|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2006 : 07:01:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
[bri]Originally posted by Bill scott[/i]
Cosmology is a complex field, and a relatively new scientific discipline. The fact that we don't have all the answers in one field shouldn't preclude us from forming useful theories in others.
quote:
quote:
So what caused them to begin exist at this time?
Do you realise that the "material" from which matter formed is irrelevant to the spontaneous abiogenesis discussion,
Yes, in fact that is what I have been saying all along. That it surprises me how many skeptics will except that "it was just there."
quote:
as long as the matter did form?
But again, my skepticism won't let me get past where the matter came from in the first place? It was just there, does not help.
quote:
Otherwise you have to be "sceptical" of every scientific theory until we have complete knowledge of the origin of matter. Is this your stance?
No. My stance is that I have no clue how all you skeptics can conclude, for all intense purposes, that there is no God when you don't have a clue as to where even matter originated.
quote:
quote:
It seems the more complex the effect then the more complex the cause.
Bolding Mine. That's pretty much backwards to the way science observes things to happen. Incredibly complex behaviour results from interactions with fairly simple rules. We know quite a bit about fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure and that sort of thing, but accurately predicting the weather a month in advance is still beyond us. We certainly don't know all the rules yet, but scientists love looking for them.
Yet man, in all his glory, has yet to be able to construct life from nothing. Heck, we can't even produce the raw materials to create life from nothing. Heck, we can't even figure out where the raw materials came from that did produce life, let alone we produce them from nothing. Yet in all our glory, we think we can criticize the one who did create life from nothing. (sigh)
quote:
This sort of thinking would also tend to suggest that something more complex than god created god, don't you think?
Nope. As the creator of all that exists, nothing created, or nothing that exists, would be more complex.
quote:
If you're happy with the eternal god idea, then why not eternal matter,
Why are you not happy with eternal matter?
quote:
Cosmology is a complex field, and a relatively new scientific discipline. The fact that we don't have all the answers in one field shouldn't preclude us from forming useful theories in others.
That is what I find fascinating. With what little knowledge we have how all you skeptics have come to such black and white definitive conclusion.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 07:08:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
Can you tell me more about this evidence?
I'm sure you've at least heard of the evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory. Is there something in particular you'd like to know more about?
What caused it?
quote:
quote:
So what predated the atoms?
Free subatomic particles.
As opposed to purchased subatomic particles?
quote:
quote:
So what caused them to begin exist at this time?
The universe had cooled enough so that protons and electrons could "bind" to one another.
Where did the protons and electrons originate from?
quote:
quote:
Maybe I should just say that I remain skeptical of a spontaneous abiogenesis. I just find it hard to get past "they were just there" when it comes to the origin of the first building blocks.
Whoever is saying that to you is focusing on the origins of life on Earth, and not the origins of matter. Some nine billion years went by between the two events
.
To listen to you talk one might think that you were actually there.
quote:
quote:
I know that science is still looking and searching for the origin of the first bulding blocks so I will probably remain skeptical of abiogenesis until "they were just there" can be empericaly answered.
The theory is sound, it has no scientific competition,
What other theory would you be looking for? Either an eternal first cause did it, or nothing did it. What else has been proposed?
quote:
and so the question has been empirically answered already (over 40 years ago!). What more do you want?
Well for starters how about the origin of matter?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 07:17:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
A state of denial over whether any of the sky gods or unicorns or malevolent trolls that trick us into thinking that there is a benevolent sky god as they torture us or even the speghetti monster (sorry guys even she is not real, but she is a female I assure you!
These are made up tangibles in the minds of men. I would be talking about the eternal first cause of all the exists.
quote:
is the default and intellectually sound position. This state is not a state of faith. Because it is default. Positive claims require evidence.
You have put much faith into your position but are just not honest enough to admit so.
quote:
This is false so much in science history, but I will just say two words. Charles Dawkins.
Charles Darwin? BTW, where did this warm little pond come from?
quote:
It is interesting to note that all gods of all religions ever postulated have surprisingly and even overtly man-like characteristics. It seems that man is very unimaginative with the gods he creates.
Right. Which is why man should stop trying to produce an image of the infinite first cause. He can't do it.
quote:
DNA is so absurdly simple that it was laughed at as the holder of the information of life yet is. All atoms are made of three particles the proton neutron and electron when placed together in different ratios create incredibly diverse elements and those then even more diversity within molecules and molecular families.
Yet you, in all your glory, can not even produce one sting of DNA from nothing. (sigh)
quote:
This is what you are doing by envoking a god. You admit you cannot comprehend god yet pretend that there is something to be learned from the God Hypothesis?
Yes, I admit that I could not fully comprehend God. Can the finite comprehend the infinite? I am sure in your world it is possible, but I deal with the real world.
quote:
No. Lol. Actually, we cannot know the first cause because nothing existed before it. T-1 second before the big bang there were no seconds!
How do you know this?
quote:
Why who? Why not what. Why not the eternal energy rather than eternal God. As I showed earlier simple things have complex emmergent properties. Post Einstein and Quantum mechanics, we can postulate the energy is the most simple thing from which all other things are created. Thermodynamics shows that energy is eternal in that it cannot be created nor destroyed. We may never know for sure what happened to initiate the Big Bang and may even falsify that claim altogether, but certainly envoking a supernatural unknowable thing force or personhood does not help the matter any more than Newton giving up on the cause of the planetary plane of orbit. He could have figured it out like childsplay considering his genius with math.
I suspect you can hold the notion of eternal energy as the creator of all that exists but not an eternal deity, with personhood, as the creator of all that exists because you feel that you would be under no authority if the first cause was some kind of eternal energy. If you were created by God then you would have to acknowledge that you would be subject to God and man has a hard time subjecting himself to his creator because that now means he is not the master of his universe.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 08:11:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
What caused it?
What caused the Big Bang? Scientifically speaking, we cannot know.quote:
As opposed to purchased subatomic particles?
Are you being obtuse on purpose?quote:
Where did the protons and electrons originate from?
I see where you're going with this, so ultimately the answer is E=mc2.quote:
To listen to you talk one might think that you were actually there.
Such are the wonders of science that by piecing together the evidence left behind by events we can, for all practical purposes, have been there. You do the same thing, yourself, on a regular basis. Say, for example, you walk into your bedroom, and find your slippers ripped into little pieces, and your dog sitting nearby with a little piece of slipper-fabric stuck to his lip. Saying "bad dog!" is reasonable, based on a near-instantaneous reconstruction of events in your own mind based upon the evidence at hand, just as if you'd been there to witness the event yourself.
Or are you the sort of person who thinks, "well, I didn't see the mailman come by my house, so there's no evidence that I have any mail, so therefore going out to actually look in the mailbox would be a waste of my time?"quote:
What other theory would you be looking for? Either an eternal first cause did it, or nothing did it.
And just how have you narrowed it down to those two choices? How have you defined the words "eternal" and "nothing?"quote:
What else has been proposed?
"We don't know" is a perfectly good alternative that you apparently refuse to consider for the origins of the universe, but you were talking about the origins of matter, in which case the alternatives are not "an eternal first cause" or "nothing," but instead the description offered by the Big Bang theory and... well, there are no other scientific alternatives - the only thing offered by anyone else is "matter has always existed" (which leads to several insurmountable physical problems) or "Goddidit" (which isn't scientific).quote:
Well for starters how about the origin of matter?
Big Bang theory (or, more specifically, Lambda-CDM theory) covers that quite well. The question has been answered. Your "it was just there" nonsense has never been uttered by any scientist, so you're "being skeptical" of non-science (good for you). Bad for you, though, are your implications that actual researchers into abiogenesis have ever uttered "it was just there." Why don't you try to be skeptical of what they actually say? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 08:11:24 [Permalink]
|
Just a couple of thoughts, one of which I can't confirm and no one else can refute due to a lack of evidence either way.....
I don't buy 'random chance' as far as abiogenesis and evolution is concerned. I think that as long as the proper conditions are met, abogenesis will occur. Further, how that genesis of life turns out depends entirely in variations in those conditions. And all we have to do is discover what the conditions were some few billions of years ago on our own, cozy, little mudball to know how it happened. These conditions, at least not all of them, have yet be confirmed.
I keep reading about "warm, little ponds" (Bill!) in this thread. Actually, if what I have read is correct, and I've been presented with no reasons to doubt it, the whole earth was anything but cool at the time of the formation of life, and indeed, all of the water was pretty damned hot -- you could prepare a lobster dinner in it.
So, one might ask, how could life form in water temperatures near the boiling point? I don't know, but I do know that there are modern extremophiles, many of them pretty complex, that live quite happily in such conditions. For reference, look up the deep sea, hydrothermal vents. Also look up thermophile bacteria. These guys live in volcanic pools, notably in Yellowstone Park, and thrive in not only boiling water, but in a pretty strong dilute of sulfuric acid from their own excretions.
Food for thought, no?
As far as evolution is concerned, it is a biological process that begins as soon as life forms, and will never cease until the cessation of life itself.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 08:51:59 [Permalink]
|
Or, we can all ask the classical question, "where did God come from? And how do you know that?"
Please explain to me how that's different than asking how the Big Bang came to be - especially because, unlike your personal God, we've actually evidence that question makes no sense at all. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 09:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
What caused the Big Bang? Scientifically speaking, we cannot know.
Any guesses?
quote:
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Yes. And at least you recognized this rather then accuse me of lying, like some.
quote:
Such are the wonders of science that by piecing together the evidence left behind by events we can, for all practical purposes, have been there. You do the same thing, yourself, on a regular basis. Say, for example, you walk into your bedroom, and find your slippers ripped into little pieces, and your dog sitting nearby with a little piece of slipper-fabric stuck to his lip. Saying "bad dog!" is reasonable, based on a near-instantaneous reconstruction of events in your own mind based upon the evidence at hand, just as if you'd been there to witness the event yourself.
Of course the evidence might not be so tell-tale of the dogs misdeeds if the event occurred 9 billion years in the past before you even happen upon it, wouldn't you think? And certainly a ripped slipper is not as complex a mystery as to the origin of life it self, one would think?
quote:
Or are you the sort of person who thinks, "well, I didn't see the mailman come by my house, so there's no evidence that I have any mail, so therefore going out to actually look in the mailbox would be a waste of my time?"
Well how silly of me to wonder about cosmology/abiogenesis etc... when all can be nicely explained and demonstrated through the operations of the US post office and their carriers.
quote:
And just how have you narrowed it down to those two choices?
What other choice is there?
quote:
How have you defined the words "eternal" and "nothing?"
Eternal would be without beginning and without end.
Nothing is what many on this forum believe existed before the BB and also was the cause of the BB.
quote:
"We don't know" is a perfectly good alternative that you apparently refuse to consider for the origins of the universe, but you were talking about the origins of matter, in which case the alternatives are not "an eternal first cause" or "nothing," but instead the description offered by the Big Bang theory and... well, there are no other scientific alternatives - the only thing offered by anyone else is "matter has always existed" (which leads to several insurmountable physical problems) or "Goddidit" (which isn't scientific).
You are always going to have "we don't know." Either the BB had an eternal first cause or nothing preceded the BB and nothing caused it as well. Maybe this is were Jerry Seinfeild got his idea of having a show about nothing? Nothing did it and was the cause of it all.
quote:
Big Bang theory (or, more specifically, Lambda-CDM theory) covers that quite well. The question has been answered. Your "it was just there" nonsense has never been uttered by any scientist, so you're "being skeptical" of non-science (good for you). Bad for you, though, are your implications that actual researchers into abiogenesis have ever uttered "it was just there." Why don't you try to be skeptical of what they actually say?
I can appreciate, "we don't know." What I dismiss is, "we don't know, but we do know for sure that no eternal first cause did it, at least statistically speaking that is." Since you don't know then any claim of no god, or small chance of god, is a position based on faith. You have faith that your position is correct. One might call you the Faithfull.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 09:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Some folks are just not comfortable without pat answers. Bill is one of those people. He is the classic God of gaps kind of guy. “I don't know” is not an acceptable position for him to take. (Well actually, he is the whole ball of wax creationist. When shown what we do know he simply rejects it if he finds it inconvenient to his beliefs. And it doesn't matter to him how tortured his arguments are.)
But Bill does provide us with one service. He is a springboard for further investigation into what we know and don't know. A good thing for people lurking around threads he is involved with. We get to respond to typical creationist drivel for those who are confused about what science tells us, or in some cases, what science has not told us or cannot tell us.
So thanks Bill for being who you are. You are a fine example of a baloney pusher for those who don't understand the dangerous anti science stance of the religious right. You serve as our poster boy for those who live to push us into a new dark age, based on the forced rejection of knowledge…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 09:44:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
That's my point. If you don't act on what you say you believe, then do you really believe, or are you just saying what you need to say because that's what people do? Do these people really believe that the supernatural is real and available to them, or do they just kind of think there's some kind of fuzzy sort of nice fuzzy god somewhere that sort of wants them to do some fuzzy sort of kind of good?
It is possible to do both actually. More and more evidence suggests that our brain is not one but many thinkers that it can have varying positions so long as they are not so contrary as to cause a functional (societally) disruption. In fact, Ramachadran has recounted cases where one side of the brain is atheist and the other religious! |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 10:12:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
No. My stance is that I have no clue how all you skeptics can conclude, for all intense purposes, that there is no God when you don't have a clue as to where even matter originated.
My stance is I cannot see how you can conclude, for all intents and purposes, that there is a god when you don't even know where even matter comes from. Or where god came from, or where energy came from. i mean do you even believe in the magical unicorn titans that created all of the gods!? how can you deny them when you cannot even explain where the gods come from!
The point is not that god definitely does not exist, it is that there is no benefit skeptically, scientifically, or even socially envoking a god as an explaination of anything. Yes Bill science is all about the for all intents and purposes. Although you cannot disprove that fairies hold you fast to the ground (rather than or even in association with gravity), but also nothing is to be gained from such a hypothesis and it is absurd to assume it is a true theory without evidence. It can even get, and has gotten, into the way of real discovery on the issues of science to assume supernatural or even unexplainable causes. Matter does exists and our current understanding leads us to many conclusion on the question of the origin of it, but assuming god did it leads us into an infinite regress and is useless (even if it is 100% true!)
quote:
Yet man, in all his glory, has yet to be able to construct life from nothing. Heck, we can't even produce the raw materials to create life from nothing. Heck, we can't even figure out where the raw materials came from that did produce life, let alone we produce them from nothing. Yet in all our glory, we think we can criticize the one who did create life from nothing. (sigh)
First, you assume there is a god, then you ignore all the evidence science has ever produced ever, then you ignore the very laws of nature that ensure that matter as a form of energy cannot be created nor destroyed only reorganized or change form, then you postulate a theory that has no evidence of its own, then you chastize us for not believing you! How off base can you get Bill.
quote:
Nope. As the creator of all that exists, nothing created, or nothing that exists, would be more complex.
Bill that is retarded, as you already postulated god has to exist. God cannot create himself any more than matter in your theory, therefore, If existing things must have a creator and this is suggested by the complexity of the thing that exist, and Complex things must have origins in more complex things, then god as something that exist must be also more complicated than the creation and thus have a creator more complex ad infinitum. This is your syllogism Bill and I have two words:Syntax error.
quote:
Why are you not happy with eternal matter?
Science is never quenched Bill that is religion that claims to have all the answers and become satisfied and complacent.
quote:
That is what I find fascinating. With what little knowledge we have how all you skeptics have come to such black and white definitive conclusion.
Defend this lie Bill. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 10:44:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From Bill, My sky daddy can beat up your skydaddy, Scott:
To listen to you talk one might think that you were actually there.
Unfortunately, we all could not get a seat to that theatre show. You must tell me how it went. Did god open with an overture or cut right to the chase with the fireworks?
quote:
These are made up tangibles in the minds of men. I would be talking about the eternal first cause of all the exists.
Yes, your god is better than my godBill. That works on the playground but not in real life. Here we judge the credibility of claims based on evidence. Who has it? Who doesn't? and who is blind to it?
quote:
Right. Which is why man should stop trying to produce an image of the infinite first cause. He can't do it.
I agree. So stop already.
quote:
Yet you, in all your glory, can not even produce one sting of DNA from nothing. (sigh)
I bet Bill can do it. Quick everyone gather around Bill, the great strawman killer, is about to perform a miracle!
quote:
Yes, I admit that I could not fully comprehend God. Can the finite comprehend the infinite? I am sure in your world it is possible, but I deal with the real world.
Define real world. Would that be one in which you admit that I am right but persist as though you were?
quote:
quote:
No. Lol. Actually, we cannot know the first cause because nothing existed before it. T-1 second before the big bang there were no seconds!
How do you know this?
Firstly, Einstein had some good ideas. If you read anything besides ancient books of cult (un)knowledge I would suggest you check it out. In any case, I don't know and don't pretend to know.
quote:
I suspect you can hold the notion of eternal energy as the creator of all that exists but not an eternal deity, with personhood, as the creator of all that exists because you feel that you would be under no authority if the first cause was some kind of eternal energy. If you were created by God then you would have to acknowledge that you would be subject to God and man has a hard time subjecting himself to his creator because that now means he is not the master of his universe.
No, I have no problem with eternal energy because it fits in with the general theme of physics. Simpler things have more complex emmergent properties. Rather than the reverse as you suggest which has no support in what we observe. Also, there is Parsimony and choosing the simplest answer in order to move on from the conclusion rather than accepting all other possibilties and bogging down. Note that simple does not mean easy to handle, or one with less work for you. In any case, accepting god is not a problem at all and rejecting god does not eliminate authority in the least. I am still responsible (even more so actually) to all those who share this pale blue dot with me. Also, god, as you have already postulated, is unkowable and not understandable. Therefore, I still have no direct assignment from such a god even if you are right and should not expect one. A god that can create all that exist does not need me to help. I certainly have not recieve any such request in the mail either. Does your god not know where he put my mailbox? Or maybe he is getting alzheimers with old aga. He must be what like infinity by now!
BTW if you want to postulate some particular philosophy or religion just say so rather than retreating to the "you can't prove there is no god" crap. God, like the wind, can be tested for by its effects. And those claims of morality and virtue stand or fall by their own merits. Just because there may be a god does not increase the likelihood that the christians, muslims, hindus, zorastians, etc. have any clue about such a god. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 11:04:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Any guesses?
Of course not.quote:
quote:
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Yes. And at least you recognized this rather then accuse me of lying, like some.
No, I'll accuse you of lying when I have evidence that you are lying, as I've done before.quote:
Of course the evidence might not be so tell-tale of the dogs misdeeds if the event occurred 9 billion years in the past before you even happen upon it, wouldn't you think?
Indeed, the further apart the event and our investigation become, the more difficult it is to reconstruct the whys and wherefores of any moment in time. But that's not to say it's impossible. It's taken over 80 years for us to get to where we are now with Big Bang cosmology.quote:
And certainly a ripped slipper is not as complex a mystery as to the origin of life it self, one would think?
Why is it that you keep switching between the origins of the universe and the origins of life as if they were identical questions?quote:
Well how silly of me to wonder about cosmology/abiogenesis etc... when all can be nicely explained and demonstrated through the operations of the US post office and their carriers.
No, what's silly is your obtuseness.quote:
quote:
And just how have you narrowed it down to those two choices?
What other choice is there?
Since we have no evidence of anything being "eternal" (by your definition), I was wondering how you ruled out any/all non-eternal causes of the Big Bang.quote:
Nothing is what many on this forum believe existed before the BB and also was the cause of the BB.
Name one such person, and I'll criticize them myself. quote:
You are always going to have "we don't know."
Oh, good: some acknowledgement of reality.quote:
Either the BB had an eternal first cause or nothing preceded the BB and nothing caused it as well.
Again: how have you narrowed down the choices so drastically, especially in light of the fact that nothing in this universe is "eternal" by your definition?quote:
I can appreciate, "we don't know." What I dismiss is, "we don't know, but we do know for sure that no eternal first cause did it, at least statistically speaking that is."
There is no reason to think that there exists anything that could accurately be described by your definition of "eternal." Until you provide evidence that such a thing is even possible, of course it should be dismissed.quote:
Since you don't know then any claim of no god, or small chance of god, is a position based on faith. You have faith that your position is correct. One might call you the Faithfull.
Except that all you're doing is claiming that something "eternal" exists, without providing any evidence to support your claim. "We don't know" doesn't open the door to anything you might be able to imagine and put down in words. The cause of the universe was not a watermelon that is both entirely cubical and entirely spherical simultaneously. Since such an object is impossible, the idea that one could have caused the Big Bang is ludicrous. So, where is your evidence that something "eternal" could have been your alleged "first cause?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 11:27:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is possible to do both actually. More and more evidence suggests that our brain is not one but many thinkers that it can have varying positions so long as they are not so contrary as to cause a functional (societally) disruption. In fact, Ramachadran has recounted cases where one side of the brain is atheist and the other religious!
Well, I knew that, but I didn't know that. All at the same time. Thanks. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 12:18:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet man, in all his glory, has yet to be able to construct life from nothing.
Just wait and see... We might get there eventually.
quote:
Heck, we can't even produce the raw materials to create life from nothing.
Why does the raw materials necessarily have to come from "nothing"?
The evidence tells us that the raw materials on Earth after its formation did not come from "nothing" but came from the solar system formation process.
quote:
Heck, we can't even figure out where the raw materials came from that did produce life,
False. We know that the raw materials came from a planetary nebula, remnants from a supernova.
quote:
let alone we produce them from nothing.
We don't have to produce them from nothing. But be have been creating matter from energy for some time now in particle-accelerators like in CERN and other places.
quote:
Yet in all our glory, we think we can criticize the one who did create life from nothing. (sigh)
LMAO. You think that science is about criticising God. The delusion you have could not possibly be more profound.
This is your default position, God, on which all your brain-functions and cognitive processes needs to be built on. You don't seem to be able to imagine a reality without God.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 12:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course the evidence might not be so tell-tale of the dogs misdeeds if the event occurred 9 billion years in the past before you even happen upon it, wouldn't you think? And certainly a ripped slipper is not as complex a mystery as to the origin of life it self, one would think?
How many years?
The earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old and the universe some 13.5 billion. What are we talking about, here?
But here is some of the smoking gun evidence for evolution: The thecodonts: quote:
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
quote:
Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic.
Did you know that you have the inner ear of an ancient reptile? Read the whole thing, Bill. It could be enlightening.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
