostly atheists, and fervent atheists at that)
demand a naturalistic explanation. Again, this definition is a human construct. Why can't a God be the author of life?
Oh yeah, because philosophers and rabid atheistic evolutionists have told us that God doesn't exist. See, this isn't
a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one, which personally, makes me uneasy.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: mazrim on March 02, 2012, 12:25:26 PM
You have to be an idiot no matter what you believe to not see Dawkins getting beat like a drum in this. Most of the time he is attacking her via personal attacks and the other times he is making excuses for outright lies that are still taught today (in some cases) that have been proven to be false. In fact every time I see Dawkins in a debate with any sort of intelligent person on this subject he gets owned bad.
"Expelled" was a good movie.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.

he never said that  ;D


i have told you time and time again, and you just dont seem to get it...   science has a welll defined limitation defined in its very own definition. SCIENCE CAN NOT SPEAK ON THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. Ever.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 02, 2012, 12:33:22 PM
he never said that  ;D


i have told you time and time again, and you just dont seem to get it...   science has a welll defined limitation defined in its very own definition. SCIENCE CAN NOT SPEAK ON THE ORIGIN AND CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE. Ever.

...and again, you can?


 ::) ::)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: aesthetics on March 02, 2012, 12:34:55 PM
GOD damn this is so fckng annoying i want to bust her face in!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

wow he had incredible patience to go through that first 10 minutes


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 12:35:09 PM
i certainly cant agree with those of you who think the woman in the video came out as the victor of the debate.  she certainly seems to be a thoughtful woman and maybe even intelligent and i certainly wouldnt say that dawkins won the debate either as he didnt make any great arguments however he did point ou that all she needed to do was open an ellemntary biology book for the evidence needed and  inside one of those books would contain a sufficient argument.



...and again, you can?


 ::) ::)
absolutely not. no one can. a redwood tree is as qualified to speak on the subject as a nobel prize winning astro physicist. neither have even the slightest idea of anyting related to the issue.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 02, 2012, 01:08:09 PM
i certainly cant agree with those of you who think the woman in the video came out as the victor of the debate.  she certainly seems to be a thoughtful woman and maybe even intelligent and i certainly wouldnt say that dawkins won the debate either as he didnt make any great arguments however he did point ou that all she needed to do was open an ellemntary biology book for the evidence needed and  inside one of those books would contain a sufficient argument.


 absolutely not. no one can. a redwood tree is as qualified to speak on the subject as a nobel prize winning astro physicist. neither have even the slightest idea of anyting related to the issue.

The ironic thing about you saying that we can never know anything about the origin of the universe is the fact that you're making assumptions about that very thing in order to make that statement.

a)We can't know anything about the origin of the universe.
b)How do you know that?
a)Because we can't know.
b)Come again?


Your argument is very circular and self-contradicting.

Why not say that at present we do not know where the universe came from and it's fully possible that we never will although we can't be certain about it?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 01:14:20 PM
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: aesthetics on March 02, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.



what caused god, lol


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 02, 2012, 01:22:41 PM
there are no assumpions involved. this is fundamental.

any scientific discovery made is subject to questioning


you find X, well what caused X?  you find out Y caused X, well what caused Y? and so on.



Don't try to sugarcoat it by using other words. You are right there claiming to know something about the origin of the universe and its properties. What if we made a discovery in physics that some manifestations of energy don't need a cause? Kinda like how there's no time before the big bang? Or kinda like how virtual particles pop out of nowhere? All wild speculation of course but again, don't claim to know something that you obviously don't.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 01:28:53 PM
what caused god, lol
god is a hypothetical. but hypothetically speaking god would be self caused or uncaused. in either situation the existence of god would be incomprehensible.

Don't try to sugarcoat it by using other words. You are right there claiming to know something about the origin of the universe and its properties. What if we made a discovery in physics that some manifestations of energy don't need a cause? Kinda like how there's no time before the big bang? Or kinda like how virtual particles pop out of nowhere? All wild speculation of course but again, don't claim to know something that you obviously don't.
im not sugar coating or using other words. it seems you just dont understand what im getting at. 

but lets go with your questions.   an energy that doesnt need a cause.

well, first of all..    does anything "need" a cause ?  we do know that most things are precipitated by some other thing.  but we dont know that events are necessarily caused by some other event.


secondly, lets say we do prove there is something that is not caused by anything other than itself.  well, why does it cause itself? what gives its energy the direction to come into form and take action in the way it does?


there is always a valid line of questioning about the nature of any object, whether real or hypothetical.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: james_hetfield on March 02, 2012, 01:58:09 PM
Dawkins is losing is touch.  However, to be fair, this woman keeps her composure.  I do find it strange that when an atheist is asked of scientific proof of species-to-species evolution (and can't produce and direct evidence), the religious folks cheer.  Then the athiests ask the religious folks for the scientific proof of God (and can't produce direct evidence), then they cheer too.

Dawkins is wrong in saying that the theory of evolution is 'scientific fact'.  It's not.  Were it so, I'd say just about everybody would know about it.  Yes, it sure does look like fact but just cause Dawkins says so don't make it so.  And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape.  Yet they haven't found it.

God folks should stick to what they know. 

This woman made some good points: it's the atheists who came up with eugenics.  But the religious tyrants of the world have caused plenty of death and suffering in the name of any number of 'gods'.

Both camps are in the wrong.  If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you.  That's why it's called faith.  And for those who don't believe, that's their decision.  It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point?  This debate will never be solved, ever. 

But Dawkins needs a paycheck somehow, doesn't he?  I wonder what Christopher Hitchens is doing right....now...

AS FOR ME, it's TIME FOR SOME OILY THONGED MUSCLEMEN to PRANCE AROUND FOR ENJOYMENT OF MANY!


Good points. When I was first introduced to Dawkins I found the guy to be interesting but as it turns out hes a one trick pony. The guy gets off on arguing with religious people for no fucking reason at all. Keep your ideas to your lectures. It annoys the shit out of me seeing his smug face every time he thinks hes making a fool of someone.  


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: slate on March 02, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
none of them are really talking about evolution.

that is just a proxy for much bigger structures of belief, I mean: who defines what is right, how is that decision made, etc
They are coming from such different points of view, and with no intention to listen to the other person that there is no point in talking other than propaganda war

 discussions like these are just pissing contents. they are useful if they help spread the 'rationalist' point of view but they are definitely not a place where you will find anything  interesting

i believe there is no reason to believe that 'god' exists , and plenty of good ones to believe it does not (just like the tooth fairy)  but Dawkins is the kind of 'professional atheist' that makes me cringe

the only reason i am not totally anti -dawkins is because i half hope that his net contribution for the propaganda war is positive


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 02, 2012, 07:03:22 PM
this is a good post. except the part where you said creationists dismiss logic outright. there is much logic behind the idea of a creator. just no logic sufficient to prove such a thing exists.  certainly the concept of causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe. the idea of substance itself, any kind of substance, seems to require some kind of supernatural origin being that anything that extends is infinitely divisible. the human experience and the existence of life out of lifeless material grabs me by the balls and makes me think there is definitely a reason for life to exist.. and reproduction is just simply not it.

of course none of that proves anything. but its all stil based in the realm of logical ideas. 

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



We've had this conversation here before. And while I respect your opinion, I disagree. Again, you are discrediting creationism not on it's scientific merit or ability to explain observed phenomena, but based on your definition of science. Evolution and Creation Science can explain similarities in DNA, but Creation science isn't a valid explanation because evolutionists (who are mostly atheists, and fervent atheists at that) demand a naturalistic explanation. Again, this definition is a human construct. Why can't a God be the author of life? Oh yeah, because philosophers and rabid atheistic evolutionists have told us that God doesn't exist. See, this isn't a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one, which personally, makes me uneasy.

I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! ;) I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: che on March 02, 2012, 07:37:24 PM
''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: ilalin on March 02, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! ;) I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

end of thread


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 02, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)

  Brutal ownage.
  
  Avxxo, you are pretty much the only one in this board besides myself with something between his ears.

  Don't bother arguing with "Tbombz", though. When crushed by logic, he resorts to curtailing the debate with semantics, circular reasoning and straw man arguments. You know that he is pulling your leg, and he knows it too, but he does it anyway to save face in a debate he knows he lost.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 02, 2012, 08:34:50 PM
''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ

  Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a fucking retard!!!!!!!! He posits several contraditory statements and then passes them as "logic" for the cause of the Universe.

  "A period of non-existence."

  What the fuck does this even mean? A period by defintion involves time, namely, "something". And if it is something, then ergo, it exists.

  See, "Tbombz" is just an idiot who grinds arguments down with semantics and circular reasoning.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Skeletor on March 02, 2012, 09:09:50 PM
Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! ;) I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

Great post.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 09:40:25 PM
Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic. 

if you mean to say that when someone asserts that a creator does indeed exist that they are making an assertion without evidence and thus either mislead or misleading... that they are not using logic properly to decide if their idea is a fact..    then i would agree.. 

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

Is causality a property of the universe? or is it just a concept we made up in our minds? i have certainly never seen anything that didnt have some kind of cause behind it. but im not sure if the universe was caused. this issue about the origin of the universe is incomprehensible...  but  i think what tips the scales for me in favor of an uncaused/self caused God instead of an uncaused/self caused universe is the simple fact that life exists. I exist! my gut says there must be a reason. 

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.


these are your words

"Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?"


you say that "god created the universe" isnt an answer to the question "how was the universe created"..   but the fact is, and this is well within the realm of science, that God is the only thing that could possibly even attempt to be an answer to that question.





Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 02, 2012, 09:48:56 PM
you say that "god created the universe" isnt an answer to the question "how was the universe created"..   but the fact is, and this is well within the realm of science, that God is the only thing that could possibly even attempt to be an answer to that question.

I was addressing a very specific point, after having already discussed a whole host of other things. The problem with looking at my quote in isolation is that the question of "how was the universe created" can only be asked (and, thus, answered) after the question "was the Universe created" is asked and answered. You can't skip that step if you want to be intellectually honest.

Is causality a property of the universe?

Yes. It is.

[...] or is it just a concept we made up in our minds?

No. It's not.

i have certainly never seen anything that didnt have some kind of cause behind it.

That's causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum effects, at any rate)


what tips the scales for me in favor of an uncaused/self caused God instead of an uncaused/self caused universe is the simple fact that life exists. I exist! my gut says there must be a reason.

Why does an uncaused God make more sense than an uncaused Universe? You simply pushed the level of uncausability one level farther off. How does that help with anything, gut feelings aside.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 09:54:25 PM
your a very smart guy.

i think the problem here is you are too far detached from your experience of being human

the "proof" isnt in ink on paper.

i can do a very good job at expressing my feelings in logical, analytical terms using scientific concepts and facts to bolster the legitemacy of my gut feeling.. to make it understood that i do understand science and i do not reject it or deny it, that my feeling on the issue is rooted in knowledge. but knowledge of experience and the things that exist.

however the universe is completely unknowable. and i know this. it makes me smile. its part of the reason why i think god exists.   :D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: jr on March 02, 2012, 10:05:42 PM
God wants us to be big ripped musclemen. He allows us to do gay for pay if we are desperate for money to buy drugs and food. Praise Allah,  Amen.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 10:10:06 PM
God wants us to be big ripped musclemen. He allows us to do gay for pay if we are desperate for money to buy drugs and food. Praise Allah,  Amen.
no, he wants you to be miserable, abstain from every kind of pleasure, only think to yourself about how shitty you are for being so infinitely inferior to him, and pretend to suck his cock all day long. duh.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: jr on March 02, 2012, 10:16:14 PM
no, he wants you to be miserable, abstain from every kind of pleasure, only think to yourself about how shitty you are for being so infinitely inferior to him, and pretend to suck his cock all day long. duh.

Hi Uberman


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: RadOncDoc on March 02, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! ;) I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 02, 2012, 10:46:24 PM
What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.

  Paragraphs are your friends...

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: 99 Bananas on March 02, 2012, 10:49:41 PM
It funny we use things that exist in reality to describe and understand reality. reality just is. To ''know'' anything at all is prejudice, and to seek mind with the prejudiced mind is the greatest of all mistakes.

Words aren't truth, they can only describe it.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: RadOncDoc on March 02, 2012, 10:55:10 PM
  Paragraphs are your friends...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

haha sorry man, my computer is screwy. And I should add, I'm not saying I'm a creation scientist or an atheistic evolutionist. I'm just saying I think there's more to this argument than people realize.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 11:11:49 PM
What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.

this is a very very good post except i would encourage you to drop the references to scripture and denial of widely accepted scientific ideas.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Jovo on March 02, 2012, 11:14:46 PM
lmao any one who doesn't recognize evolution is a complete moron, lmao how stupid can you be to believe in something that you cannot see or sense in any way or form and have NO evidence of apart from an old book ?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 02, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
lmao any one who doesn't recognize evolution is a complete moron, lmao how stupid can you be to believe in something that you cannot see or sense in any way or form and have NO evidence of apart from an old book ?
its not simply one or the other.  there are many people who believe in God but feel that the bible and every other piece of literature that claims to be the word of God are horrible horrible things that should have never been created.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 03, 2012, 01:55:08 AM
What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.

Actually we don't have that. But I'm not offended at being called a philosopher: it literally does mean "friend of wisdom" in Greek :)

First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation.

No, they exclude the supernatural a priori. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. We leave the supernatural to priests and shamans.


But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why?

You're absolutely 100% right! Why indeed?!? Damn science made Zeus impotent by explaining electricity. I say to hell with rational explanations and the search to understand the world around us. Superstitions for everything! Yay!

This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.

No. Its reliance on a deity does make it unscientific. "God" isn't an answer to any legitimate scientific question. Because it doesn't explain anything!

First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?

And Pastafarians show how the decline of Pirates is associated with global warming. Isn't science wonderful? :)


Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it.

What natural phenomena are so amazing that a naturalistic explanation cannot possibly be invoked?

Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable.

Lightning was thought to be amazing and beyond a natural explanation... Where is Zeus today?


Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern leadto visual perception?

I take it you aren't familiar with emergent properties? It's a fascinating subject really. And it doesn't require magic!


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tonymctones on March 03, 2012, 09:25:59 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic these days...



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 03, 2012, 12:48:53 PM
Actually we don't have that. But I'm not offended at being called a philosopher: it literally does mean "friend of wisdom" in Greek :)

No, they exclude the supernatural a priori. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. We leave the supernatural to priests and shamans.


You're absolutely 100% right! Why indeed?!? Damn science made Zeus impotent by explaining electricity. I say to hell with rational explanations and the search to understand the world around us. Superstitions for everything! Yay!

No. Its reliance on a deity does make it unscientific. "God" isn't an answer to any legitimate scientific question. Because it doesn't explain anything!

And Pastafarians show how the decline of Pirates is associated with global warming. Isn't science wonderful? :)


What natural phenomena are so amazing that a naturalistic explanation cannot possibly be invoked?

Lightning was thought to be amazing and beyond a natural explanation... Where is Zeus today?


I take it you aren't familiar with emergent properties? It's a fascinating subject really. And it doesn't require magic!


your making assertions without evidence. electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.  there isnt a single natural phenomena that a naturalistic explanation can be envoked to explain.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 03, 2012, 01:08:22 PM
your making assertions without evidence. electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.  there isnt a single natural phenomena that a naturalistic explanation can be envoked to explain.

LOL... You are such a troll.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 03, 2012, 02:20:02 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic these days...



  This is not true. Theists love to twart facts. Dawkins describes himself as 99.9999% atheistic and 0.0001% agnostic. By this, he means he cannot completely rule out the possibility of God. But he thinks it is very, very unlikely.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Natural Man on March 03, 2012, 02:21:23 PM
LOL... You are such a troll.
he s not trolling, he s just inconceivably ignorant, immature and in need of attention.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 03, 2012, 02:29:27 PM
he s not trolling, he s just inconceivably ignorant, immature and in need of attention.

  I think even he doesen't believe the bullshit he spits. You address his stupid "points" and completely demolish them, and he makes those exact points again with slightly different phrasing and wording and then claims you haven't addressed anything. I gave up arguing with him in this thread after I realized that to him it was just about him being proud and saving face and not actuallly having any valid points to make:

  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=398910.0)

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 03, 2012, 02:56:02 PM
LOL... You are such a troll.
  nope, just speakin the truth


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Natural Man on March 03, 2012, 02:57:19 PM
  nope, just speakin the truth

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-SAZgh0VQlQ/TNEVzzGr2CI/AAAAAAAAE2I/mlWk7yxdfM8/s1600/punch-myself-in-the-face.jpg)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 03, 2012, 03:00:18 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-SAZgh0VQlQ/TNEVzzGr2CI/AAAAAAAAE2I/mlWk7yxdfM8/s1600/punch-myself-in-the-face.jpg)
lol, coming from the guy who goes around preaching about end times prophecy from the bible ...    kind of ironic  ;D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Metabolic on March 03, 2012, 03:03:17 PM
She is just so full of shit, ad-hoc hypothesis everywhere, stating unprovable facts, pure dogma beliefs to support her "demonstrations"...Crap, she is just crap.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Rami on March 03, 2012, 03:05:49 PM
she did good, and I bet she's a complete brute in bed


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Rami on March 03, 2012, 04:17:52 PM
how can you not fap to this



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 03, 2012, 05:58:09 PM
So tbombz again, what schools did you finish?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tonymctones on March 03, 2012, 06:13:07 PM
  This is not true. Theists love to twart facts. Dawkins describes himself as 99.9999% atheistic and 0.0001% agnostic. By this, he means he cannot completely rule out the possibility of God. But he thinks it is very, very unlikely.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Dawkins himself disagrees with you...watch the video and the clip and he specifically says he calls himself an agnostic.

yes it believes that his views are 6.9 out of 7 right but even your dear leader cannot dismiss the possible existence of a god.

sorry if this hurts.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 03, 2012, 08:13:27 PM
  nope, just speakin the truth

Quote from: tbombz
electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.

You sure are. Just out of curiosity, is your computer using "unexplained" electricity, or are you using a steam-powered model?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: suckmymuscle on March 03, 2012, 08:25:01 PM
Dawkins himself disagrees with you...watch the video and the clip and he specifically says he calls himself an agnostic.

yes it believes that his views are 6.9 out of 7 right but even your dear leader cannot dismiss the possible existence of a god.

sorry if this hurts.

  Idiot!!!!!!!!! Dawkins said he isn't 100% an atheist becuse he can't rule out completely the possibility of there being a God. He is still 99.99999% atheistic and 0.00001% agnostic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: oni on March 03, 2012, 10:06:06 PM
I've actually met Dawkins in real life a few times, my dad was taught by him at Oxford and we would bump into each other a few times
While I agree with what he says he is one of the most arrogant people I have ever met. I hope one day to be like him


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 04, 2012, 12:50:34 PM
You sure are. Just out of curiosity, is your computer using "unexplained" electricity, or are you using a steam-powered model?
your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 ;)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Growth NOOB on March 04, 2012, 01:02:54 PM
your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 ;)

Why do you always invoke this "infinite regression" argument?  You are essentially claiming that nothing at all can be explained, ever. 

What you are doing is pointless.  Just because you can ask a follow up question, why would that take away from the actual answer you are seeking? 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 04, 2012, 01:11:08 PM
You are essentially claiming that nothing at all can be explained, ever. 


thats basically the gist of it broseph  :)


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Rami on March 04, 2012, 01:14:07 PM
when we become god, will he believe in god then?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: airosol on March 04, 2012, 01:15:23 PM
wish god would create me a sandwich, too lazy to walk to kitchen


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 04, 2012, 01:15:28 PM
when we become god, will he believe in god then?
 ;D its just his imagination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kjQhVJ9Y


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wavelength on March 05, 2012, 12:05:05 AM
You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.


It has been discussed elaborately a few years ago in the religion section.
Science has its purpose of course, it's a very beautiful body of knowledge.
But it's not the one that will deliver essential truth, only philosophy can do that.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Growth NOOB on March 05, 2012, 07:41:44 AM
thats basically the gist of it broseph  :)


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.


I understand what you are saying, and the philosophy behind it, but what does it actually accomplish?   Why not work towards what truths we can attain?  Once we know the answer to one question, it will more than likely help towards answering a deeper mystery.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 05, 2012, 07:47:47 AM
.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 05, 2012, 08:15:52 AM
Agreed. As an undergrad I worked around many prominent evolutionists and took several classes in
evolutionary biology. In a nutshell, the majority of the 'evidence' for evolution is similarities in DNA.
Of course, that in no way precludes a creator. One could simply say that the similarities in DNA  
reflect God working from a common template with minor deviations accounting for the difference in species.
I can remember being in class and after hearing several lectures on this topic, a student raised his hand
and posed that very question to the instructor. Namely, how do similarities in DNA disprove creationism? The instructor,
of course, couldn't answer that question, and simply relied on the common fallacy that observed phenomena in nature
must have a naturalistic explanation and therefore God as a causative agent cannot be used to explain th origns of life.
Basically, he discredited creationism based on his definition of science...not because creationism couldn't
fully explain similarities in DNA.



you nitwit creationism isnt a theory, it has no testable falsifiable criteria, evolution does, jesus are you that stupid, do you think by making your appeal to authority in the beginning of your post would make me take you serious?


creationism cannot be falsified, the fact that you are stating this and then making comments about how someone couldn't disprove it shows your lack of intellect. Don't come in the thunderdome with your weak pedantic zealotous bullshit.

no the majority of evidence for evolution is not dna, you fucking incredible asshole, genetics wasn't even around when evolution was postulated, that very fact the fact that we are temporal creatures indicates that dna is not all that evolution rests on since the theory was formulated without it. its not similarities either asshole, there are certain genes that have to be expressed in order for the phenotypic changes you witness to be realized, this is a natural progression, to find genes activated in humans that are normally not but are found in dolphins would disprove genetics. Genetics states that things evolved from common ancestors as is found in the fucking fossil record, the whole thing, not once has there been a contradiction. Genetics explains how things evolved and gives us objective data to do so, GENES!.

you idea is one of mere conjecture, perhaps its not gravity and the mass of objects applying force to each other, or the space-time fabric posited by einstein it is god holding things up, perhaps that explains things better then gravity, the math, the observations, the...fuck it your too stupid, this world makes me sad.

perhaps the similarities in dna are simply god using the same template, perhaps its not gravity god is using a tractor beam we can't see, its not the rotation of the earth causing friction and thus wind, its god blowing from another dimension, just having a whistle. This is your argument, perhaps god explains everything, tell me how to test it, how to falsify it? how can i test your claim that it is god using the same template? i can i prove god, template, how to use the template, were is this template,why use dna? it seems stupid actually, if i was god i would just create everything whole and healthy, evolution has all sorts of problems like mutations and survival of the fittest etc, its almost a cruel way to develop the world if you had the power to avoid it. Ethically your arguments are hollow even.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 05, 2012, 08:20:02 AM
  Idiot!!!!!!!!! Dawkins said he isn't 100% an atheist becuse he can't rule out completely the possibility of there being a God. He is still 99.99999% atheistic and 0.00001% agnostic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

correct, he even states the degree of atheism, strong versus weak. Atheism is a scale not a point as dawkins describes, atheism is associated with a non-belief, but dawkins in his books outlines that the inclination one has dictates their beliefs. That is, he is agnostic in that he doesn't claim to know but thinks its unlikely, thus he is a weak atheism, he is not agnostic, or neutral in any sense.

i agree with your points.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 05, 2012, 08:22:25 AM
thats basically the gist of it broseph  :)


some quote from Socrates:


And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing... as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go on my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

you realize that there is nothing great about this? this is primitive thought but what made it famous was that for its time he was wise, he is no longer, i can demolish this in a second if you want.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 05, 2012, 08:23:55 AM
Here goes 'Necrosis' on his triple-post meltdown  ::)


Fag.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 05, 2012, 08:26:59 AM
your walking through a forest and you come across a tennis ball. you ask yourself.. where did that tennis ball come from? how did it get here?   after much time researching the issue you somehow come to prove that a man named ted had brought that tennis ball into the forest 2 weeks earlier while on a camping trip.

but you still dont know how ted got the tennis ball to begin with, why ted brought it into the forest, where the ball was made at, of what materials the ball was made from, who started the company that made the tennis ball, who invented the tennis ball, what kinds of balls existed before that that inspired the inventor of the tennis ball... ect


you can say X caused Y, but you still need to explain X before Y is actually explained.  

 ;)

ohh i got one you are walking along the beach, find a watch, you see how intricate it is how designed it is, how the mechanics work how it has purpose etc.. you conclude that this watch was created and demand a creator all the while not knowing you are a stupid (not you) creationist who hasn't taken his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the watch appears made or created and i found it on the beach in the sand thus by logical extension i can conclude the beach is not created. Oh my god the time old watchmaker argument destroyed.

oh god nooooooooooooo it was so good, lets try the next one, you find a tennis ball... nevermind.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 05, 2012, 08:27:35 AM
Here goes 'Necrosis' on his triple-post meltdown  ::)


Fag.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i did meltdown


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 05, 2012, 01:30:23 PM

I understand what you are saying, and the philosophy behind it, but what does it actually accomplish?   Why not work towards what truths we can attain?  Once we know the answer to one question, it will more than likely help towards answering a deeper mystery.
the thing is, we cant attain any truths.



ohh i got one you are walking along the beach, find a watch, you see how intricate it is how designed it is, how the mechanics work how it has purpose etc.. you conclude that this watch was created and demand a creator all the while not knowing you are a stupid (not you) creationist who hasn't taken his reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If the watch appears made or created and i found it on the beach in the sand thus by logical extension i can conclude the beach is not created. Oh my god the time old watchmaker argument destroyed.

oh god nooooooooooooo it was so good, lets try the next one, you find a tennis ball... nevermind.
i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 05, 2012, 08:47:58 PM
the thing is, we cant attain any truths.

It must suck to be you: to live in a world that you don't understand and accept as unknowable. How are you different from an animal? You refuse to use your logical faculty - the differentiator between you and a baboon. So you end up living almost like that baboon: you fling shit around and run terrified as lightning breaks across the sky.


i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

Enough with this bullcrap already. Get your head out of your ass and sit down and educate yourself a bit. There's so many excellent refutations of the watch/watchmaker argument (if it can be called that) that your use of it only proves just how completely uninformed you are on the subject.

I'd suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith. But I doubt you care to be – or that you are even capable of being – educated.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 06, 2012, 04:29:12 AM
My question regarding tbombz education remains unanswered.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 06, 2012, 07:04:25 AM
the thing is, we cant attain any truths.


 i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

no, just no, the fact that you can differentiate the watch from the beach presupposes that they are different thus the logical extension is that the beach is not created, what you are suggesting is an emergent condition that we are in the watch or the universe in your example. This argument is a plea to ignorance, as what your stating directly contradicts the logical analysis just conducted on the beach, we have reason to believe the watch was created and we can visit the maker, we cannot in you example, hence your appeal to ignorance. You are surmising complete rhetoric.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: wavelength on March 10, 2012, 08:40:04 AM
You keep popping up in every thread about this same subject and say the same thing over and over without ever elaborating.

Science of today is not an exact representation of how nature works, I'll give you that, but it's the best we've got and for most if not all practical purposes it works very well. But according to you it seems like no matter how much we learn about nature we're always wrong, no matter what? I honestly don't get it.


I have elaborated in the religion section a few years ago. Now I'm too old and too lazy.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 10, 2012, 11:35:18 AM
It must suck to be you: to live in a world that you don't understand and accept as unknowable. How are you different from an animal? You refuse to use your logical faculty - the differentiator between you and a baboon. So you end up living almost like that baboon: you fling shit around and run terrified as lightning breaks across the sky.


Enough with this bullcrap already. Get your head out of your ass and sit down and educate yourself a bit. There's so many excellent refutations of the watch/watchmaker argument (if it can be called that) that your use of it only proves just how completely uninformed you are on the subject.

I'd suggest "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith. But I doubt you care to be – or that you are even capable of being – educated.

 ::) the fact that we cant understand the origin and cause of existence is not up for debate. accepting this simple truth hardly means that one doesnt use their "logical faculties". on the contrary, when it comes to the realm of philosophy this truth is the most conducive of all truths to logical thought.


no, just no, the fact that you can differentiate the watch from the beach presupposes that they are different thus the logical extension is that the beach is not created, what you are suggesting is an emergent condition that we are in the watch or the universe in your example. This argument is a plea to ignorance, as what your stating directly contradicts the logical analysis just conducted on the beach, we have reason to believe the watch was created and we can visit the maker, we cannot in you example, hence your appeal to ignorance. You are surmising complete rhetoric.
first of all, i never said i proved anything. i am fully aware that i havent. this "watchmaker argument" (had never heard of it before you brought it up, i was just relating an idea that happened to resemble it) is not proof of anything.  on the issue of the origin and cause of existence, the issue of metaphysics, one can never prove anything. any assertion about the origin and cause or lack there of is completely out of ignorance.  to discuss such matters one can only make guesses, albeit educated guesses.  this "watchmaker" argument, more like an idea, is about what seems to be more probable.  if you saw an ipad laying on the street.. would you assume it was created in an apple factory and designed by some apple scientists... or would you assume it evolved out of nothing with no intelligent guidance or actual reason for existing ?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 10, 2012, 11:50:47 AM
we can not say if there was an origin to the cosmos, but we can make certain assertions.

such as = the cosmos exist.
and = if there is no origin then there is no explanation.
plus = if there is an origin that origin is supernatural in nature.


use these truths to decide what you think is likely. do you have a gut feeling that its all explainable? or does "shit just happen" - to be crude ?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 10, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
we can not say if there was an origin to the cosmos, but we can make certain assertions.

such as = the cosmos exist.
and = if there is no origin then there is no explanation.
plus = if there is an origin that origin is supernatural in nature.


use these truths to decide what you think is likely. do you have a gut feeling that its all explainable? or does "shit just happen" - to be crude ?


how do you know the cosmos exist?

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed and its here, we see it we can conclude it always has, hence no origin is needed, there is none.

how can you say an explanation is supernatural? you have no idea what it even means, no one does, show me an example of something supernatural? oh ya you cant.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 10, 2012, 12:02:21 PM
how do you know the cosmos exist?

well technically speaking your right, i dont actually KNOW anything. no one does. but if we were to let that dictate our life we couldnt function on any level.  the cosmos exist because its extremely obvious. I am alive. where do i live ? the cosmos.

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed and its here, we see it we can conclude it always has, hence no origin is needed, there is none. matter can be destroyed in the sense that it can be converted to energy. energy can be created = quantum fluctuations. the leading scientific theory proposes a point at which all things popped into existence. whether an origin is needed or not we dont know, what we know is that existence exists whether or not there is an origin. 

how can you say an explanation is supernatural? you have no idea what it even means, no one does, show me an example of something supernatural? oh ya you cant.

exactly my point.  ;)



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 10, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
You guys must both be rocket scientists making well over 6 figures.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 10, 2012, 03:22:29 PM
the thing is, we cant attain any truths.


 i think you must have been drunk when you made this post.  ill try my best to analyse it. your saying that if my logic dictates something complex like a watch must be created, that something simple like the beach doesnt require a creator. correct?  but what this line of thinking doesnt understand is that the beach is part of a complex system called the universe. it is the universe, its complexities, and the fantastic existence of life that seems to require a creator. not the beach, or the minute hand on the watch.. but the thing as whole.

ignorance isn't an argument, the fact that it seems this way or that means nothing, look at bacteria.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 10, 2012, 03:24:30 PM



ok tbomz are you aware that your conclusion isn't provable right? you are relying on massive assumptions unfounded in reality, you are suggesting answers outside the very thing you are trying to describe, its silly.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 10, 2012, 05:28:34 PM
what conclusion have i arrived at ? i havent claimed to prove anything ! never have !

any assertion on the subject is necessarily out of ignorance !

if anyone is trying to assert something.. it has been you. no offense. but you said no cause was needed. you dont know that. as i pointed out, we just know that existence exists regardless of whether or not there was a cause. a cause could exist and it could be totally necessary for that cause to exist in order for existence to exist.

if you wish to have this discussion, we cant talk about proof. we can just talk about what seems likely. and only that.

im glad you brought up bacteria. the things bacteria are capable of, without any internal organs or nervous system or sensory systems observable... wow. this to me indicates that an organism is operated by a soul.  but of course, this is conjecture  ;)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 10, 2012, 08:59:20 PM
dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 11, 2012, 01:21:47 AM
dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.

Say what you want about the 'new atheist' movement but you have to agree that they've definitely changed the zeitgeist over the last couple of years. Their books and debates have sparked tons of discussions both in real life and on the internet. A lot of people have learned more about science, history and philosophy in attempts to 'arm' themselves for arguments just like this.

Even religious persons should be grateful that they(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) were so willing to speak up and stir the pot.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 11, 2012, 07:29:43 AM
dawkins is better served serving his real role as a scientist and educator... his attempt at demolishing religion and proving 'creationists' wrong is extremely fruitless, to the point of insanity. If the aim of his work is to convince religious people of his ideas, then I believe he has made no progress whatsoever on that front. You don't convince someone of your ideas by starting your conversation saying they are delusional.

I almost wish I could convey this to him, because I do think he could be very valuable as an educator... but I'm afraid he is probably as thickheaded as the creationists he's trying to convince.

ROFL

He does that to attract attention in order to sell his books. As brilliant scientist as he is, advanced science doesn't sell because maybe 0.001% of society can understant it. He wanted money and fame, plain and obvious. Please mind the fact that I don't think it's a bad thing to do so, I'm just stating an obvious fact. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's just trolling for money.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 11, 2012, 12:44:11 PM
Say what you want about the 'new atheist' movement but you have to agree that they've definitely changed the zeitgeist over the last couple of years. Their books and debates have sparked tons of discussions both in real life and on the internet. A lot of people have learned more about science, history and philosophy in attempts to 'arm' themselves for arguments just like this.

Even religious persons should be grateful that they(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) were so willing to speak up and stir the pot.
The people crusading for this movement have to decide what their motive is... I know it's complicated because there are many facets to this struggle from addressing public opinion (science denial, educational policy, general education) to more philosophical matters pertaining to the intersection of faith and science (the larger worldview, the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.). Each has to be addressed in its own way (or not addressed at all).

As far as convincing the general public, in all honesty I find the confrontational in-your-face-here-are-the-facts method to be very ineffective. Sensible people already know that creationism is nonsense, and they get to this conclusion through educational and other impacts, almost NEVER ever through argument. What you point out here, that such discussion has led to greater efforts at  'arming' themselves of more 'knowledge', is exactly what argumentation leads to... each side just trying to prove each other wrong or getting more ingrained in their own ideas (I have more to say about this but I will hold back for now)

It is pretty entertaining to see how much we have advanced in our knowledge of science in the west, yet we fail to understand the simple psychology of the very fruitlessness of argumentation in this manner. I have never come across a believer or atheist conceding to the arguments of the opposite side- the mental block is just too dense and too large: when your pride and your faith are on the line you will do anything to win.

In other words, this argument back and forth is not simply about pointing out facts... you have to penetrate through a lot of mental blocks, which you can only do through empathy and civil conversation, not by 'crushing' arguments. Or perhaps the best bet is just through indirect methods like education..

Tyson has pointed out what I'm saying to Dawkins once, and he brushed it off without giving it much consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

ROFL

He does that to attract attention in order to sell his books. As brilliant scientist as he is, advanced science doesn't sell because maybe 0.001% of society can understant it. He wanted money and fame, plain and obvious. Please mind the fact that I don't think it's a bad thing to do so, I'm just stating an obvious fact. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's just trolling for money.
Yeah... well, I'm not that cynical. I get the sense that he's a genuine guy who is frustrated with the non-acceptance of science. Quite ironically, his methods are ineffective, and in that sense not really the most rational way to go about what he's trying to achieve.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 11, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
And Haider, what piece(s) of information can you teach someone to get them to understand the human experience of a thinking and feeling existence, free will and the ability to dream of eternity ?

how can you make someone understand that a physical material infinitely divisible in nature could possibly sustain itself as something solid and real.

 :-X


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 11, 2012, 06:07:33 PM
And Haider, what piece(s) of information can you teach someone to get them to understand the human experience of a thinking and feeling existence, free will and the ability to dream of eternity ?

how can you make someone understand that a physical material infinitely divisible in nature could possibly sustain itself as something solid and real.

 :-X
Watchu smokin' boy  ???  :P

I was just making a general comment on how atheists and people of faith can communicate better. Not trying to get into a materialism vs mysticism debate (as fun as that may be).

As far as atheists say that the natural sciences should be accepted im with them... When they overstep their boundaries and deny the supernatural/mystical then they are not exercising due humility (ironically i think such statements are statements of faith.. im sure lovemonkey will hate me for saying that lol).

I could say more on that but i'll leave it there... this whole thing is a big ol' convoluted mess for many reasons i dont care to elucidate right now  :P


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 11, 2012, 07:47:20 PM
The people crusading for this movement have to decide what their motive is... I know it's complicated because there are many facets to this struggle from addressing public opinion (science denial, educational policy, general education) to more philosophical matters pertaining to the intersection of faith and science (the larger worldview, the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.). Each has to be addressed in its own way (or not addressed at all).

As far as convincing the general public, in all honesty I find the confrontational in-your-face-here-are-the-facts method to be very ineffective. Sensible people already know that creationism is nonsense, and they get to this conclusion through educational and other impacts, almost NEVER ever through argument. What you point out here, that such discussion has led to greater efforts at  'arming' themselves of more 'knowledge', is exactly what argumentation leads to... each side just trying to prove each other wrong or getting more ingrained in their own ideas (I have more to say about this but I will hold back for now)

It is pretty entertaining to see how much we have advanced in our knowledge of science in the west, yet we fail to understand the simple psychology of the very fruitlessness of argumentation in this manner. I have never come across a believer or atheist conceding to the arguments of the opposite side- the mental block is just too dense and too large: when your pride and your faith are on the line you will do anything to win.

In other words, this argument back and forth is not simply about pointing out facts... you have to penetrate through a lot of mental blocks, which you can only do through empathy and civil conversation, not by 'crushing' arguments. Or perhaps the best bet is just through indirect methods like education..

Tyson has pointed out what I'm saying to Dawkins once, and he brushed it off without giving it much consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
Yeah... well, I'm not that cynical. I get the sense that he's a genuine guy who is frustrated with the non-acceptance of science. Quite ironically, his methods are ineffective, and in that sense not really the most rational way to go about what he's trying to achieve.

islamic wall of text.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 11, 2012, 09:39:30 PM
Watchu smokin' boy  ???  :P

I was just making a general comment on how atheists and people of faith can communicate better. Not trying to get into a materialism vs mysticism debate (as fun as that may be).

As far as atheists say that the natural sciences should be accepted im with them... When they overstep their boundaries and deny the supernatural/mystical then they are not exercising due humility (ironically i think such statements are statements of faith.. im sure lovemonkey will hate me for saying that lol).

I could say more on that but i'll leave it there... this whole thing is a big ol' convoluted mess for many reasons i dont care to elucidate right now  :P

you mother fucker been playing the devils advocate this whole time  ;D   ;D  ;D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 12, 2012, 09:27:16 AM
islamic wall of text.
I will personally fuck your asshole if you don't shut the fuck up.

you mother fucker been playing the devils advocate this whole time  ;D   ;D  ;D
lol, didn't mean to be. I take as much issue with conventional religion as atheists do... it's been bastardized and tends to be quite intolerant. It's been said that you shouldn't criticize a religion based on its followers... I will add that you shouldn't take what people consider to be religion at face value and judge it to be real religion.

Creationism is one form of bastardization of religion... but both parties take this at face value, so the premise on which they argue for/or against religion is totally false. So ultimately there is little value in partaking in such debates... sensible people focus on better things.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 14, 2012, 10:06:45 PM
sensible people focus on better things.

 well, maybe because they have to.

i never have anything i have to do. only things i want to do.

 but money limits me, so im forced to rely on myself for entertainment. and i find the most fulfillling use of my time outside of being with loved ones is to be thinking of this experience im having of being a living, thinking, moving, breathing, feeling person. my mind is preoccupied with the idea.

where did i come from? why am i here? what am i doing in this body? why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?


it is said that socrates, while on his deathbed, told a friend that while he believed there was a positive experience after death he never killed himself because "there is a thing whispered, that we humans are prisoners in this flesh, put here by our maker, and we are not to leave our prison untill he calls us forth".    it struck a cord with me.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 15, 2012, 05:09:30 AM
sensible people focus on better things.

 well, maybe because they have to.

i never have anything i have to do. only things i want to do.

 but money limits me, so im forced to rely on myself for entertainment. and i find the most fulfillling use of my time outside of being with loved ones is to be thinking of this experience im having of being a living, thinking, moving, breathing, feeling person. my mind is preoccupied with the idea.

where did i come from? why am i here? what am i doing in this body? why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?


it is said that socrates, while on his deathbed, told a friend that while he believed there was a positive experience after death he never killed himself because "there is a thing whispered, that we humans are prisoners in this flesh, put here by our maker, and we are not to leave our prison untill he calls us forth".    it struck a cord with me.

the questions you ask may be nonsensical, you are assuming they have an answer, they may not.

A deathbed revelation isn't something i'd base a large belief on.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 15, 2012, 06:43:55 AM
where did i come from?

Well, you see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...


why am i here?

Because you want shredded glutes.


what am i doing in this body?

Living.


why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?

Do you ever ponder "why should I continue living if I wasn't always around?" followed by pseudo-philosophical ruminations about pre-conception and pre-birth? Does the fact that there was a time when you didn't exist, alter the fact that you exist now? Does the fact that you weren't alive before being born alter the fact that you are alive now?

You claim (in the form of a question) that life is meaningless unless it never ends. Yet you, yourself, wrote: "i find the most fulfillling use of my time [is] being with loved ones". So clearly, there's fulfilment to be had in this finite life, and your goal as a living being should be to seek that fulfilment out. You should life your life to the fullest exactly because it's finite – exactly because it started and because it will end.

Life's finiteness has no bearing on the meaning on life, and if that finiteness causes you to ponder whether a life is worth it and has meaning, then perhaps you're dead already.

 



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 15, 2012, 08:18:38 AM
Necrosis, yes those questions very possibly have no answer.



AVXO, that post had nothing to do with the existence of God. It had to do with the sensibility of thinking about the issue. I dont have time to get into a discussion at the moment, but absolutely nothing you said "refuted" my thoughts and feelings.  certain things are about logic, other things are about feelings.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 15, 2012, 09:31:37 AM
AVXO, that post had nothing to do with the existence of God. It had to do with the sensibility of thinking about the issue. I dont have time to get into a discussion at the moment, but absolutely nothing you said "refuted" my thoughts and feelings.  certain things are about logic, other things are about feelings.

I mentioned nothing about God in my reply.

As for refuting your feelings that and doubts about life and whether one should try to continue living... I couldn't give a rats ass, frankly. If you don't see a point in living, why are you here? Simply go off yourself.

But you know - and I know it too - that you can't and won't do that. Why? Because despite these "deep" questions like "why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?" and the existential doubts and angst you have, you know - not through feelings but with through the muscle you refuse to train or use, which is the one muscle you can't avoid using - that the point of life is life. Not death.

The purpose of life isn't something magical. The purpose of life is to live it.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 15, 2012, 09:45:55 AM
I mentioned nothing about God in my reply.

As for refuting your feelings that and doubts about life and whether one should try to continue living... I couldn't give a rats ass, frankly. If you don't see a point in living, why are you here? Simply go off yourself.

But you know - and I know it too - that you can't and won't do that. Why? Because despite these "deep" questions like "why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?" and the existential doubts and angst you have, you know - not through feelings but with through the muscle you refuse to train or use, which is the one muscle you can't avoid using - that the point of life is life. Not death.

The purpose of life isn't something magical. The purpose of life is to live it.

holy hell someone who makes sense on here.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 15, 2012, 01:43:09 PM
I mentioned nothing about God in my reply.

As for refuting your feelings that and doubts about life and whether one should try to continue living... I couldn't give a rats ass, frankly. If you don't see a point in living, why are you here? Simply go off yourself.
well the way in which your reply was constituted felt very much like your replies in our previous conversation about God.  

i didnt have time to respond to you so i just wrote that hoping it could transmit my full reply in a very small amount of words.

obviously the words i chose led to a difficulty in translation

let me reply now


Quote from: tbombz
where did i come from?
Well, you see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...

go back to our previous argument about causality. mom and dad dont explain anything. the same question about my existence applies to their own, and everyone in everyone elses gene pool(s).

Quote from: tbombz
whats the purpouse of life
Living.

that seems rather disingenous. do you ever know what you mean by that? im serious


Quote from: tbombz
why should i continue living if im going to die anyway?


Do you ever ponder "why should I continue living if I wasn't always around?"

that question doesnt follow mine. If I exist I shouldnt be worried about my previous existence. Being concerned with the future is absolutely necessary.

followed by pseudo-philosophical ruminations about pre-conception and pre-birth? Does the fact that there was a time when you didn't exist, alter the fact that you exist now? Does the fact that you weren't alive before being born alter the fact that you are alive now?  

You claim (in the form of a question) that life is meaningless unless it never ends.

read it again. i wonder if there is a meaning if it is finite. i dont claim there isnt one.

Yet you, yourself, wrote: "i find the most fulfillling use of my time [is] being with loved ones". So clearly, there's fulfilment to be had in this finite life, and your goal as a living being should be to seek that fulfilment out. You should life your life to the fullest exactly because it's finite – exactly because it started and because it will end.

I agree entirely.  :)

Life's finiteness has no bearing on the meaning on life, and if that finiteness causes you to ponder whether a life is worth it and has meaning, then perhaps your dead already

  That does seem like a possibility to me..  ;D






But you know - and I know it too - that you can't and won't do that. Why? Because despite these "deep" questions like "why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?" and the existential doubts and angst you have, you know - not through feelings but with through the muscle you refuse to train or use, which is the one muscle you can't avoid using - that the point of life is life. Not death.

The purpose of life isn't something magical. The purpose of life is to live it.

it feels extremely magical. being alive that it is.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 15, 2012, 04:39:18 PM
go back to our previous argument about causality. mom and dad dont explain anything. the same question about my existence applies to their own, and everyone in everyone elses gene pool(s).

Only because you refused to accept the explanation. You want everything to have a cause. And you do that by positing a causeless God.


that seems rather disingenous. do you ever know what you mean by that? im serious

So, let me get this straight... You consider "living" to be a disingenuous answer to the question "what is the purpose of life?" The fact is that it's true; the purpose of life is to live it. You're a conscious human being (although I wouldn't go as far as to call you rational). You can set whatever goals you want, and pursue them. You can set your own meaning for life. Life doesn't have to have some external pre-provided meaning for it to be meaningful.


read it again. i wonder if there is a meaning if it is finite. i dont claim there isnt one.

See above.


That [being dead already] does seem like a possibility to me..  ;D

... what's the point in debating with you, if you think that being alive means being dead?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 15, 2012, 05:21:50 PM
..whats the point in debating with you when..

you  assert things are fact without any evidence = "the purpouse of life is to live it"


 :)



mom and dad do not explain my existence. an apple tree does not explain the apple tree. Yes I do think it logical that there is a cause to things, but this is not influenced by the idea of a causeless God.. in fact the two ideas are contradictory.  you really dont seem to grasp what i have been getting at, albeit you seem to be a very intelligent individual.  it might help if you did like descartes and pretended you know absolutely nothing, that youve just "woke up" into you body, no idea who you are, where you are, what life is, or why it is. and start to build a foundation of knowledge. if you do, youll find that you cant get past knowledge for he existence of yourself. you can not have certain knowledge of anything else. from this stand point, the supremacy of being in your metaphysics will naturally be the sole priority. and this stand point is the most intellectually honest you can have.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 15, 2012, 05:59:12 PM
Tbombz is a regular socrates.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: haider on March 15, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
sensible people focus on better things.

 well, maybe because they have to.

i never have anything i have to do. only things i want to do.

 but money limits me, so im forced to rely on myself for entertainment. and i find the most fulfillling use of my time outside of being with loved ones is to be thinking of this experience im having of being a living, thinking, moving, breathing, feeling person. my mind is preoccupied with the idea.

where did i come from? why am i here? what am i doing in this body? why should I continue living if im going to die anyways?


it is said that socrates, while on his deathbed, told a friend that while he believed there was a positive experience after death he never killed himself because "there is a thing whispered, that we humans are prisoners in this flesh, put here by our maker, and we are not to leave our prison untill he calls us forth".    it struck a cord with me.
ok, then continue.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 15, 2012, 09:24:44 PM
Tbombz is a regular socrates.

Yeah, except, you know, the whole thing about muscles.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 21, 2012, 08:33:13 PM
The first living organisms on the earth . . . were presumably one-celled
entities resembling modern fermenting bacteria,” according to chemistry
professor Richard E. Dickerson, writing in Scientific American magazine.

Perhaps you would expect the cell walls of bacteria to be more primitive
than the cell walls of higher organisms. The opposite is true. Higher
plant cells have a wall of cellulose consisting of a string of sugar
molecules. Bacterial cell walls also begin with strings of sugar
molecules, but those strings are then intricately woven together with
short chains of amino acids. The entire cell wall, as one scientist put
it, “can be conceived of in a general way as a gigantic bag-shaped
molecule.”

This bag is extremely strong. Bacterial cell walls withstand internal
pressures of 300 pounds per square inch without bursting. Try that with
your automobile tire!

It is true that bacteria do not have a nucleus, as do the cells of
higher organisms. But even the simplest bacteria contain quite a bit of
DNA, the universal genetic material. Instead of being enclosed by a
nuclear membrane, bacterial DNA generally forms a single long loop
inside the bacterium. The common E. coli bacterium has in its giant loop
of DNA “by far the largest molecule known to occur in a biological
system,” according to scientist Dr. John Cairns.

Does all of that sound like something that could have just washed up on
some primeval beach? Could “the largest molecule” be an accidental
combination of inert chemicals?

E. coli duplicates its DNA in preparation for the next division. In
order for this to take place, the DNA molecule, which is designed
something like a great twisted zipper, must be “unzipped” so that each
half can reproduce itself. Sections of the DNA molecule called base
pairs correspond to the teeth of a zipper. In the humble E. coli
bacterium those base pairs are being duplicated, with scrupulous
accuracy, at the rate of 150,000 per minute!

What happens when E. coli needs to travel? It literally sprouts a
propeller. According to biology professor Howard Berg, six filaments
arise on the sides of the cell and come together to form a bundle. These
filaments rotate, something that requires “the structural equivalents of
a rotor, a stator, and rotary bearings,” says Dr. Berg. Not bad for such
a “primitive” form of life!

There is more. Like all living things, E. coli uses its DNA to direct
the synthesis of chemicals it needs to live. The lowly bacterium
controls its DNA through elaborate feedback mechanisms that activate or
shut down sections of DNA according to need. “One must pause to remark
on the extraordinary economy and efficiency of this control system,”
says biochemist Jean-Pierre Changeux, who marvels that “the control
costs the cell no expenditure of energy whatever. . . . A factory with
control relays that require no energy for their operation would be the
ultimate in industrial efficiency!”

The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their
evolution. The very proteins that help make up bacteria, and other
living things, show evolution to be hopelessly improbable. Why is that?

Evolutionists make much of a 1952 experiment in which scientists ran a
spark through a mixture of gases and synthesized numerous chemicals,
including some amino acids. This is considered significant, since amino
acids, when properly linked together, form proteins, the basic building
blocks of all living things.

Now, depending on how an amino acid is put together, it can be
“left-handed” or “right-handed.” The amino acids created by various gas
and spark experiments include equal numbers of the left- and
right-handed models. However, as evolutionist Richard Dickerson admits,
“except for certain special adaptations . . . all living organisms today
incorporate only L [left-handed] amino acids.”

If a typical protein has 400 amino acids, the odds that all of them will
be left-handed would be comparable to the odds against flipping a coin
and getting heads 400 times in a row. There is less than one chance in
one followed by over 100 zeros—a number many times as great as all the
atoms in all the galaxies of the known universe! Yet even if an
impossible random protein of 400 left-handed amino acids were to
coalesce spontaneously, it would have only the slightest chance of being
formed of the proper left-handed amino acids—there are 20 kinds—and in
the proper order.

The spontaneous generation of proteins by chance might be illustrated
this way: Suppose you had a box containing equal amounts of letters and
numbers on little squares of wood, identical to the touch. Now,
blindfolded, you are told to choose 400 of these little squares. The
odds against your choosing letters only and no numbers are high enough.
But that is not all. The 400 blocks with letters that you have chosen
must spell out a meaningful, grammatically correct paragraph when laid
side by side in the order you chose them.

The complex systems of E. coli demonstrate another problem with the
notion that evolution could be responsible for life, even primitive
life. DNA molecules are necessary for life, but they are not enough for
life. Other very complicated molecules such as enzymes are needed to
direct and cooperate with the activities of the DNA.

Thus, life can exist only when several very complex systems come into
existence at the same time and operate together in perfect harmony. None
of the complex systems can ever lead to even primitive life without the
other systems in place.

Evolutionists face this dilemma by simply asserting their “faith” in
evolution.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 21, 2012, 10:25:01 PM
tbombz, I know you didn't write this -- you merely copy-pasted this "article" (and I use the term loosely) from somewhere. Now, I normally wouldn't bother responding to shit that someone found and then pasted, especially shit of unknown origin and without attribution, but, really, this piece of trash needs debunking. I also know that you lack the ability to understand the criticisms and the knowledge to even begin to address them, so don't stress too much having to find more shit to paste on here.


The complexity of bacteria is not alone in arguing against their evolution.

Nobody serious argues against the evolution of bacteria. It's been observed in laboratory conditions, in real-time for crying out loud.


The very proteins that help make up bacteria, and other living things, show evolution to be hopelessly improbable. Why is that?

"Hopelessly improbable" is such a vague term -- I think it's somewhere between "impossibly remote" and "practically impossible." Which is to say, it's just as meaningless.


If a typical protein has 400 amino acids, the odds that all of them will be left-handed would be comparable to the odds against flipping a coin and getting heads 400 times in a row. There is less than one chance in one followed by over 100 zeros—a number many times as great as all the atoms in all the galaxies of the known universe!

Except that the analogy is flawed. I know statistics aren't you cup of tea and you'd be hopelessly lost if I started talking to you about permutations and combinations and all sorts of fancy math words, but I promise to try and keep it simple. Please try to follow:

Imagine having 400 billion coins. You split them into groups of 400. You now have a billion groups. You toss all of them up in the air. Now what is the probability that you get 400 heads? What if you had 400 quintillion coins? 400 septillion coins?

Not to mention that the whole chirality argument assumes that the two enantiomers of each protein were equally likely, because that's what was observed in the laboratory conditions.


Yet even if an impossible random protein of 400 left-handed amino acids were to coalesce spontaneously, it would have only the slightest chance of being formed of the proper left-handed amino acids—there are 20 kinds—and in the proper order.

First of all, it's not impossible. Tossing a coin and getting 400 heads in a row (your analogy, flawed as it is) isn't impossible - but it is improbable. But improbable and impossible are two very different things. It's impossible to toss a coin and get a potato. It's improbable to toss a coin and have it land on its edge. See the difference?

Now... what's this "slighest" chance you speak of? Can you quantify it in numbers?


The spontaneous generation of proteins by chance might be illustrated this way: Suppose you had a box containing equal amounts of letters and numbers on little squares of wood, identical to the touch. Now, blindfolded, you are told to choose 400 of these little squares. The odds against your choosing letters only and no numbers are high enough. But that is not all. The 400 blocks with letters that you have chosen must spell out a meaningful, grammatically correct paragraph when laid side by side in the order you chose them.

Yeah yeah... we've been over this before. Now imagine that you have a trillion boxes and a trillion blindfolded monkeys. The above procedure is performed, with the trillion monkeys picking letters from their respective boxes concurrently. Now what is the chance of someone pulling out the letters for "recumbentibus"? What if the procedure is repeated, a billion times? A trillion times?

And, of course, this doesn't even account for the fact that certain configurations (or arrangements of letters, if you like) are more likely than others because of physical reasons.


Thus, life can exist only when several very complex systems come into existence at the same time and operate together in perfect harmony. None of the complex systems can ever lead to even primitive life without the other systems in place.

Not entirely accurate; a lot of the systems could have come into place one at a time. They didn't need to all happen when some mystical cuckoo clock went off. But even if that were the case, so what? The Universe is somewhere around 13.75 billion years old (give or take a few hundred millions). The age of the earth alone is around 4.5 billion years. That's quite a lot of time for things to come together, fail a few trillion times, and then to finally come together again in just the right configuration.


Evolutionists face this dilemma by simply asserting their “faith” in evolution.

No they don't, your assertion to that end notwithstanding.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 21, 2012, 11:37:45 PM
you ought to learn how to talk to people if you have any desire to influence their opinions or way of thinking about things avxo..   even if you really were talking to someone who didnt have the capability of understanding what you were going to say.. prefacing your words with such accusations and insults and displays of arrogance are only going to make them reject what your saying even more so than they would have otherwise..


you said that it has been observed in laboratories, that is,  the generation of bacteria ?  links to such information ?



your arguments..  that 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.



   




Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 21, 2012, 11:48:50 PM
Quote
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html


In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?

The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.



To get back to these basic chemistry building blocks, is everything from a mouse to a bacterium to you and me made from this simple set of ingredients?

All life that we know of is fundamentally pretty similar. That's why we think that you and I and bacteria and toadstools all had a single common ancestor early on the Earth. If you look at the cell of a bacterium, it has about the same proportions of carbon and oxygen and hydrogen as a human body does. The basic biochemical machinery of a bacterium is, in a broad way at least, similar to the chemistry of our cells.
The big difference between you and a bacterium in some ways is that your body consists of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner. Bacteria are single cells, although they're not free agents. In fact, bacteria working in a sediment or in the sea actually live in consortia as well. They're not really lone operators. They work in these very, very highly coordinated communities of organisms that help each other to grow and prosper.


Is it hard to go from these little building blocks to a full-fledged organism?

Well, we don't know how hard it is to go from the simplest bricks, if you will, in the wall of life to something that is complicated, like a living bacterium. We know that it happened, so it's possible. We don't really know whether it was unlikely and just happened to work out on Earth, or whether it's something that will happen again and again in the universe.
My guess is it's not too hard. That is, it's fairly easy to make simple sugars, molecules called bases which are at the heart of DNA, molecules called amino acids which are at the heart of proteins. It's fairly easy to make some of the fatty substances that make the coverings of cells. Making all of those building blocks individually seems to be pretty reasonable, pretty plausible.
The hard part, and the part that I think nobody has quite figured out yet, is how you get them working together. How do you go from some warm, little pond on a primordial Earth that has amino acids, sugars, fatty acids just sort of floating around in the environment to something in which nucleic acids are actually directing proteins to make the membranes of the cell?
Somehow you have to get all of the different constituents working together and have basically the information to make that system work in one set of molecules, which then directs the formation of a second set of molecules, which synthesizes a third set of molecules, all in a way that feeds back to making more of the first set of molecules. So you end up getting this cycle. I'm not sure we've gotten very far down the road to understanding how that really happens.




^^^  reead his answers to the questions.

how does something lifeless gain intelligence and start directing other lifeless particles to start acting ?

how do single celled bacteria sense things outside their bodies and coordinate/communicate with other bacteria ?

hmmmm?????






you see, back when there was absolutely no explanation for where we humans came from .. it was pretty obvious there was some kind of magical creater, that the universe was caused to create life.. that the universe created us purpousely..

now people think they have an explanation for humans..    but what they dont understand is that those same questions they had about human existence still apply to bacteria, dna, etc.

nothing has been explained in the slightest.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 21, 2012, 11:53:38 PM
you address me as if im a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual


the reality is a believe in science as much as a believe in anything. the evidence of our senses is the only thing we can trust.  evolution, astrophysics, neuroscience... all very amazing fields with awesome discoveries about things..

but none of them explain human existence, no matter what your atheist friends and colleagues think.  study some basic philosophy and find the roots of science, how it got started. thank me later.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: no one on March 22, 2012, 01:04:14 AM


who cares.

you live. you die. end thread.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 22, 2012, 01:38:10 AM
you address me as if im a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual

Your posts sure read like those of a non-thinking, science-denying, bible believing, 3000 year old earth preaching, uneducated individual... Not my fault.


the reality is a believe in science as much as a believe in anything. the evidence of our senses is the only thing we can trust

First of all, if you had an inkling of education in the sciences, you'd know that scientists don't "believe" in science - certainly not in the way you use the term. Science is logical. But let's not worry about such details when we can see prime examples of your belief in science, and the trust you place in your senses written out in your own words, in this very thread:

You say: "the thing is, we cant attain any truths." So then, the science you believe in attains what? And if it's not truth, why bother with it?

You say: "well technically speaking your right, i dont actually KNOW anything. no one does." You may not know anything. But many others do. I, for example, know your IQ is on par with the collective IQ of a pile of dead mollusks. Please note that "pile" is a scientific term. It means "a bunch."

And of course, we can't forget gems like: "electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained." No... of course not. None of those things have been explained. They're a complete mystery. Complete and utter mystery.

but none of them explain human existence, no matter what your atheist friends and colleagues think.  study some basic philosophy and find the roots of science, how it got started. thank me later.

You assume that human existence requires some kind of explanation. If I were to grant the assumption that human existence requires an explanation, then yes, human existence would require an explanation... Alas, I don't grant your assumption. You may try to prove to me that an explanation is required, but judging from your track record so far... well, let's just say I don't think your chances are good.

And may I suggest you take your own advice and go take a "Practical Philosophy" course? Hopefully, logical fallacies should be taught in the first few weeks of the course.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 22, 2012, 01:03:49 PM
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.


science attains probabilities dealing with mechanical processes. certain truth is impossible, and so is knowledge of the metaphysical.

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.

yes, energy , material, existence itself is a complete mystery.


of course there may be no explanation for thiings. thats just my point. there is absolutely no observable explanation. there never will be. UNLESS...  ;)


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.  :) :)

 one day my friend, you will understand, and we can have a laugh about it.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 22, 2012, 01:38:26 PM
you ought to learn how to talk to ppeople if you have any desire to influence their opinions or way of thinking about things avxo..   even if you really were talking to someone who didnt have the capability of understanding what you were going to say.. prefacing your words with such accusations and insults and displays of arrogance are only going to make them reject what your saying even more so than they would have otherwise..

You can only debate people who accept certain fundamental tenets - chief among them is the use of logic and reason and which don't debate by feelings, mystical insight, the use of logical fallacies and vigorous hand waving.

The bottom line is that I don't think you are the type of person to want to seriously debate things based on those rules. I try to reach you with logic, but I won't hold your hand or give your non-rational posts equal weight to reason.

And I will call you out for it.


you said that it has been observed in laboratories, that is,  the generation of bacteria ?  links to such information ?


I said the evolution of bacteria has been observed in laboratory settings.


your arguments..  that 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.

Except that's not what I said. I challenge the underlying application of the statistical measures.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 22, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
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 ?


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.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 22, 2012, 04:44:40 PM

who cares.

you live. you die. end thread.

everyone cares.

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.


do you die ? is it even possible for you to die ? what do you mean by death ? death of the body ? loss of all memory ? an inability to continue experiencing and thinking ? could you continue thinking without a body ? do you remain in your memories once your dead?





Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 22, 2012, 05:08:18 PM
 some tid bits of information for you avxo.. since you really dont seem to graps the fact that we cant know anything..


deduction is based on induction
induction depends on sample size
sample size can never be adequate to rule out the possibility of exceptions to the rule

thus no form of logic is adequate to provide certainty  ;)





another one




how can we find a reliable criterion for finding truth unless we already have a reliable criterion with which to make that decision?  ;)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 22, 2012, 08:30:59 PM
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.


Quote from: tbombz
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.


Quote from: tbombz
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


Quote from: tbombz
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.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Skeletor on March 23, 2012, 09:29:25 AM
Brutal multiple tbombz meltdowns in this topic.. The ownage is legendary..

(http://www.itsnotbadatall.com/i/funpic/Nuclear_Pizza.jpg)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 23, 2012, 10:14:11 AM

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.

by metaphysical i mean the foundation of existence.


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...


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.

i love science. i thinks its amazing. its not defective. never claimed it was. simply pointing out its limitations. this discussion is about the origin of the universe, science is incapable of making any assertions on the subject. which means man is incapable of making assertions on the subject, as man is limited to science.


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.

this is where you do really need to take a philosophical history class. it wasnt untill philosophers, specifically an atheist philosopher named david hume, proved that knowledge was impossible that men of reason were able to focus on science and not be bothered by men of faith.

the universe is rational ? PROVE IT   ;)   (quantum mechanics certainly seems to indicate the opposite  :D )



 

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."

and your still dodging the question.  you leave your assertion open for interpretation. theres a difference between a lifeform mutating and a lifeless material suddenly gaining intelligence.


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.

you just didnt understand the way i was explaining it.  something is improbable because it would take many many chances for it to happen. if you increase the number of chances, the improbable becomes likely. 


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.

the question is extremely valid. how does something lifeless suddenly gain intelligence and start thinking? at what point does the rock gain conciousness?

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

a bacteria, one cell, no nervous system, no sensory organs, no brain, no nucleus, no nothing but an exterior cell wall, some dna, and maybe some flagella..   but yet it can sense thing outside its walls. how ? it can communicate and cooperate with other bacteria. how ? it thinks and has emotional responses. how ?  no, you can not give a bullshit answer like you just tried to. whats the physiological cause and effect behind these processes ?  ;)


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.

i was simply relaying the prevailing opinion in the scientific community. free will doesnt exist, there is nothing more than a brain, there is nothing more than domino's knocking into each other, there is no thinking being, there is no being, there is only blobs of material responding to sensory information in a way that allows it to create other blobs of material. if you dont understand the implications of your ideology i suggest you withhold from preaching it. 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 23, 2012, 12:10:07 PM
I'm not even going to bother answering you anymore tbombz. It's obvious you don't understand and don't want to understand. You just keep repeating same nonsense over and over again.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 23, 2012, 12:41:04 PM
I sometimes wonder how life would be if I was as slow and stubborn as tbombz. He has no education whatsoever, most likely works as a mechanic or something like that (which is nothing bad at all) and in free time discusses "philosophical" and "methaphysical" questions on getbig. I for one love math - it makes idiots like him become utterly transparent :D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 23, 2012, 12:45:00 PM
I sometimes wonder how life would be if I was as slow and stubborn as tbombz. He has no education whatsoever, most likely works as a mechanic or something like that (which is nothing bad at all) and in free time discusses "philosophical" and "methaphysical" questions on getbig. I for one love math - it makes idiots like him become utterly transparent :D

Oh yeah?

Prove that the equation a^n+b^n=c^n doesn't have any solutions for n>2   Z.

Should be child's play for a getbigger.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 23, 2012, 12:52:23 PM
Oh yeah?

Prove that the equation a^n+b^n=c^n doesn't have any solutions for n>2   Z.

Should be child's play for a getbigger.

It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 23, 2012, 01:47:49 PM
and i win by default, as my competitor bows out due to an inability to address the fundamental issues..

at what point does the rock start thinking , and whats the cause of it ?   ;D   

LOL

i really do get quite amazed by how foolish intelligent people can be.  :o


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 23, 2012, 01:50:28 PM
i can just imagine avxo slamming his fist into his computer desk every time he has to read questions from me about the cause of intelligence and the inability of science to speak on issues of metaphysics.

BUT, BUT, BUT....   SCIENCE IS SUPREME!!!!!   WE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING !! DARWIN MADE GOD ABSOLUTE !!!! THE BIG BANG !!! THE BIG BANG FOR FUCKS SAKE !!! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME??? EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG !!!!!!!!   


 ;D   ;D   ;D   ;D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 23, 2012, 01:58:37 PM
i can just imagine avxo slamming his fist into his computer desk every time he has to read questions from me about the cause of intelligence and the inability of science to speak on issues of metaphysics.

BUT, BUT, BUT....   SCIENCE IS SUPREME!!!!!   WE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING !! DARWIN MADE GOD ABSOLUTE !!!! THE BIG BANG !!! THE BIG BANG FOR FUCKS SAKE !!! CAN ANYONE HEAR ME??? EVOLUTION AND THE BIG BANG !!!!!!!!   


 ;D   ;D   ;D   ;D
Let me know when you get any of these 'thoughts' broadcast in any other format than a BBing website. I'd also be interested to hear the criticisms of your editing peers. Thanks much.   


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 23, 2012, 02:03:54 PM
Let me know when you get any of these 'thoughts' broadcast in any other format than a BBing website. I'd also be interested to hear the criticisms of your editing peers. Thanks much.   
these thoughts are as old as time, brosephine. didnt originate with me, im just passing em on to the new generation.. this new generation that has been estranged from the truths of the past because of the predominace of ideas about the future...   i wasnt bluffing when i kept refering avxo to philosophical history.. its all there..  these ideas about causality and the formation of intelligence.. i may have done a bit of revamping to them, im not self depreicating enough to say i havent added something to them to make them a bit stronger and more understandable in the light of moder science, but they go back to the greatest minds to have ever lived. socrates, descartes, berkeley, hume..


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: King Shizzo on March 23, 2012, 02:45:38 PM
It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.
Do I really have to say it?  Outed.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: dr.chimps on March 23, 2012, 03:14:33 PM
these thoughts are as old as time, brosephine. didnt originate with me, im just passing em on to the new generation.. this new generation that has been estranged from the truths of the past because of the predominace of ideas about the future...   i wasnt bluffing when i kept refering avxo to philosophical history.. its all there..  these ideas about causality and the formation of intelligence.. i may have done a bit of revamping to them, im not self depreicating enough to say i havent added something to them to make them a bit stronger and more understandable in the light of moder science, but they go back to the greatest minds to have ever lived. socrates, descartes, berkeley, hume..
Hmm. Not bad.  6.5 on the Falcon scale.    :)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 24, 2012, 05:02:18 AM
It's arleady proven by Wiles and there are maybe 20 people on earth who can understand it completely.

Let m,n be such positive natural numbers that set {1,2,...,n} has exactly m prime numbers. Prove that any subset A of that set of size m+1 has element that divides multiplication of the rest of elements of A.

Your turn.

lol man I know I was just being a dick. I just finished reading Fermat's Riddle that explained much of the process behind proving the theorem. Fascinating story.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 24, 2012, 03:31:29 PM
and i win by default, as my competitor bows out due to an inability to address the fundamental issues..

at what point does the rock start thinking , and whats the cause of it ?   ;D   

LOL

i really do get quite amazed by how foolish intelligent people can be.  :o

state the fundamental issues clear and succinctly for me.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 24, 2012, 03:40:22 PM
state the fundamental issues clear and succinctly for me.

1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue




Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 24, 2012, 05:16:07 PM
1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue




Not true, what deity? the christian deity? because his work speaks volumes about him, its called indirect evidence.

also, where is the assumption that man cannot know of origin? where did you get this from?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 25, 2012, 09:11:58 PM
Not true, what deity? the christian deity? because his work speaks volumes about him, its called indirect evidence.

also, where is the assumption that man cannot know of origin? where did you get this from?

massive face palm right now...

give me an example of an explanation of origin and cause ..   and i will ask a question about causation of that explanation..

get it now ?   


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: no one on March 25, 2012, 09:59:25 PM
everyone cares.

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.


do you die ? is it even possible for you to die ? what do you mean by death ? death of the body ? loss of all memory ? an inability to continue experiencing and thinking ? could you continue thinking without a body ? do you remain in your memories once your dead?





none of what you ponder matters. one day your life as you know it will cease to exist. that is all that matters. anything else is just speculation.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 26, 2012, 03:52:19 AM
1) science, and thus man,  can never speak on the ultimate origin and cause of things.  because of this, no assertions about the existence or nonexistence of a deity can ever be made with any degree of certainty.

that would be THE fundamental issue




i see no self evident truths there, why do you make the assumption that man can make no assertion about "ultimate origins", by stating we can make no assertions you are violating your rule. The statement is self-defeating, how can you state that no assertions can be made, then state man can never speak on the origin and cause of things, thats an assertion, one without evidence, nor argued reasonably. You are basically saying we can't know (which you haven't convinced me of) and thus should give up?

why can man never know origins, what if there is no origin? philosophically something would exist which it's essence is to exist. That is if something exists, it always did since, nothing can create nothing and something does exist. Oh wait thats a stupid aquinas argument, virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Also, a recent discovery showed that atoms behave exotically when frozen, changing their basic physics. You are fine with having your head in the sand, i'm not. You say we can't know "Ultimate origin" so far all you have said to support your statement is we can't.

you are evoking something outside the universe to explain it, something you can't even comment on and you think this is an intellectual position? No one in there right mind takes aquinas or any of those meatbags seriously, you are smitten with bronze age logic and are unaware of the utter destruction of these arguments put forth by modern philosophers.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 26, 2012, 09:54:46 AM
i can assert that no assertions can be made. and i proved it at the top of this page. at least in regards to finding certain truth. there are two forms of logic: deduction and induction. Deduction depends on induction for its premises, induction depends on sample size. Induction can not provide certainty (you dont know for certain the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you just know it always has in the past and thus think it very likely it will rise tomorrow.. its possible something happens that stops that from occuring.), and thus deduction can not provide certainty either.

but that is something a little different than the reason why we can make any assertions about the ultimate cause and origin of things.

we can certainly assert things, like E=MC2, and have them be true as far as we know it.

but when it comes to a question like = what caused that to happen?

A might explain B, but you first must explain A before B is actually explained. and then you must explain the explanation for A, and so on.

A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ?

now do get it ?  when we speak of ultimate origin and cause we are incapable of knowing it because one can always pose questions of causality to whatever assertion is made.

yes, virtual particles "pop" into existence. lets work with that to deny causality. but why do they pop into existence?

you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !! 



as for me using somethign outside the universe to explain the universe ..    thats an assumption your making. I make no assertions about what the nature of God would be if God does exist. Its possible God could be a pantheistic God, that the universe itself is God, God is the universe. Its not a very common idea but i think its the most natural of all ideas on the subject. that being said we could never know if its true or not.   however, i do find it strange that you find it strange that the explanation for any given thing ought not be outside itself.  is this true of any causation explanation, ever, anywhere?  is the explanation for oceanic waves inside the wave itself? 



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 26, 2012, 09:57:46 AM
btw im completey aware of all of the arguments made by modern philosophers and absolutely none of them are satisfactory.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 26, 2012, 10:02:49 AM
i can assert that no assertions can be made. and i proved it at the top of this page. at least in regards to finding certain truth. there are two forms of logic: deduction and induction. Deduction depends on induction for its premises, induction depends on sample size. Induction can not provide certainty (you dont know for certain the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you just know it always has in the past and thus think it very likely it will rise tomorrow.. its possible something happens that stops that from occuring.), and thus deduction can not provide certainty either.

but that is something a little different than the reason why we can make any assertions about the ultimate cause and origin of things.

we can certainly assert things, like E=MC2, and have them be true as far as we know it.

but when it comes to a question like = what caused that to happen?

A might explain B, but you first must explain A before B is actually explained. and then you must explain the explanation for A, and so on.

A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ?

now do get it ?  when we speak of ultimate origin and cause we are incapable of knowing it because one can always pose questions of causality to whatever assertion is made.

yes, virtual particles "pop" into existence. lets work with that to deny causality. but why do they pop into existence?

you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !!  



as for me using somethign outside the universe to explain the universe ..    thats an assumption your making. I make no assertions about what the nature of God would be if God does exist. Its possible God could be a pantheistic God, that the universe itself is God, God is the universe. Its not a very common idea but i think its the most natural of all ideas on the subject. that being said we could never know if its true or not.   however, i do find it strange that you find it strange that the explanation for any given thing ought not be outside itself.  is this true of any causation explanation, ever, anywhere?  is the explanation for oceanic waves inside the wave itself?  



Also known as 'infinite regress'.

I remember you hating on Hawking for saying that it's useless to ask what came before the big bang(like asking what's north of the northern pole) but yet it might be the only viable way to look at the origin of the universe. As you say, an infinite regress takes you nowhere in terms of explaining things.

But still, and I also pointed this out some time ago, you can't say that we can't know anything about the origin of the universe. It's a self-contradicting statement in itself.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 26, 2012, 10:13:39 AM
theres nothing contradictory about my statement. im not making any assertions about the universe. im stating that no assertions can be made.  thats not an assertion about the universe its an assertion about our ability to have knowledge of the universe.

dawkins is retarded when he talks about the big bang. whose to say that our "universe" is the only universe? whose to say that universes didnt exist before ours existed?  besides those two points , the big bang simply tracing our universe back to a dense and hot state .. where did that dense and hot state come from? how long did it exist the way it was ?  ???


the ONLY way to look at the universe from an honest perspective is with acceptance of your inability to understand it.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tu_holmes on March 26, 2012, 12:10:52 PM
It's as bad as a Hulkster / ND thread... except infinitely more boring.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 26, 2012, 03:02:08 PM
i can assert that no assertions can be made. and i proved it at the top of this page. at least in regards to finding certain truth. there are two forms of logic: deduction and induction. Deduction depends on induction for its premises, induction depends on sample size. Induction can not provide certainty (you dont know for certain the sun is going to rise tomorrow, you just know it always has in the past and thus think it very likely it will rise tomorrow.. its possible something happens that stops that from occuring.), and thus deduction can not provide certainty either.

but that is something a little different than the reason why we can make any assertions about the ultimate cause and origin of things.

we can certainly assert things, like E=MC2, and have them be true as far as we know it.

but when it comes to a question like = what caused that to happen?

A might explain B, but you first must explain A before B is actually explained. and then you must explain the explanation for A, and so on.

A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ?

now do get it ?  when we speak of ultimate origin and cause we are incapable of knowing it because one can always pose questions of causality to whatever assertion is made.

yes, virtual particles "pop" into existence. lets work with that to deny causality. but why do they pop into existence?

you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !! 



as for me using somethign outside the universe to explain the universe ..    thats an assumption your making. I make no assertions about what the nature of God would be if God does exist. Its possible God could be a pantheistic God, that the universe itself is God, God is the universe. Its not a very common idea but i think its the most natural of all ideas on the subject. that being said we could never know if its true or not.   however, i do find it strange that you find it strange that the explanation for any given thing ought not be outside itself.  is this true of any causation explanation, ever, anywhere?  is the explanation for oceanic waves inside the wave itself? 



is the cause for god inside god himself. you are making so many fallacies i can't keep up, are you trolling?

"you see, there can be no explanation.  and your very right when you say "what if there is no origin?"  good question ! there might not be an origin ! and then the question of ultimate origin is meaningless ! and there might not be an ultimate cause! and then the question about ultimate cause is meanginless !  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE CAN NOT KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE ORIGIN AND CAUSE ARE IF THERE ARE SUCH THING(S)  !! "

no i dont see how there can be no explanation, you are stating something as fact when it is just a silly opinion based on nothing. why can't we know ultimate orange? it was good shit. Seriously though, you keep stating absolutes that are absurd. How about humans keep evolving, as such the brain grows in processing and capability, eventually becoming a quantum computer of sorts. It then is able to understand origin, it becomes god like. That scenario is plausible and refutes your statment that we can not know?

you are suggesting you know something i don't nor any other human. I aware we can't explain origins, even if there is anything to explain at all, we can't say one way or the other because we simply don't have enough info. The fact that a faux singularity exists in math indicates that logic, or our logic breaks down at a certain point, thus your demand for causation etc may not even be valid. No real singularity exists, yet the planck epoch is punctuated with it's existence, is that not evidence enough that silly induction and deduction won't solve a problem that circumvents logic?

you also seem to not understand probability with the comment about the sun.You evoke some unknown that could stop it from rising, completely ignoring reality, probability, all of science, reason and observation for magical thinking. Perhaps tom the world will flip upside down and we will be walking on the ceilings, this is the type of reasoning you want me to accept, just ridiculous statements with not a hint of logic or thought behind them. If you honestly think that the universe despite our observations is that chaotic and unpredictable then I suggest reading a book.

"A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, D causes E, and E causes F. But what causes A ? Well, X causes A. but what causes X ? "

so you are stating everything needs a cause, or evoking an infinite regress, perfect this is the same arguments that have been shit on for years, hundreds of them. Especially lately with you know, quantum mechanics and all that jazz.

i bet one way you solve this riddle is stating that god needs no cause, perhaps you should look at the equation you listed above then read the laws of thermodynamics, energy fits your criteria, no magic needed.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 26, 2012, 05:54:22 PM
i am making zero assertions !

but that no assertions can be made !

we KNOW we cannot assert, and thus no assertions can be made, because we know our only two forms of logic (induction and deduction) are insufficient for providing certainty. thus if we can not be certain, then we can not assert with knowledge that our assertion is true!

BUT THIS FACT IS NOT WHAT MATTERS

Even if we could know something 100% of the way. Even if we could be absolutely certain of something with 0 chance of being wrong about it. It was simply truth. What possible truth of the universe could there be ? no simple scientific fact could make us understand energy, where it comes from, why it acts the way it does, etc.

THAT IS WHAT MATTERS

maybe there is no way to understand the universe outside of raw materialism.. maybe there is absolutely nothing spiritual about the universe to any extent.. maybe this is all an illusion..      

BUT WE COULD NEVER BE CERTAIN ABOUT THAT

if that was the case we wouldnt know it, at least not for sure.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 03:02:00 AM
As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  :)
You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 27, 2012, 05:44:01 AM
You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 27, 2012, 06:32:27 AM
Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 

they don't understand this concept, it's almost as if they have learned ignorance, a feat in itself.

You have an infinite regress with or without intelligent design you DUMBASS, no matter what going to the beginning of time has no logic cause one can always say what was before this, no logic in either case, man your dumb if you think there is a rational explanation for the beginning of space, time and matter

umm no you don't, logically a infinite regress cannot exist, this question has troubled philosophers since man could think. Aquinas stated that something must exist for which it's essence is to exist. That is, if anything exists, which it clearly does it must be eternal and by that i mean causeless. However, i don't put much value into logic when dealing with questions one cannot even begin to tease apart. The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress. I suppose there could be if the regress was eternal but i don't think half the people commenting here even understand the terms they are using. You are dumb if you think you can make absolute statements about something which you yourself stated is devoid of logic, the irony is hilarious.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 10:54:45 AM
Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 
Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.

they don't understand this concept, it's almost as if they have learned ignorance, a feat in itself.

umm no you don't, logically a infinite regress cannot exist, this question has troubled philosophers since man could think. Aquinas stated that something must exist for which it's essence is to exist. That is, if anything exists, which it clearly does it must be eternal and by that i mean causeless. However, i don't put much value into logic when dealing with questions one cannot even begin to tease apart. The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress. I suppose there could be if the regress was eternal but i don't think half the people commenting here even understand the terms they are using. You are dumb if you think you can make absolute statements about something which you yourself stated is devoid of logic, the irony is hilarious.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 27, 2012, 11:11:45 AM
Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

We don't agree, you are stating we can never know, i'm saying me may be able to but our tools which enhance logic  aren't there yet. You have reference and sense dependency, references are required for understanding things, you are working on sense dependence.

infinite refers to amount, so an endless amount of causes. Eternal things are causeless, i suggest the universe is causeless and that matter/energy is unmutable, it fits with science and thermodynamics. You are stating that everything needs a cause to exist except things that have no cause (ie eternal) to that i would agree. But the idea of an eternal god makes no sense, because creation is a temporal thing, how can something act in eternity, there is no time. You guys don't even have a basic grasp of the premises and basic theological arguments. They are all stupid, full of fallacies and idiocy.

I suggest we dont know, may not know, may know ie I don't make conclusions on something one cannot make conclusions on as you do.

"Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

I'm saying you cannot say one way or the other, hence i don't form a conclusion, thats logical, forming an opinion based on faith is irrational. quantum mechanics was irrational, it's now rational, math is the language that opened that door and it is infinitely more useful then any intellect sitting in introspective thoughts. We can only see a small fraction of the visible wavelengths, logic would have said that infared doesn't exist, not until we had a reference to see infared.

also, witness life, it evolves and it gets more complex, simple things create complex things. What you are suggesting is that before the simplest atom existed there existed a hyper complex super being who created all, it's completely backwards and defies reality.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 27, 2012, 11:14:43 AM
Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.
You are making to much of my post, simply put, the origins of the universe are not logical or rational at all, you said it yourself  you can't put logic into something you can't understand, so we both agree then, what's the problem?

Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

Where did you study astrophysics?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 11:20:14 AM
Where did you study astrophysics?
It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: avxo on March 27, 2012, 11:26:13 AM
Who gives a shit about your stupid terminology, the bottom line is there is NO rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe period.

Good grief, another uneducated idiot with the IQ of rocks emerges. Yeah... who cares that concepts like "before" and "after" and "caused" don't apply? Who cares that time is a property of the Universe and so it's meaningless outside of the Universe. Let's go ahead and use the words and the concepts anyway and then we'll get somewhere.

The bottom is that you assert that there is no rational explanation for the beginning of the Universe. You cannot prove that is the case, and without a proof it's worth about as much as your other musings: that is, not much at all.


So your argument is identical in either case cause the intelligent design say the same thing, Causality and time are properties of the Universe, The designer is not in the realm of space time and matter so to say it is an infinite regress doesn't make sense any more then "before this" both views are in the same position, think about it.

No. I categorically reject the assertion at the core of the "theory" of Intelligent Design: that a designer is required. But let's examine Intelligent Design a bit, shall we?

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress.

We can posit a supernatural creating intelligence, but in doing so we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science. But perhaps not all is lost! Maybe we can try to argue that intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, so the designer can be natural. Alas, that clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

The "theory" of Intelligent Design is a joke that explains nothing.


It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard

Astrophysicists aren't rocket scientists.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 27, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
It doesn't take a rocket science to know this retard

Well actually it does. You have I bet no formal education but speak so openly about things you don't have slightest clue about, moreover you call other educated people "dumbasses". To sum up, you should really lay off the pipe because clearly you are delusional.

I don't have technical knowledge about things you mention here as well (I am just young guy who studies theoretical computer science), I could ask my friend who is theoretical physicist to explain some things to you using my account, but it would require some understanding of quantum mechanics which includes a lot of math like differential geometry and so on. Are you really sure you have enough knowledge and intelligence to discuss origins of universe?

Honestly really I won't go any further and follow your steps and talk about things I just don't understand. Don't take it offensive, it's a wake up call. I respect your opinion about training and nutrition, but please, don't speak of fields where it's all in the dark for you. I can assure you I have more knowledge about advanced math than you but I am very, very far (and will remain that way, because for my work I don't need it) from understanding even technical side of those theories, not even mentioning any research. It's no shame, because theories of modern science are so complex it takes a lifetime to understand them for greatest minds. I've spent my lifetime learning computer science and only now at 4th year of my studies I have some basic understanding of very basics of my discipline. You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 11:42:20 AM
Good grief, another uneducated idiot with the IQ of rocks emerges. Yeah... who cares that concepts like "before" and "after" and "caused" don't apply? Who cares that time is a property of the Universe and so it's meaningless outside of the Universe. Let's go ahead and use the words and the concepts anyway and then we'll get somewhere.


Wow you are stupid, these terms are important but what I meant is they don't apply to my point which is a simple one, the concept of a beginning is not rational, If the universe had a beginning before it started to expand what was before( I use this word for lack of a better term) I understand that you are going to say to ask "what was before" doesn't make sense, but the concept of not having a before doesn't make sense either , where did matter come from, and what is the universe expanding into, all of this is mind boggling and does not and can not have a rational explanation, these concepts have drivan men crazy throughout the centuries, an infinite regress doesn't make sense, yes I agree with you but nothing put in it's stead will.


Astrophysicists aren't rocket scientists.

lol, NO SHIT SHERLOCK :-*


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 11:45:28 AM
Causality and time are properties of the Universe. The question "what was before this" only makes sense in the context of an environment where causal relationships exist.

 
  causality is a property of the universe ?  prove it

time is a property of the universe ? prove it



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.
It is scientists who insult themselves when they pretend that their discoveries have metaphysical implications.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 11:55:16 AM
Well actually it does. You have I bet no formal education but speak so openly about things you don't have slightest clue about, moreover you call other educated people "dumbasses". To sum up, you should really lay off the pipe because clearly you are delusional.

I don't have technical knowledge about things you mention here as well (I am just young guy who studies theoretical computer science), I could ask my friend who is theoretical physicist to explain some things to you using my account, but it would require some understanding of quantum mechanics which includes a lot of math like differential geometry and so on. Are you really sure you have enough knowledge and intelligence to discuss origins of universe?

Honestly really I won't go any further and follow your steps and talk about things I just don't understand. Don't take it offensive, it's a wake up call. I respect your opinion about training and nutrition, but please, don't speak of fields where it's all in the dark for you. I can assure you I have more knowledge about advanced math than you but I am very, very far (and will remain that way, because for my work I don't need it) from understanding even technical side of those theories, not even mentioning any research. It's no shame, because theories of modern science are so complex it takes a lifetime to understand them for greatest minds. I've spent my lifetime learning computer science and only now at 4th year of my studies I have some basic understanding of very basics of my discipline. You insult people like me by speaking about those complex theories without understanding anything about them.
I withdraw my comment on calling you a retard, it's just my get big instincts, sorry bro, I just realized who you are and you are one of the better posters, anyway yes you are right I am not qualified to talk about theories, but the concept of a beginning can be discussed by anyone and anyone will agree that it's a concept that cannot be explained, hence it's irrational, that is all my argument, I am not arguing that intelligent design is correct, although  I believe in it, but all I am saying is both concepts cannot be explained rationally


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 12:00:05 PM
The singularity dictates that logic breaks down, or we just are smart enough to understand, or we don't have the tools, or we cannot know etc.. there are multiple options here, stating we cannot know is absurd, as absurd as you stating there has to be an infinite regress.

the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 27, 2012, 12:01:33 PM
Why not simply admit that we do not know how the universe began(if it ever had a beginning) and that there may or may not be a reason for the universe to exist.

We.
Simply.
Do.
Not.
Know.
.....yet



But if you admit that, then I guess that ruins the illusion of an imaginary father figure holding your hand throughout your life... Never mind.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 27, 2012, 12:04:04 PM
the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?

no, the questions you are asking that start with why are useless, why questions are stupid. How is all i care about. asking why we exist is a silly question because there may be no reason.

i have a viewpoint that is not atheistic, i just don't accept terrible logic based on age old fallacies.

who cares about the metaphysical? does it even exist? no one knows so wants the fucking point.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 27, 2012, 12:04:34 PM
the fact that your so resistant to this is irksome to me. we can make discoveries. but no discovery is exempt from questioning. and thus, there will always be questions.  do you really not understand this, or are you deathly afraid of having held an incorrect viewpoint, or what ?

lmao look who's talking. It's so obvious by now that you do not argue to learn or to stimulate your mind. For you having a discussion is only a weird way of stroking your own delusional ego. Even when confronted with hard evidence you still won't admit being wrong.

"nooooo! photons have mass, science got it all wrooooong, professor is wrooooong"


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: OTHstrong on March 27, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Why not simply admit that we do not know how the universe began(if it ever had a beginning) and that there may or may not be a reason for the universe to exist.

We.
Simply.
Do.
Not.
Know.
.....yet



But if you admit that, then I guess that ruins the illusion of an imaginary father figure holding your hand throughout your life... Never mind.
Actually this is a good post, the top part that is


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 27, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
Actually this is a good post, the top part that is

You do realize that the logic kinda follows from the first part, right?

By believing in a creator, and a DESIGNER( ::)) of living things you can possibly not agree with the first part of my post.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
no, the questions you are asking that start with why are useless, why questions are stupid. How is all i care about. asking why we exist is a silly question because there may be no reason.

i have a viewpoint that is not atheistic, i just don't accept terrible logic based on age old fallacies.

who cares about the metaphysical? does it even exist? no one knows so wants the fucking point.
who said anything about why ?  discoveries are subject to all types of questions. HOW did the dense and hot state that existed before the big bang get to be a dense and hot state in the first place ? HOW does energy work ? HOW does ANYTHING happen ?  why and how can be switched at ease...

metaphysical simply points to ultimate origin and cause.

your right. nobody knows ! nobody can know !  whats the point ? good question ! ask yourself that question when you get to thinking that science could ever speak on the issue !


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
lmao look who's talking. It's so obvious by now that you do not argue to learn or to stimulate your mind. For you having a discussion is only a weird way of stroking your own delusional ego. Even when confronted with hard evidence you still won't admit being wrong.

"nooooo! photons have mass, science got it all wrooooong, professor is wrooooong"
   does energy have mass?  :)


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 27, 2012, 12:26:41 PM
  does energy have mass?  :)

Jesus fucking christ YOU ARE THICK. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I've answered that question in relevance to photons several times and even consulted a professor of theoretical physics on the matter so you could get it through your head(feel honored). It's impossible to take you seriously.

Here, maybe it'll stick the fourth time:

Quote
This is where you're wrong and it also seems that whoever typed that quote is also wrong/misguided. It's a common misconception to apply the E=mc^2 formula to photons and therefore think they have mass.

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-511175.html
Quote
But photons have energy. By E=mc2, doesn't this mean that they have A mass?

The equation above was derived from this expression:

E2=(pc)2+(m0c2)2


A photon can still have zero invariant mass (m0), and can still have energy. There's nothing inconsistent here. All of the photon's energy is in the term pc. Some people would say that this is the photon's "inertial mass", since it is similar to the inertia that one feels when trying to stop a moving mass. This may or may not be useful to consider. However, it certainly should not be confused with the concept of the ordinary mass that most people are familiar with.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on March 27, 2012, 12:29:02 PM
did you even read that thing you just posted ?  ;D

DOES ENERGY HAVE MASS ??  answer the question.. yes or no.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on March 27, 2012, 12:38:51 PM
did you even read that thing you just posted ?  ;D

DOES ENERGY HAVE MASS ??  answer the question.. yes or no.

The question is flawed to begin with. For most particles, mass and energy are one and the same and can be exchanged for each other. This is not the case with photons, however. The photons energy is determined only by it's wavelength as explained by the expression E=hc/λ.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: deceiver on March 27, 2012, 12:39:37 PM
I withdraw my comment on calling you a retard, it's just my get big instincts, sorry bro, I just realized who you are and you are one of the better posters, anyway yes you are right I am not qualified to talk about theories, but the concept of a beginning can be discussed by anyone and anyone will agree that it's a concept that cannot be explained, hence it's irrational, that is all my argument, I am not arguing that intelligent design is correct, although  I believe in it, but all I am saying is both concepts cannot be explained rationally

Well I think you put your ideas in wrong words then. Science and religion are different realms and therefore they may coexist - so even if we know one day theory of everything and explain every part of the physical world including big bang, origin of time and so on one could still say that this is all creation of a god. That's quite obvious observation.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on March 27, 2012, 12:53:05 PM
did you even read that thing you just posted ?  ;D

DOES ENERGY HAVE MASS ??  answer the question.. yes or no.

is this a serious question?


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: King Shizzo on March 27, 2012, 02:08:40 PM
Why can't we all admit that we really don't fucking know anything about everything.  The battle between science and religion is fucking stupid.  The human brain will never fully comprehend the truth behind everything.  We will find out when we are dead, which is probably an eternal, dark, peaceful sleep.  Just like it was before we were born.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2012, 02:13:24 PM
The question is flawed to begin with. For most particles, mass and energy are one and the same and can be exchanged for each other. This is not the case with photons, however. The photons energy is determined only by it's wavelength as explained by the expression E=hc/λ.
the question isnt flawed. if energy has mass, the photons (energy) have mass.

if energy only possesses mass when in aggregate with another substance, then energy itself never possesses mass. energy can only be encompassed by mass, never made up of it.


but i think the case is that energy, being extended, takes up space, in of that there is actually something there in that space and not just a concept of a thing, there is some observable entity in that space, and that entity is made of something.  thus, energy, being made of something extended, being extended itself, does possess "Mass" in the purest sense (AKA total amount of material that makes an object) because it is made up of some quantity of something.  even photons are made of something, and thus have "mass" in this sense.. = they have an amount of substance which makes them up.


i probably should have brought this up the very first time we ever touched on this issue. well, now that i think about it i was actually trying to play a game of "got ya!" by making this assertion. but i guess i needed to fill in the gaps of my assertion with more information as to lead you down the path i was on.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Why can't we all admit that we really don't fucking know anything about everything.  The battle between science and religion is fucking stupid.  The human brain will never fully comprehend the truth behind everything.  We will find out when we are dead, which is probably an eternal, dark, peaceful sleep.  Just like it was before we were born.

thats exactly what ive been arguing this entire time my friend.

 the problem is these guys wont accept that knowledge is impossible on this issue. they think science can know what ultimately causes things to happen.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on April 01, 2012, 02:39:23 PM
the question isnt flawed. if energy has mass, the photons (energy) have mass.

if energy only possesses mass when in aggregate with another substance, then energy itself never possesses mass. energy can only be encompassed by mass, never made up of it.


but i think the case is that energy, being extended, takes up space, in of that there is actually something there in that space and not just a concept of a thing, there is some observable entity in that space, and that entity is made of something.  thus, energy, being made of something extended, being extended itself, does possess "Mass" in the purest sense (AKA total amount of material that makes an object) because it is made up of some quantity of something.  even photons are made of something, and thus have "mass" in this sense.. = they have an amount of substance which makes them up.


i probably should have brought this up the very first time we ever touched on this issue. well, now that i think about it i was actually trying to play a game of "got ya!" by making this assertion. but i guess i needed to fill in the gaps of my assertion with more information as to lead you down the path i was on.

What is the point of even having this discussion when all you do is make up your own versions of reality? When I(and modern science) clearly point out that photons have no mass in ANY sense of the word, all you do is try to reinvent the word mass so you can delude yourself and win the argument inside your own head. You can't even grasp the concept that energy and mass are one and the same with the exception of photons. Do you even have the slightest clue about physics? I bet you don't even know from the top of your head what a newton(N) is. Yet here you are making shit up about photons.

It's obvious as can be by now that there's nothing in the known universe that could make you admit that you were wrong. I'm done with this particular discussion.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: lovemonkey on April 01, 2012, 02:42:48 PM
thats exactly what ive been arguing this entire time my friend.

 the problem is these guys wont accept that knowledge is impossible on this issue. they think science can know what ultimately causes things to happen.



I'm personally optimistic that science will eventually have a lot to say about our origins but that doesn't mean I think it definitely will. To claim to know where science ends is a mistake.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: _bruce_ on April 01, 2012, 03:07:22 PM
Haven't followed all of the thread, but I don't want to know the "innards" of the universe, just live. It's a waste of time for us in our vessel'd state.
Taking some form of drugs may deepen our empathic understanding of the mere nature of things...

or it may not.  :D


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2012, 03:26:31 PM
What is the point of even having this discussion when all you do is make up your own versions of reality? When I(and modern science) clearly point out that photons have no mass in ANY sense of the word, all you do is try to reinvent the word mass so you can delude yourself and win the argument inside your own head. You can't even grasp the concept that energy and mass are one and the same with the exception of photons. Do you even have the slightest clue about physics? I bet you don't even know from the top of your head what a newton(N) is. Yet here you are making shit up about photons.

It's obvious as can be by now that there's nothing in the known universe that could make you admit that you were wrong. I'm done with this particular discussion.

 ;D

you really worship scientific labels dont you

"photon"

 ;D

energy IS photons.

a hersheys bar IS chocolate.

(same idea)


think on your own. "zero rest mass" for a particle that doesnt rest ? LMAO and how is that determined ? how can one test that hypothesis ?  ;D



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 01, 2012, 03:29:42 PM
I'm personally optimistic that science will eventually have a lot to say about our origins but that doesn't mean I think it definitely will. To claim to know where science ends is a mistake.
it cant say a damn thing about origins. no matter what is discovered, it will always be possible that there is an almost infinite amount more complexity and complication to the problem.

 X caused Y ! .. ok but how do we know if X was caused, or if it even needs a cause ?  we dont ! 

did we reach the solution?  we can never say yes !!!

^^^^^ THESE ARE FACTS


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on April 02, 2012, 05:26:39 PM
I'm personally optimistic that science will eventually have a lot to say about our origins but that doesn't mean I think it definitely will. To claim to know where science ends is a mistake.

Nah dude, we know absolutely that we can never know anything about the origins of life, nothing, ever, never, in no conceivable way could we ever, because we already have the answer, god did it. God can't be known but we know he can't be known, i'm unsure of how we know the unknown and claim with such certainty to know, makes sense right?



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 02, 2012, 09:03:15 PM
I never said "God" did anything. I make no assertions but that assertions can not be made.


it reminds me of a saying: "We dont know what we dont know."

think about that saying in relation to the idea of possessing understanding of ultimate causality.

what fact could ever convince you that it was the last fact you needed to know?

what possible answer could someone give you that would not leave you with some question about how things happen ? 

i find it troublesome that you arent grasping this truth... that the truth itself is hidden from our view.. we cant see it, no matter what science we use.. questions will always remain




Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: Necrosis on April 03, 2012, 05:10:50 AM
I never said "God" did anything. I make no assertions but that assertions can not be made.


it reminds me of a saying: "We dont know what we dont know."

think about that saying in relation to the idea of possessing understanding of ultimate causality.

what fact could ever convince you that it was the last fact you needed to know?

what possible answer could someone give you that would not leave you with some question about how things happen ?  

i find it troublesome that you arent grasping this truth... that the truth itself is hidden from our view.. we cant see it, no matter what science we use.. questions will always remain




ok prove logically that we can make no assertions, thats my whole beef with your argument, it is impossible to say we cannot make any assertions by the nature of the thing you are talking about. The best we can say is that we don't know right now but may or may not, we can make no definitive statements. You also keep harping on this but then make the absolute unsupported statement that no assertions can ever be made, how do you know? what piece of divine knowledge do you think you possess that all the great minds in the world cannot? Why do you insist we can never know, it's fucking wrong silly and based on nothing but conjecture. I fine with pantheism, I am one but it still doesn't suggest we will never know, perhaps we evolve into gods and then discover all the truths of the universe, why is that implausible? all i need is one scenario that disproves we can never make any assertions to destroy your position, it's called logic, it's how you arrive at truth you seem to have thrown inquire out the window for certainty that simply does not exist at the moment.


Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 03, 2012, 06:08:06 PM
the only knowledge im claiming to have is that the universe is by nature incomprehensible.  either an uncaused creator, or an uncaused physical world... either a world where God just happens, or a world where stuff just happens..   no matter what, things are NOT explainable, they just ARE.



Title: Re: Dawkins vs creationist
Post by: tbombz on April 03, 2012, 06:12:03 PM
BTW, what about your view on the universe makes you identity with pantheism? I have seen absolutely nothing from any of your thoughts to indicate you think there is any divine semblance to the world. Pantheism at its weakest at the least asserts a divine nature to the universe in some sort or another. Pantheism at its strongest, the one I am fond of, resembles something like "mother nature", that the universe itself is a thinking, creating being; not separate from but comprised of the entirety of existence.