Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
May 26, 2019, 06:02:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 20642 times)
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #175 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  Grin   Grin  Grin
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.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #176 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #177 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #178 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.

 

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #179 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #180 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9774


« Reply #181 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.

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #182 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.  Smiley

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..  Grin






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.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #183 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..  Grin

... what's the point in debating with you, if you think that being alive means being dead?
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #184 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"


 Smiley



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.

Report to moderator   Logged
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15960


Robot


WWW
« Reply #185 on: March 15, 2012, 05:59:12 PM »

Tbombz is a regular socrates.
Report to moderator   Logged
haider
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11983


Team Batman Squats


« Reply #186 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

follow the arrows
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #187 on: March 15, 2012, 09:24:44 PM »

Tbombz is a regular socrates.

Yeah, except, you know, the whole thing about muscles.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #188 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #189 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #190 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.



   


Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #191 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?Huh?






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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #192 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
no one
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11990

have i hurt your feelings?


« Reply #193 on: March 22, 2012, 01:04:14 AM »



who cares.

you live. you die. end thread.
Report to moderator   Logged

b
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #194 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #195 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...  Wink


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.  Smiley Smiley

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

Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5365


Iron Pumping University Math Professor


« Reply #196 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #197 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #198 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?



Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #199 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  Wink





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?  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!