Evolution with AIN

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Evolution with AIN

Hi everyone!

In this epic thread, AtheismIsNonsense will, using numerous irrefutable deductive arguments, overwhelming empirical evidence, and his support from the creator of the universe, indisputably prove that the unifying theory of biology, accepted by virtually every respectable scientist and science institution in the world:

- is impossible.

- is unsupported and unsubstantiated.

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of everything good and moral, including, but not limited to, families, cultures, governments, civilization in general, Black people, Jewish people, preschool, Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell.  

The first thing I want to discuss is whether evolution happens. Arguments like Social Darwinism, etc., while interesting, do not affect the validity of evolution itself; regardless of its implications, either organisms evolve or they don't. Also, while I think I have an accurate fundamental grasp of what evolution is and what it isn't, I haven't been trained in or really studied evolution, genetics, paleontology, etc. , so I'll probably make some mistakes.    

To start, evolution is simply change in genetic material. While the differences between one generation and its parent generation are usually virtually undetectable, variations can accumulate throughout successive generations to produce significant change. The theory of evolution can be defined as the overarching explanation of this process.

Mutation: In biology, a mutation is simply a copying error that occurred during genetic replication.  

According to http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html, mutations "occur at the rate of about 1 in 50 million," "but with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations."

There are multiple types of mutations, but the bottom line is that they all lead to variation.  

Genetic drift: This is the change in frequency of the presence of a specific gene in the population independent of natural selection. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

It was somewhat harder for me to wrap my brain around this process. Wikipedia has a very helpful analogy.

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

wikipedia wrote:
The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population. Half of them are red and half blue, and both colors correspond to two different gene alleles in the population. The offspring they reproduce for the next generation are represented in another jar. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select any marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same color as its "parent" in the second jar. Repeat the process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar will then contain a second generation of "offspring", 20 marbles of various colors. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red and 10 blue marbles, there will have been a purely random shift in the allele frequencies.

Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation will fluctuate: sometimes more red, sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.

It is even possible that in any one generation no marbles of a particular color will be chosen, meaning they have no offspring. In this example, if no red marbles are selected the jar representing the new generation will contain only blue offspring. If this happens, the red allele has been lost permanently in the population, while the remaining blue allele has become fixed: all future generations will be entirely blue. In small populations, fixation to a single surviving allele can occur in just a few generations. Given enough time, this outcome is nearly inevitable for populations of any size."

Natural selection: In the general public, this is the best known mechanism of evolution. Since organisms possess variation in characteristics and some traits are more beneficial in certain environments, natural selection postulates that some organisms will have a better chance of surviving long enough to produce offspring, thus, passing their genes to the next generation. Hence, in every specific environment, certain traits will be favored and organisms possessing these traits will thrive.

Speciation: Speciation is when two groups of organisms that were previously able to reproduce with each other are no longer able to interbreed. This is arguably the most significant development in evolution, since the two groups are now free to acculumate differences in traits and, also, branch into more varieties of organisms. One of the most obvious ways this could occur is if a single species somehow becomes separated into two or more groups due to a geographical landmark, like a range of mountains or a river.  

Evidence for evolution:

- Creationism asserts that God created all organisms at the same time, in their present forms. If this were true, then fossils of all kinds of organisms should distributed everywhere in the geological column. Upon radiometric dating, they should also be dated to all periods in natural history. However, this is not the case.

Instead, the fossil record shows a clear progression to more complicated life forms. We also observe that all organisms existed exclusively within a certain time period. So, we never find an elephant older than a Triceratops or a penguin in the pre-cambrian.

- Virtually all Creationists claim that there are no "transitional fossils," but by its very definition, all organisms are transitional forms, so every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil. The confusion lies in the fact that Creationists have an extremely undeveleped (and that's putting it nicely) idea of evolution. If scientists accept that organism A evolved into organism B, Creationists would strawman this by asking for the existence of some half A half B abomination or the exact moment act which this change occurred. This request is impossible to fulfill because this is not how evolution works. Organism A will never give produce an organism that is not organism A nor will anything other than an organism B will produce an organism B.

Some videos on Youtube explain this problem by comparing it to aging. I think this is a good analogy. When Creationists ask for the exact moment at which A becomes B, it's like asking for the exact moment at which a baby becomes an adult. There is none, nor is there a specific moment at which a baby stops being a baby or a person becomes an adult. If you look at pictures of yourself from many years ago and recall your memories of your childhood, you can easily conclude that you changed, but did you notice any day to day changes? Of course not, the changes are too small, just like the generational changes in organisms are too small to produce a different species. So, using the same analogy, we can see that every day you are alive is a day between when you are older and when you were younger.

Transitional Fossils This scientist is from my university.

Human evolution 

Transitional Fossils

(This is definitely not a complete list)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Okay, that's all I'll write for now.

Cheers.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
except for the unfortunate circumstance of not being able to produce offspring anymore.

*sigh*

That's when they've evolved into different species.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
the unprovable assumption of only physical things existing given your own epistemological position.

As DG explained very well, physical reality isn't some arbitrary label; it's defined in terms of what we can reliably explain and understand using the methods we have. The metaphysical reductionist holds the default position anyways, as the theist holds the burden of proving of that something does exist outside of this reality.

Furthermore, I'm not even, technically, a philosophical naturalist anyways, as there could certainly be things outside of our scope of knowledge, but I am a methodological naturalist, since, if you cannot explain something, then it is pointless to discuss it.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
And explain why all processes in the universe aren't involuntary given that this should be the case in a materialist universe.

You just asked another loaded question. You haven't explained how you know that human actions are not deterministic.

I give up on this thread. You win. Clearly, my time would be better spent elsewhere.

Edit: Seriously, the websites that we linked, collectively, contain an overwhelming amount of information. Any question you might have had has probably already been answered. I don't want to spend any more time on this; I'm not qualified to speak expertly on biology anyways, but I hope you'll have some productive discussions with other members.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Two hour video from Ken

Two hour video from Ken Miller

 

 

 


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Then Give Up butter

butterbattle wrote:
That's when they've evolved into different species

I call it as I see it; the unfortunate harmful side effect of mutations.

However this still isn't the empirical evidence that proves microbes can evolve in something as complex (biologically) as you or me. The empirical evidence for that would be documented eye witness accounts of one species transforming into another totally different looking specie altogether.

What evolution is, is a theory (a fairy tale one at that) using the evidence we have, assuming billions of years (using questionable dating methods that you guys haven't, regarding my objection, addressed yet) and that the universe is only physical (which you couldn't possibly know given your worldviews epistemological limitations) and arriving at the conclusion that microbes evolved into Homo Sapiens.

butterbattle wrote:
as the theist holds the burden of proving of that something does exist outside of this reality

You just asked another loaded question. You haven't explained how you know that human actions are not deterministic

This is the kind of crap that atheists pull all the time. The burden of proof is just as much on you to demonstrate that your position is even a valid position to begin from.

I've shown numerous times how contradictory the theory of evolution is. How it makes argumentation, science, morality, and all the rest meaningless.

You bring up the question regarding determinism. Although I don't agree with all aspects and implications of it, I'm not against the basic concept of it and never have I said anything to suggest that (As Christians all historic events micro and macro events are moving toward a specific purpose).

I'm bringing up the point that atoms are impersonal entities which behave according their "inherent" properties. If you deny this, please say so. Now if the universe is comprised only of atoms (and energy - behaves uniformly also), then everything (as I've said before) is one long chain of causal events (the complexity of the composition makes no difference - it would still be involuntary). To accept this is to say that you're an evolutionist not because you chose it and I'm a Christian theist not because I chose it; that you're arguing your point not because you can help it and I'm arguing my point not because I can help but to. Do you see the problem with that. If this is so, then our discussion is utterly pointless. We would have to conclude that atoms (impersonal & lifeless) created transistors, computers, and the iPhone G3.

The science you conduct is involuntary and therefore pointless when you advocate scientific advancement.

The condemning of someone for their actions (murder, stealing, rape, torture) is involuntary (also the acts committed by the condemned) and therefore meaningless.

All the rhetoric about free thought is just a bunch of crap because in reality there can be no such thing.

butterbattle wrote:
if you cannot explain something, then it is pointless to discuss it

One would hope that atheists calculate the implications of their conclusions, but that just doesn't happen. You make a good go at trying to explain the physical aspects of the universe only to shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to explaining how science, morality, human thoughts and actions (as we observe it) are made possible in light of such conclusions.

butterbattle wrote:
Any question you might have had has probably already been answered.

I doubt it. If the question to involuntary "motion" cannot be addressed by you or anyone in this thread, what makes me think I'd find it there? In regards to radiometric dating, I've read the objections to it's reliability. I just want to know your personal scientific take on it.

butterbattle wrote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. - Marcus Aurelius

(1) Was Marcus Aurelius an atheist?

(2) He persecuted Christians didn't he?

(3) Virtues? Noble Life? Just and Unjust? Where's his master list or is this just his personal opinion (I mean he makes it sound as if everyone in the entire world knows what's virtuous, noble, just and unjust and that they're universals)?

(4) Is "To have one's noble life live on in the memories of loved ones" something one should strive for? Is this a UNIVERSAL good?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REGARDING: Two hour video from Ken

SO GUYS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT KEN MILLER?

AS A CHRISTIAN, THE BIBLE'S CLEAR. EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS TRUE. I CERTAINLY CAN'T AGREE WITH HIS IMPLICATION THAT TO BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM IS ANTI-SCIENCE.

REGARDING OTHER god(s) I WON'T RESPOND TO IT HERE. BUT THE QUESTION TO YOU ALL IS, CAN A god EXIST ALONG SIDE EVOLUTION? HOW ABOUT IT?

________________________________________________________

TO KIRBY: I'M STILL (SLOWLY) REVIEWING THE SOURCES YOU PROVIDED.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ken Miller is a devout

BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:SO

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

SO GUYS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT KEN MILLER?

AS A CHRISTIAN, THE BIBLE'S CLEAR. EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS TRUE. I CERTAINLY CAN'T AGREE WITH HIS IMPLICATION THAT TO BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN CREATIONISM IS ANTI-SCIENCE.

REGARDING OTHER god(s) I WON'T RESPOND TO IT HERE. BUT THE QUESTION TO YOU ALL IS, CAN A god EXIST ALONG SIDE EVOLUTION? HOW ABOUT IT?

________________________________________________________

TO KIRBY: I'M STILL (SLOWLY) REVIEWING THE SOURCES YOU PROVIDED.

Since the Christian God is plainly contradictory to logic and reason, and Christian Creationism contradicts all we have found from studying the ultimate reference, ie, the Universe of reality, your position is an absurdity. All you have to support your position is a confused, inconsistent collection of writings of people from thousands of years ago who weren't even in the forefront of knowledge at the time, basing their ideas on imperfect copying from earlier civilizations. You also display a complete lack of understanding of what science has shown us, and attempt to use your inability to understand all the evidence and arguments we have presented as 'proof' that we are deeply mistaken...

One could always postulate a 'God' that managed to conceal explicit evidence of his existence, although any attributes of infinite extent or degree would make such a thing highly implausible and contradictory to all established knowledge and logic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The bible was written more

The bible was written more than a thousand years before the scientific revolution. It's not a source for scientific information. I wouldn't say it's anti-science so much as it has nothing to do with science at all.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Ken Miller is a devout Christian????

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ken Miller is a devout Christian

http://www.amazon.ca/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497

According to Scripture? Himself? Others like him who pick and choose from the Bible what they want to believe?

You should show me where the Scripture claims the universe to exist outside of God's CREATION of it in 6 days.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Bob claims to KNOW more than he's allowed

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since the Christian God is plainly contradictory to logic and reason, and Christian Creationism contradicts all we have found from studying the ultimate reference, ie, the Universe of reality, your position is an absurdity.

 

How did you come across the conclusion that logic and reason are contradicted? Did you conduct an experiment involving a god and seeing whether logic/reason could simultaneously exist to infer from this experiment that the Christian God’s existence would contradict logic/reason? What is it in the physical universe that you observed that caused you conclude that the CG cannot exist? Is it because all you see around you is either matter or energy? Isn’t that just begging the question Bob? How could you see and handle that which is non physical? To have done that would be to disprove the Christian claim outright. Empirical methods excludes you from KNOWING such things. Empirical methods excludes you from knowing many things that you think you know to be true; including the claim itself that all knowledge can only be what is empirically verifiable or inferred from empirical verification. You refute yourself in your prejudice against Christianity.

 

But don’t worry, I know you were born about 2000 years after God in the form of Jesus Christ performed all His miracles at which time would have been empirically verified, if you live long enough to witness his coming in judgment, it’ll be observable and empirical. If you don’t however; you’ll find out personally whether He’s real or not.

 

Now I’ve presented the problem of your view of the universe and you have yet to respond properly to it. You’ve like many here have continually dodged the most obvious logical conclusion of a physical only universe subject to immutable laws; one long chain of INVOLUNTARY motion. Meaning everything you and I are doing is not really our doing. I’m not in control of my thoughts and actions anymore than you are of your thoughts and actions. The iPhone G3 is the random chance result of billions of years of involuntary process/reaction on the part of atoms in motion. Where’s logic and reason here? Logic and reason become simply what is. Could you praise someone for being logical or rational if he can’t help being “logical” or “rational”? Could you fault someone for being illogical or irrational if he can’t help being those? I think you can see where this leads. Morality, the science performed, etc is also involuntary and therefore meaningless.

 

Your “atheism” contradicts logic and reason, nay makes it impossible.

 

Your theory of knowledge is ridiculous; in theory it would be impossible. Did the universe of reality “personally” tell you absolute facts about itself? Could you have misinterpreted the physical evidence around you? How would you “know” the first thing about anything? At best (a lot would have to be granted you even at this stage) you have a probable certainty. So that in the end, “atheism” should be synonymous with “uncertainty”

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
All you have to support your position is a confused, inconsistent collection of writings of people from thousands of years ago who weren't even in the forefront of knowledge at the time, basing their ideas on imperfect copying from earlier civilizations.

 

basing their ideas…imperfect copying? Is there any proof to your accusations or this nothing more than prejudicial conjecture?

 

Has anyone proven any claim found in the Bible to be untrue? You can disbelieve the miracles and the supernatural aspects of it but you can’t disprove them. Its metaphysical claims can account for human intelligence, logic, science, and morality, while I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, and have yet received a proper response, your materialist worldview’s contradictory claims – leading to the impossibility of logic science and morality.

 

To be fair I’ll refer to the following as theory: Made in the image of the triune personal God, living in a universe created and sustained by Him. “Bombarded” by His revelation in the natural realm (His providential governing) and supernaturally (through His Word – spoken, written, and living – Jesus Christ). He knows all while our knowledge is a reflective reconstruction of His primary knowledge so that being finite we can know things and not just at best possess a probable certainty of things. His sovereign governing makes the world and universe operate uniformly; so that we have what we call scientific laws. We’re given the imperative at creation to multiply, fill the earth, and have dominion over it (living and non living) so that ultimately we can manipulate the physical resources around us to create all manner of things and to know our own biology and the biology of living things around us and send people to the moon, etc. We have moral absolutes given to us to judge whether this behavior or that behavior is right or wrong, good or evil and not depended on what we ourselves might think given our personal experiences (I think I’ll be a segregist today and a communist tomorrow or a pedophile today and a homosexual tomorrow because my values are constantly changing and evolving man).

(I posted this in my thread) Regarding the laws of logic:

The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological; if they were we might have different societies that use different laws of logic. It might be appropriate in some societies to say both my car is in the parking lot and it's not the case that my car is in the parking lot. That is to say there are certain societies that have a convention that says "go ahead contradict yourselves". There are in a sense subgroups within our own society that might think that way. Thieves have a tendency to say this not my wallet but it's not the case that it's not my wallet. They might engage in contradiction like that, but I don't think any of us would want to accept it.

The laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal, they are invariant, they are not material in nature.

The laws of logic are abstract entities; non individual or universal in character they are not materialistic. As universal they are not experienced to be true, there may be experiences whereby the laws of logic are used but no one has universal experience, no has tried every possible instance of the law of logic. As invariant they don’t fit into what most materialist tells us about the constantly changing nature of the world.

In the Christian theistic worldview universal invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist.

Within the Christian theistic worldview you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it.

The question for you materialist is: How can there be laws of logic in a materialist universe and how are they justified.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You also display a complete lack of understanding of what science has shown us, and attempt to use your inability to understand all the evidence and arguments we have presented as 'proof' that we are deeply mistaken...

I think I’ve shown you plenty of the fallacious logic you guys employ. You should learn how to argue. Taking something we observe, throwing in unproven assumptions, and arriving at a conclusion that is not observed and/or so off the track of what is observed and calling this evidence and proof all the while undermining the very logic and reason that is employed in providing the proof and calling it EMPIRICAL science. I think you’re just upset because I can so easily see through all your crap and see it for what it really is.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
One could always postulate a 'God' that managed to conceal explicit evidence of his existence, although any attributes of infinite extent or degree would make such a thing highly implausible and contradictory to all established knowledge and logic.

 

Some more of your unproven pronouncements Bob? All I’m reading are your claims but nothing to back it up.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
just to keep this thread

just to keep this thread alive... I do have a response for you AiN, but it may take me a while to get it to you.  Social commitments are getting in the way.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ditto for me... 

Ditto for me...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Ditto for

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ditto for me... 

Fin?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

...but unless we observe one animal become a completely new animal, it’s going to be difficult to convince anyone (who doesn’t already assume evolution to be true) that something simple like a microbe can evolve into you or me.

 

I apologise beforehand if my attempt at humour here seems insulting but here is the problem with this argument

 

Scientist:  With our understanding of genetics and hereditary function we know that traits pass from one individual to another.  Not only that we know that these traits can alter between parent and daughter animal.  Natural selection can take hold if the new trait is advantageous and slowly the animal changes.  If we combine this with the geological/evolutionary column (which shows an increasing "complexity" in animal species) with the fact that we all share a common genetic code then we begin to see a picture of evolutionary transgression from one species to the next.  Over 3.5 billion years we've moved from microbial life to all sorts of life that we see today.

Creationist: Can you show us that happening now?  Can you show us an animal becoming another animal today?

Scientist:  As I've already pointed out, the time scales involved are massive.  3.5 billion years.  The transition between species, as we've defined them, is glacial in pace and certainly something we could only see the first inklings of in our lifetime, like bacteria developing the ability to digest nylon.  It's the first step in a long chain.

Creationist:  But that's bacteria becoming bacteria.  If you can't provide me with an example of a duck becoming a dog in the past 100 years - which is after all only 0.000003% of your time scale - then I'm afraid I'm going to find it difficult to follow your logical train of thought.

 

But of course, you've already tried to deflect the time scale argument by trying to attack radiometric dating as a fundamentally flawed process...

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You’ll going from something observed that shows a gull for example not being able to breed with another similar looking gull, assuming million/billions of years using questionable techniques to produce that “evidence” (radiometric dating - eventually using this assumption to further date other physical evidence. To me you’re simply compounding “errors&rdquoEye-wink to conclude that you and I evolved from a microbe. That’s a huge “blind” leap and all the while you’re dressing it up as “real” science...


...(1) I’ve asked Bob to demonstrate how radiometric dating can be reliable. Not to hide any of the difficulties involved (assumptions that have to be made in the process); to explain the variances we often get (huge variances) and why we can’t correctly date the age of things we know the actually age of using these methods. He hasn’t given any demonstration yet. 

(2) I’ve made the objection regarding everything in the universe to be nothing more than matter in motion (involuntary thoughts/behaviors on the part of humans); that it is logically deduced from a materialist universe. Of course you can relieve yourself of this objection if you confess either (a) that the laws of physics, chemistry, etc are not immutable but what would that do to your empirical science? (I'm not in anyway denying science or anything stupid like that; I'm simply asking whether your view of the universe can even account for science) or (b) human thoughts and actions are ultimately involuntary.

 

Ok.  Point (1).

The two links you provided are to www.earthage.org and AnswersInGenesis.  I'd like to point out that both of these pages have a blatant agenda.  They're trying to prove that the earth fits in with a biblical account.  Of course they'll attack anything that disagrees with them.  Furthermore, anyone who discusses science and references non-peer reviewed journals (such as Creation Science journals) can't be considered to be unbiased.  The whole point of peer review and the scientific process is it discusses facts without personal bias.

 

However for the sake of discussion, and because you've been civil AiN, I shall deal with these in all seriousness.  I'll start with the earth age page.

 

They have three bones of contention with radiometric dating

  1. The rate of decay remaining constant (they accept this point thankfull)

  2. Problems with knowing the original amount of a daughter element

  3. The sample has remained in a closed system.

 

Problem with knowing the original amount of daughter element

The articles states that a "The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some of the daughter element was present when the rock solidified... however, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us they've solved this problem".

Why yes they have by using isochron dating, such as is used heavily in the lead-lead dating process.  This isn't some ridiculous or snide attempt at making a "guess".  This is a valid mathematical tool which, through the use of stable and radioactive isotope ratios, allows the determination of the age of a rock without having to make any assumptions about the daughter element.

Are you satisfied with that?  Or do you have some valid concern with the method that isn't the website's dismissive line of "a few scientists are telling us..." which is laden with the implicit assertion that only a small section of the community feel this way?

 

The problem with a closed system

Here the article begins to trump up the fact that systems can be contaminated and interfered with if they aren't closed.  Of course they can.  That's why scientists use large sample sets to get an average value for something, which may contain statistical outliers, and will also quote the error associated with that value.  Systems aren't perfect.

The real problem with this section is the continued criticism of the K-Ar dating method.  This web-site and many others references studies performed on volcanic rocks known to be anywhere from 50 to 10,000 years old and then throw out the K-Ar numbers obtained in a triumphant "Look the scientists got it wrong!  Aren't they teh SuxXOrs! Lol!!!1!".

What they don't tell you is that these samples were collected by the interested creation scientists and handed to the lab involved as a blind test.  The lab performs the tests, gives the wrong values and everyone goes home feeling smug.  What they don't tell you is that the K-Ar test has a lower limit of about 250,000 years.  The following chart shows the decay profile for K40 from 100% to 0 (I've mislabelled the y axis as % argon, it should be % potassium)

For us to drop from 100% K to 99.99% K on this profile takes just over 200,000 years.  How do you expect a method with this lower limit of accuracy to be able to correctly date the rocks in question?  You can't.  That doesn't mean that radiometric dating is inaccurate, it means the teams involved had been fooled into using the wrong test.

All this website goes to prove is that mishandling of scientific data and abuse of the method can give you the answer you're looking for.  It says nothing for the truth.

If you're looking for information on radiodating, find someone more reliable.

 

So what about the answersingenesis page?  This deals with the notion that C-14 exists in coal which is taken to be millions of years old and therefore C-14 dating of other things like biological matter can't be taken as accurate i.e. "If the half life is 5,700 years how come it's billions of years old?  Creation FTW!".  What AiG conveniently ignore is the possibility that the C-14 present has been created by bacterial life-forms living in the coal or, as it seems in some cases, the formation of C-14 due to the breakdown of high concentrations of radioactive materials nearby.  Both valid explanations for the presence of "40,000 year old" carbon in coal that's much older than that.

 

 

 

So point (2).

Yes, I firmly believe we have no free will.  I would discuss more but I actually have to do some work.  I'll come back to this.

 

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ditto for me... 

Fin?

No I was referring to MichaelMcF's intention to rspond when time permitted.

Sorry I should have made it clearer.

I am currently composing what I do intend to be my final response...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since the Christian God is plainly contradictory to logic and reason, and Christian Creationism contradicts all we have found from studying the ultimate reference, ie, the Universe of reality, your position is an absurdity.

How did you come across the conclusion that logic and reason are contradicted? Did you conduct an experiment involving a god and seeing whether logic/reason could simultaneously exist to infer from this experiment that the Christian God’s existence would contradict logic/reason?What is it in the physical universe that you observed that caused you conclude that the CG cannot exist? Is it because all you see around you is either matter or energy? Isn’t that just begging the question Bob? How could you see and handle that which is non physical? To have done that would be to disprove the Christian claim outright. Empirical methods excludes you from KNOWING such things. Empirical methods excludes you from knowing many things that you think you know to be true; including the claim itself that all knowledge can only be what is empirically verifiable or inferred from empirical verification. You refute yourself in your prejudice against Christianity.

 

But don’t worry, I know you were born about 2000 years after God in the form of Jesus Christ performed all His miracles at which time would have been empirically verified, if you live long enough to witness his coming in judgment, it’ll be observable and empirical. If you don’t however; you’ll find out personally whether He’s real or not.

 

 

 

Assuming the existence of a being with infinite attributes is inherently illogical and beyond reason. Assuming with certainty that Jesus actually existed and preformed miracles based on no more than words that have been translated and copied many times over the intervening millennia is much sillier than believing that most of science is wrong.

All I see around is matter and energy, arranged and interacting in all but infinitely grand and subtle and complex ways that give rise to the terrible and wonderful world of reality. The total absence of and absurdity of God is something I am deeply aware of everyday when I contemplate existence.

There is literally nothing in our understanding of the Universe which is consistent with the existence of such an entity, it is so totally beyond anything we observe or have any evidence for, directly or indirectly, therefore proposing the existence of such a thing is utterly illogical. Science is not BANNED from studying anything which impinges on the natural world in any consistent way. You are the one begging the question. You are the one with the obligation to demonstrate that God exists.

How do you justify such a thing? What could in turn create such a being, if you see it is somehow necessary to create our more humble existence? If it cannot be known from observation and study of reality by our senses and our instruments, then there is no way to KNOW anything about it, it must remain purely in the realm of imagination, of speculation, the fundamentally empty and delusional realm of pure faith.

There is no way to 'disprove the Christian claim outright' when that claim includes such gratuitous assumptions. Why does this God no longer find it necessary to demonstrate its existence in the spectacular ways it is reported to have done in Biblical times? How damn convenient for your argument.

If you could appreciate or understand just how much science has been able to establish with a high degree of certainty that is profoundly beyond our direct physical senses, from the world of sub-atomic particles and Quantum Mechanics, to the billions of incredibly distant galaxies that we now have actual sample images of, the imprint in the sky of the cataclysmic event that was the emergence of our Universe, and so on, concepts and facts about reality that the writers of the Gospels had not the faintest suspicion of, you would realize why I see your claim that somehow Science has overlooked evidence for the God you claim to KNOW.

Quote:

 

 

Now I’ve presented the problem of your view of the universe and you have yet to respond properly to it. You’ve like many here have continually dodged the most obvious logical conclusion of a physical only universe subject to immutable laws; one long chain of INVOLUNTARY motion. Meaning everything you and I are doing is not really our doing. I’m not in control of my thoughts and actions anymore than you are of your thoughts and actions. The iPhone G3 is the random chance result of billions of years of involuntary process/reaction on the part of atoms in motion. Where’s logic and reason here? Logic and reason become simply what is. Could you praise someone for being logical or rational if he can’t help being “logical” or “rational”? Could you fault someone for being illogical or irrational if he can’t help being those? I think you can see where this leads. Morality, the science performed, etc is also involuntary and therefore meaningless.

I and others have responded in depth to your naked assertions and arguments from ignorance, stlll waiting for an actual argument.

You have not only not demonstrated how the incredible complexity and subtlety of the physical structure of living organisms cannot give rise to the things and attributes you list, you have failed to show how you have offered a coherent alternative that amounts to anything more than magic.

Meaning is in the mind of the individual contemplating it.

Quote:
 

Your “atheism” contradicts logic and reason, nay makes it impossible.

Your theory of knowledge is ridiculous; in theory it would be impossible. Did the universe of reality “personally” tell you absolute facts about itself? Could you have misinterpreted the physical evidence around you? How would you “know” the first thing about anything? At best (a lot would have to be granted you even at this stage) you have a probable certainty. So that in the end, “atheism” should be synonymous with “uncertainty”

 

You have it backwards, based on the false requirement that all knowledge requires certainty, proof (in the sense of 100%).

It is religious belief based on revelation and faith that is requires an assumption that your finite mind is infallible and capable of directly apprehending absolute truth.

Yes, it is true that understanding derived from empirical observation and experiments is inevitably tentative and conditional, but your assumption that you have access to 'certain' knowledge is so utterly unwarranted and arrogant.

All you have are ideas and feelings and the very useful but very fallible faculty of intuition. Your uncertainty level, apart from the fact that you have certain thoughts and experiences is all but 100% uncertainty, by logic.

Whereas we have the humility to recognize that in many cases, the answer is simply "We don't know".

It is all but impossible to predict in advance, logically and mathematically, the most significant attributes that may be displayed by even the simplest of composite structures, based purely on the properties of the elements of which it is composed, such predicting the possibility and properties of a water molecule, let alone those of a bulk quantity of water, from the known attributes and laws applying to electrons, protons and neutrons.

Since we have all but infinite examples of such emergent properties from even simple composite entities, at all levels of complexity from quarks to cells, the fact that "the whole can be much more than the sum of its parts" is thoroughly established.

So the idea that you can confidently categorize as 'silly' the concept of something as lowly as a mouse evolving over a long series of incremental steps from a population of singe cells has no logical foundation, If you wish to provide a strictly logical counter-argument, please oblige with something more than your argument from personal inc. You are committing the logical fallacy of composition.

Quote:
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
All you have to support your position is a confused, inconsistent collection of writings of people from thousands of years ago who weren't even in the forefront of knowledge at the time, basing their ideas on imperfect copying from earlier civilizations.

basing their ideas…imperfect copying? Is there any proof to your accusations or this nothing more than prejudicial conjecture?

 

Close to proof - many similarities to earlier traditions is pretty strong.

Quote:
 

Has anyone proven any claim found in the Bible to be untrue? You can disbelieve the miracles and the supernatural aspects of it but you can’t disprove them. Its metaphysical claims can account for human intelligence, logic, science, and morality, while I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, and have yet received a proper response, your materialist worldview’s contradictory claims – leading to the impossibility of logic science and morality.

 

 

The creation story is wildly inconsistent with modern knowledge and observation.

The Flood and the unavoidable effects on the human family tree and plant and animal distribution and inheritance are thoroughly contradicted by many genetic studies.  

Etc. etc.

Quote:
 

 

To be fair I’ll refer to the following as theory: Made in the image of the triune personal God, living in a universe created and sustained by Him. “Bombarded” by His revelation in the natural realm (His providential governing) and supernaturally (through His Word – spoken, written, and living – Jesus Christ). He knows all while our knowledge is a reflective reconstruction of His primary knowledge so that being finite we can know things and not just at best possess a probable certainty of things. His sovereign governing makes the world and universe operate uniformly; so that we have what we call scientific laws. We’re given the imperative at creation to multiply, fill the earth, and have dominion over it (living and non living) so that ultimately we can manipulate the physical resources around us to create all manner of things and to know our own biology and the biology of living things around us and send people to the moon, etc. We have moral absolutes given to us to judge whether this behavior or that behavior is right or wrong, good or evil and not depended on what we ourselves might think given our personal experiences (I think I’ll be a segregist today and a communist tomorrow or a pedophile today and a homosexual tomorrow because my values are constantly changing and evolving man).

 

 

All of that is just Christian doctrine with no warrant other than faith, which could equally well 'support' any other idea you pull out of your rearend.

Quote:
 

 

(I posted this in my thread) Regarding the laws of logic:

The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological; if they were we might have different societies that use different laws of logic. It might be appropriate in some societies to say both my car is in the parking lot and it's not the case that my car is in the parking lot. That is to say there are certain societies that have a convention that says "go ahead contradict yourselves". There are in a sense subgroups within our own society that might think that way. Thieves have a tendency to say this not my wallet but it's not the case that it's not my wallet. They might engage in contradiction like that, but I don't think any of us would want to accept it.

The laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal, they are invariant, they are not material in nature.

The laws of logic are abstract entities; non individual or universal in character they are not materialistic. As universal they are not experienced to be true, there may be experiences whereby the laws of logic are used but no one has universal experience, no has tried every possible instance of the law of logic. As invariant they don’t fit into what most materialist tells us about the constantly changing nature of the world.

In the Christian theistic worldview universal invariant abstract entities such as the laws of logic can exist.

Within the Christian theistic worldview you cannot contradict yourself because to so do you engage in the nature of lying and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it.

The question for you materialist is: How can there be laws of logic in a materialist universe and how are they justified.

 

 

A consistent coherent structure to the basic elements of existence are an essential pre-requisite for any coherent reality, even a 'supernatural' one. And thats is why we can formulate such laws - they follow from the most basic tenet of existence, that existence can be partitioned into at least one entity and that which is not that entity. So a such a basic 'reality', supernatural or not must exist before a 'God', so Ge cannot be the origin of them.

Quote:
 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You also display a complete lack of understanding of what science has shown us, and attempt to use your inability to understand all the evidence and arguments we have presented as 'proof' that we are deeply mistaken...

I think I’ve shown you plenty of the fallacious logic you guys employ. You should learn how to argue. Taking something we observe, throwing in unproven assumptions, and arriving at a conclusion that is not observed and/or so off the track of what is observed and calling this evidence and proof all the while undermining the very logic and reason that is employed in providing the proof and calling it EMPIRICAL science. I think you’re just upset because I can so easily see through all your crap and see it for what it really is.

 

 

You have used no logic here at all, in the strict sense, just a series of claims, non-sequiters, and fallacies.

Quote:
 

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
One could always postulate a 'God' that managed to conceal explicit evidence of his existence, although any attributes of infinite extent or degree would make such a thing highly implausible and contradictory to all established knowledge and logic.

Some more of your unproven pronouncements Bob? All I’m reading are your claims but nothing to back it up.

My 'pronouncements' are not strictly proven, but yours and the Bible are vastly further from that ideal than mine. 

Don't be surprised if I don't make any more responses to you, at least in the near future, you seem totally blind to reason.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply To MichaelMcF Post#63

MichaelMcF wrote:
The two links you provided are to www.earthage.org and AnswersInGenesis.  I'd like to point out that both of these pages have a blatant agenda.  They're trying to prove that the earth fits in with a biblical account...

Michael, you insult me by suggesting that you are neutral in this discussion. No one is neutral in this discussion. You either come to the table an atheist or not. Whatever objection is thrown at you, as an atheist you spin it to make it fit your own beliefs. AnswersInGenesis doesn’t hide the fact that they have a Christian outlook of things; they emphasize the fact over and over again. Are you saying that all you find on their website are lies?

Open you eyes to the fact that the evidence is there for both of us to examine. You as an atheist will interpret the evidence according to your presuppositions and we as Christians will interpret the evidence according to our presuppositions. All that you wrote seems very intelligent, but as soon as AIG is confronted with it, they’ll in turn write back with something that contradicts your objection and it’ll go back and forth like this. As long as we (you and I) have presuppositions (we always will), we will not be convinced by one another. People are converted, not persuaded, when they become Christian (really saved).

What I’ve been trying to do is to have you see the ridiculous conclusions of your presuppositions. Evolution lives on your presuppositions. It dies on ours. Lets see who’s presupposition best fits what we observe in the world and is not internally contradictory (your epistemology, view of logic, and reality as whole).

We observe human intelligence, rationality, argumentation, caring for one another, love for one another, hatred of things we deem wrong or evil, desire for truth and the avoidance of falsehood) What are these things from a materialist point of view? Indigestion? Heart burn?

By the way Creationist scientists are scientists also. Being a scientist doesn’t equate to being an evolutionist. Being Christian or by default a "creationist" doesn't make us anti-science (we just claim ethics touches every major aspect of our lives including our scientific endeavors - so no to embryonic stem cell research, no to teaching people they're nothing but animals and punish them when they act like animals, etc). You haven't made the statement outright, but it's implied in your writings.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Yes, I firmly believe we have no free will
Please define what you mean by free will. Not with more words that I may misinterpret. Give me examples; be as specific as you can. Like does no free will mean everything you do is involuntary (even if it means you think you’re making the choice – but it’s not really you deciding – again only the illusion of it – consciousness itself is involuntary)? If this is the case, what makes our discussion have any meaning? If you say something about conditioning and so forth, according to the above condition the conditioner is not really choosing to condition (what he does is involuntary also). 

Is the above what you mean by no free will? If not, explain how an alternative position is possible if only physical things exist and physical things must do what they do no matter how complex the “configuration” of matter & energy.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to BobSpence1 Post#65

BobSpence1 wrote:
...Assuming...I am deeply aware of...I contemplate...

Did you do these things voluntarily or involuntarily?

BobSpence1 wrote:
You are the one with the obligation to demonstrate that God exists.

I have Bob in a few ways by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions of your materialist presuppositions. Undermining logic, rationality, morality, science (which you hold so dear).

Admit that everything you've done in life is involuntary and I'll confess that your arguments are logical.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What could in turn create such a being...gratuitous assumptions

Are we talking about the same God?

Yeah Bob, you keep on making YOUR assumptions and unproven pronouncements, and you continue to tell us of your experiments on gods, because you're very good at it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
If you could appreciate or understand just how much science has been able to establish with a high degree of certainty that is profoundly beyond our direct physical senses, from the world of sub-atomic particles and Quantum Mechanics, to the billions of incredibly distant galaxies that we now have actual sample images of

Have I denied science Bob? You make me laugh man. Like I've said, We don't need to believe that microbes evolved into "homo sapiens" to do chemistry or physics, or study biology and invent things. The difference is, you're billions of years from being a monkey like animal and having done everything involuntarily while I am created with intellect, personality and justification for being a scientist if I choose to.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I and others have responded in depth to your naked assertions and arguments from ignorance, stlll waiting for an actual argument.

No you haven't Bob, I mean really no you haven't. You claimed it to be irrelevant and left it at that.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You have not only not demonstrated how the incredible complexity and subtlety of the physical structure of living organisms cannot give rise to the things and attributes you list, you have failed to show how you have offered a coherent alternative that amounts to anything more than magic.

You're the science fanatic. Aren't you suppose to show me how it works in the lab? Everyone KNOWS that matter & energy and nothing else cannot give rise to the intelligence that even you exhibit Bob. It's you who has to prove it empirically because you're the one who's advocating empirical verification and all the rest. Claiming it and concluding what you claim is is not empirical evidence. I believe it to be impossible; that's why no can create life from missing around with matter and energy; Life only begets life. Nothing the Scripture claims regarding God is incoherent, it's disliked but not incoherent. What's contradictory is all things physical and operating uniformly (no matter how complex) yet can make "decisions"? Only the involuntary and illusory type. My offer still stands Bob,Admit that everything you've done in life is involuntary and I'll confess that your arguments are logical.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Meaning is in the mind of the individual contemplating it.

I'm glad you've provided us the answer. Meaning is meaning; contemplation is contemplation. Now where does matter fit in all this? You're the empirical science fanatic, are you suppose to show me something in the lab?

BobSpence1 wrote:
You have it backwards, based on the false requirement that all knowledge requires certainty, proof (in the sense of 100%).

So you're not certain of the things you claim, there is the possibility that you're wrong?

BobSpence1 wrote:
but your assumption that you have access to 'certain' knowledge is so utterly unwarranted and arrogant.

Because God knows everything, He alone can reveal to us absolute truth; I don't see any contradiction there.

But because you don't know everything and do not know someone who does, and haven't experienced every thing in the universe, how would you know that the evidence in a sample (even if it's a large sample) is interpreted correctly or the methods used were correct. In theory you wouldn't know, not even that the physical world is uniform to even began conducting experiments.

BobSpence1 wrote:
...ideas...ideas...humility...thoughts...

what are these things? indigestion? some bioelectrical process in the body?

BobSpence1 wrote:
logical fallacy of composition.

Is that something that can be surgically removed and/or reproduced inside me (on the physical level)?

BobSpence1 wrote:
The creation story is wildly inconsistent with modern knowledge and observation. The Flood and the unavoidable effects on the human family tree and plant and animal distribution and inheritance are thoroughly contradicted by many genetic studies.

No it's not Bob. I suppose if it's done by atheists, they can manipulate the conclusion to convince atheists. Christians can just as easily explain it from their perspective and make it convincing to Christians. Presuppositions Bob.

BobSpence1 wrote:
My 'pronouncements' are not strictly proven, but yours and the Bible are vastly further from that ideal than mine. 

Don't be surprised if I don't make any more responses to you, at least in the near future, you seem totally blind to reason.

Yes Bob, you make a lot of unproven pronouncements throughout this post and all your previous posts. I on the other hand have given a lot of examples. You shouldn't be allowed to simply make claims and not prove them scientifically, you'd contradict yourself and have.

Again, you haven't answered my objection and have just constantly showed me that you blindly believe the "authority" of others without experiencing the claims yourself and somehow this is empirical verification or even inferred from?

Yeah, you didn't expect this did you?

Usually the materialist claim on knowledge is everything that is empirically verifiable or inferred from empirical verification. But you haven't empirically verified or can infer from what you haven't personally verified empirically all things you claim to know.

Huge contradiction dawg.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:some bioelectrical

 

Quote:
some bioelectrical process in the body?

This is Consciousness here, we've got Consciousness here folks!

Seriously though, the argument for Free will is unprovable either way as to prove such would require Time Travel with the ability to remain perfectly intangibile from the time you are travelling to. Otherwise a different 'choice' could be chalked up to little more than miniscule differences in the locations of electrical charges in the neurochemistry of the brain which sprial out of control and culminate in vastly different outcomes via chaos theory.
After all, even if you theoretically could have chosen a different path, you have no possible way of knowing this, without the aforementioned time travel, and thus you effectively don't have free will.

Involuntary is an interesting choice of words for it, however if you mean involuntary in that, no matter how many times we ran a scenario, as long as every single aspect of it were perfectly identical to the proceeding run of the scenario, the outcome would remain the same, then yes, I do think my actions are 'involuntary'. This of course does not diminish my sense of worth or purpose, nor does it make consciousness impossible, and I have provided a citation that explains this, alongside numerous citations that explain radiometric dating, in my big sentance o' links, which you of course ignored.

Effectively though, we do witness a gradual increase in the complexity of the brain, from simple sensory systems and nervous systems, up to the complex workings of the human brain. We note less advanced forms of consciousness in some animals, and in some primates we note relatively advanced forms of consciousness. Furthermore, it is an easily demonstrated fact that human children are suprisingly like the children of less advanced apes, which should be no suprise given that we are apes.

Now then, if you think consciousness comes from some external source, then explain why brain damage can change a person's personality, or destroy specific memories, or specific ranges of memories, or impair motor functions. Explain what actual empirical evidence you have for a 'soul' or whatever other intangibile source of consciousness you have.

Quote:
Everyone KNOWS that matter & energy and nothing else cannot give rise to the intelligence that even you exhibit Bob.

Really? How, and Why can it not.
Modern computers are capable of making amazingly complex calculations simple, and AI, even in video games, is becoming quite complex These computers are quickly developping towards consciousness. We have robots that can teach themselves to walk and to interact with their environment. The only advantage biological brains have are morphability, the ability to construct new pathways independently of an external designing agent, unless you think god hand programs every human, and hand 'patches' our operating systems whenever we gain a new memory. Mechanical computers as we know them today may never reach this level, as their hardware is composed of molecules which cannot replicate themselves, however this is by no means a certain impossibility. I personally think that with the advent of reliable nano-mechanical robotics we will be able to create computers that can literally build themselves, thus also being able to repair themselves and adapt their hardware to their current situation, ie; evolve.

Quote:
I have Bob in a few ways by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions of your materialist presuppositions. Undermining logic, rationality, morality, science (which you hold so dear).

False Dichotomy, the inconsistencies in the materialist presuppositions clearly indicate that all should pledge their eternal soul in service of Melancholism and dedicate their lives to the holy task of ensuring god never realizes who she is, or you will all face the torture of divine boredom, as is recorded in the holy writings of the Apostle and Prophet; Kyon, who gave his eternal restfulness and sacrificed himself to an eternity of hyperactivity the likes of which have never been known, by becoming God's Boyfriend.

Furthermore, what exactly does Materialism and its supposed flaws have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
If Evolution requires Materialism, why do so many Christians accept it?
This is one of the many Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, I believe it is the second Falsehood. Remember that series of videos I suggested at the start of the thread? This is why I suggested you watch them.

Also, if you want, The Tenth Video lays out the entire evolutionary history of humanity, and in many ways demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.
I'm guessing you will ignore this, despite it only being around 10 minutes long, but I'm willing to admit I could be wrong if you are willing to admit you could be wrong, and are willing to actually watch the video and try to learn something about the subject you so passionately argue against.

This video goes in depth to display how we know how old our world, and universe, is
He also has a channel which debunks various lies and misinformation, unoriginally named potholer54debunks

I need to go to sleep now, so I am going to end this post, just one more point;
Quote:
Because God knows everything, He alone can reveal to us absolute truth; I don't see any contradiction there.

The problem is that you cannot prove that you have a direct line to god, so how can you be sure you have had 'absolute truth' revealed to you?
Furthermore, you derided Ken Miller earlier by describing him as someone who 'picks and chooses from the bible'. So I can assume this means you do not pick and choose from the bible. So when was the last time you stoned someone for working on Sunday? Or maybe Saturday, which was it?

 

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Michael, you insult me by suggesting that you are neutral in this discussion. No one is neutral in this discussion. You either come to the table an atheist or not. Whatever objection is thrown at you, as an atheist you spin it to make it fit your own beliefs. AnswersInGenesis doesn’t hide the fact that they have a Christian outlook of things; they emphasize the fact over and over again. Are you saying that all you find on their website are lies?

 

Wrong.  I came to this table as a scientist.  This is a science forum.  As a scientist I have never given any consideration to god in my work or in the work of other scientists.  My concern is with the validity and truth of a presented hypothesis.  I don't filter anything.  I present my work to a panel of my peers and give them all the opportunity to repeat and test it.  If it fails I retract my work and try something new.  I expand knowledge.  AIG are solely concerned with god and proving that current theories which don't fit with the bible are wrong.  Their "scientists" don't provide any new research, nor do they expand our understanding.  They simply attack what they see as opposing theories with obfuscation and trickery.  I don't see lies on their site, just mangled science.

 

But to the matter in hand.  You asked questions on evolution and I answered them.  You then raised questions on radiometric dating and I answered them.  I note however that, even though you insisted that Bob and anyone else answer your claims on radiometric dating, you have yet to give your own rebuttal to those answers. 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

All that you wrote seems very intelligent, but as soon as AIG is confronted with it, they’ll in turn write back with something that contradicts your objection and it’ll go back and forth like this.

 

This sir is not an answer.  You demanded I address your concerns about radiometric dating and I have.  Waving away what I've said as seeming intelligent but "I'm sure someone else will have an answer and you can debate them" is cheap and intellectually shallow when you've entered a debate.  Either address my answers or admit you don't have a rebuttal, instead of coming back with these tired claims:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Open you eyes to the fact that the evidence is there for both of us to examine. You as an atheist will interpret the evidence according to your presuppositions and we as Christians will interpret the evidence according to our presuppositions...

...As long as we (you and I) have presuppositions (we always will), we will not be convinced by one another. People are converted, not persuaded, when they become Christian (really saved)

 

Here's the thing about presuppositions.  A presupposition is an implicit assumption contained in a statement or a belief.  Presuppositional apologetics centers around the claim that the existence or non-existence of god is the basis for all human thought.  We don't believe in god therefore we can interpret the evidence without reference to his work.  This is what you're getting at yes?  I'm going to enlist Edmund Blackadder to help me on this one.

 

Edmund: ... you see there was a tiny flaw in the plan

George:  What was that sir?

Edmund:  It was bollocks

 

The problem is it means creation scientists are bad scientists.  The "presupposition" that god created the world puts the scientist into the position of having a conclusion before he's gathered any evidence.  Everything he does has already been answered by the phrase "God did it".  His job is to filter the evidence so that it matches the answer.  That is horrible science.

If we go with the "presupposition" that the world was not created as stated in the bible then what are we left with?  We are left with the question "how does the world work?".  The "atheist presupposition" that you like to argue for simply removes conclusions from our quest for knowledge.  The questions we are left with is slowly answered by formulating hypotheses, performing experiment to determine if there is evidence, and keeping them only if we see evidence for them.  If another mind comes along to further the work he may be making some assumptions based on previous work but those assumptions are based upon a weight of evidence that has been tried and tested.

I'll even give you an example of how it works.

Geology as we know it could have toppled before it started.  Men argued that the processes that formed our world would take more than 100,00 years.  100,00 years!!! Madness!  Calculation showed that the world would have lost all its heat in that time so the idea was preposterous.  So an idea is formulated:  the only way the world could be that old is if there were some mechanism that would continually provide heat.  If there was no mechanism there was no long-scale geology.  The great Lord Kelvin - a man I regard as a scientific hero -  knew it and rubbished the idea of an ancient world.

No-one made up a mechanism to provide heat to the world.  They couldn't.  It was found.  We discovered radioactive decay, a process that irrefutably provides heat to our planet.  It then logically followed that the earth could be millions of years old.  There's no denying this.  Please explain to me now why the "presupposition" that the world is millions of years old is ridiculous.

 

At this time I'd like to note that the scientific quest for truth does not completely exclude god.  I and many others are atheists because we have found no rational evidence for god so far.  If, in our ongoing quest for knowledge and truth, testable evidence is put forth for the existence of god then we won't recoil in horror put our hands over our ears and say "la la la la laaaaaaaaaaa God isn't true I can't hear you!".  Instead we will test the evidence and, if it stands to logical scrutiny, it will be accepted.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What I’ve been trying to do is to have you see the ridiculous conclusions of your presuppositions.

 

And you have so far failed.  Please provide a rebuttal to my answers on your concerns regarding radiometric dating, or concede that you can't.

 

Again, I'm writing this at work so I'll leave it here.  If you can provide some honest debate or admissions to the above concerns then I'll find the time to address your questions on "free will".

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO SINPHANIUS

Sinphanius wrote:
Involuntary is an interesting choice of words for it, however if you mean involuntary in that, no matter how many times we ran a scenario, as long as every single aspect of it were perfectly identical to the proceeding run of the scenario, the outcome would remain the same, then yes, I do think my actions are 'involuntary'.

Does everyone here agree with this?

If so then we're done with any discussion here. Everything that has occurred has so out of our control. My decision to exit this discussion (If I "choose" to) would have been out of my control. All your arguing and presenting of "evidence" would have been out of your control. The science you conduct in the lab and out in the field would have been out of your control. The invention of the transistor, CPU's, iPhone G3's would've been out of our control. Everything that happens after this will continue to be out of our control.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:
Involuntary is an interesting choice of words for it, however if you mean involuntary in that, no matter how many times we ran a scenario, as long as every single aspect of it were perfectly identical to the proceeding run of the scenario, the outcome would remain the same, then yes, I do think my actions are 'involuntary'.

Does everyone here agree with this?

If so then we're done with any discussion here. Everything that has occurred has so out of our control. My decision to exit this discussion (If I "choose" to) would have been out of my control. All your arguing and presenting of "evidence" would have been out of your control. The science you conduct in the lab and out in the field would have been out of your control. The invention of the transistor, CPU's, iPhone G3's would've been out of our control. Everything that happens after this will continue to be out of our control.

 

If the laws of physics are true and the results we've observed in the lab in cognitive science are true, and we've got no real reason to doubt them, then I do believe that we don't have free will.  All our actions are determined by atomic processes that we've only begun to understand.

I also believe however that the vast number and complexity of these interactions makes the illusion of free will indistinguishable from the real thing.  That doesn't stop me from enjoying life.  I'm comfortable with the world I see and the choices I make, even if they are an illusion.  What would stop me enjoying life is if I were to assume that life needed to have some sort of grand cosmic purpose.... oh wait, that's what you're doing.  It's funny that we're accused of being nihilists when it's theists that throw their hands up in despair when they can't find purpose outside their own lives.

 

But tell me dear AiN, what does this have to do with the mechanism of evolution?  What does this have to say about where we came from?  What does it have to do with your objection to radiometric dating?  If you want to use this as an excuse to leave the argument because it's "pointless" then feel free to make your excuse and leave, otherwise I'd ask you one more time to extend me the same courtesy that I and others have extended to you - please address the points we've made.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Welcome back class, we

 Welcome back class, we return to our lesson, already in progress...

Quote:
If so then we're done with any discussion here. Everything that has occurred has so out of our control. My decision to exit this discussion (If I "choose" to) would have been out of my control. All your arguing and presenting of "evidence" would have been out of your control. The science you conduct in the lab and out in the field would have been out of your control. The invention of the transistor, CPU's, iPhone G3's would've been out of our control. Everything that happens after this will continue to be out of our control.

I'm glad that you concede defeat, however I am frustrated that you have, once again, ignored everything I have said. Fortunately, I had planned to expand on this point.
As I said, 'Involuntary' is an interesting choice of words, because due to the nature of biology, it is a poor choice. Effectively, humanity, and thus by extension our personalities, are little more than chemcial reactions within the system known as our nervous system, ie our brain, of which some are different, with mine being capable of killing you. As all of our thoughts and actions are the result of our neurochemistry, and our neurochemistry is 'us' so to speak, we are in effect in control of our own actions. Furthermore, to say that everything is involuntary is insulting to the complexity of our brains and the immensely vast number of variables that go into the production of even a simple conversation.
Even denying the possibility of a fundamentally indeterminant aspect of existence, minor differences in location, and by minor I mean on the molecular scale, can cause different outcomes. The reason we do still effectively have a choice is because no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to 'run the simulation again' in its perfect pristine state, something will have changed.

Ultiamtely however, this is inconsequential as even if our actions are fundamentally involuntary via their merely being the result of the internal workings of the neural system of our brain that still does not change the fact that these actions were taken and these decisions made. Furthermore, given that, in a localized sense, we are responsible for our own actions, again because of our identity as our neurochemistry, these actions are not involuntary in the traditional sense. The lack of free will and the inability to escape external influences on our actions does not deminish our lives. To quote Carl Sagan, "We are made of star stuff, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself".  

Even more ultimately however, as I said, if a fundamentally indeterminate aspect of existence, especially if this takes place on a molecular or submolecular level, could exist, which is still the case, then it is conceivably possible that there could be a fundamentally indeterminate aspect to consciousness, thus allowing for, in a sense, your beloved 'free will'. Of course this would not be a free will without qualifiers. People are influenced by their past actions, and this fact is indisputable. No one can ever take action without consulting their massive archive of memories. Even if one eventually takes a different course of action than they have ever taken before in any even slightly similar situation, this is still influenced by their past memories of those situations.

Does this diminish their choice? Would a judge accept 'Well I was just doing what I rememebered doing' as a defense to excuse personal responsibility?

Revenge of the Son of Ultiamtely, we don't know 100% either way yet, however as I said, the question of whether we have free will or not is fundamentally meaningless beyond a mere philosophical curiosity, as whether we do or not changes nothing, and is impossible to verify. 


Moving on to the subject of dating, you don't understand the basis of convergent dates.

Specifically, Radiometric dating is only on of several methods we have for dating an object, and not nearly the strongest method we have for determining a lower limit to the age of our world, or more accurately, the univerwse itself. The strongest method we have of dating the universe around is is actually triangulation, of course this only establishes a minimum age.

Triangulation is in actuality a method of determining the distance between two objects without the use of a tape measure running between the two objects. It is based on mathematics, and well understood, as it is used almost constantly somewhere on earth. The succesful use of torpedoes and missile systems during wartime is evidence of traingulation, whose effectiveness cannot be reasonably challenged.

The problem for young earth creationists like you is that we can triangulate the distance between us and other stars. The closest star, obviously not counting the sun, is a, relatively, short distance away, being merely 4.37 light years away, and being named Alpha Centauri. Because of the constant nature of the speed of light, except when measured through different mediums, as determined in Einsten's Theory of Relativity, can thus be used to determine that the minimum age of the universe, when looking only at Alpha Centauri, is a mere 4.37 years. Of course this date is meaningless as we have archaelogical evidence, and personal evidence, that it is older than that.

However when we turn our gaze towards the furthest star, we find the angles are so small we cannot use normal triangulation anymore. Instead we use what is known as Paralax, which is the apparent shift in position of a celestial object when viewed from a different location. Essentially, this itself is merely a larger version of Triangulation, with the triangle used flipped upside down and the baseline made the Earth's Orbit. This measurement system is confirmed to work up to about 400 Light Years, via measuring multiple stars and plotting them along the Main Sequence using their brightness, or luminosity, and their spectral color, which cooresponds to their actual brightness. Then by measuring the ration between their apparent luminosity on Earth and the spectral base Luminosity, and understanding how light diffuses, we can work out how far away these stars are. The furthest we have found is an amazing 3 billion light years, however this is still much closer to us than the furthest view of the universe we have, which sits at a pleasant little 15 billion light years away. This distance provides a minimum age of the universe, specifically 15 billion years.

Of course this could all be an illusion, we could live in a universe with, as many creationists like to call it, 'time built in' IE; constructed to appear older than it were. However I would have to ask why god would do something so deceptive?

Back on Earth we have many other dating methods.

I have already given you several links detailing how Radiometric Dating is in fact not inconsistent or unreliable, and others have also pointed this out alongside in depth explanations of the workings of Radiometric Dating and exposed that all of the creationist claims against these methods amount to ignorance or dishonesty. You have of course rejected all of these as merely subjective even when we can and have shown you objective evidence, so I'm not going to go into this again beyond reminding you that most christians disagree with you, every scientist disagrees with you, and even the bloody Vatican disagrees with you, alongside preachers of virtually every denomination. You won't look at any of this, therefore it is you who is closed minded.

However Radiometric Dating is not the only method of dating objects on Earth that we have. We can also dat things geologically, despite this only being comparative. Effectively, the location of Geological Strata in relation to each other can be observed, and these can be followed to other strata to dat them, resulting the Geological Column. Of course without a more definitive dating method such as Radiometric Dating, this only shows us how the layers compare, so I will move on.

The next dating technique is a simple one, one that even children understand, the dating of trees via the rings within them. Normally this can only go as far back as the tree itself, however when comparing multiple trees in the same area, one can determine the time scale even further by finding an area of one tree and comparing it to other trees with matching areas. You can arrange these in a line back as far as you can, and using the slow growing and long living Bristlecone Pine as well as massive sample sizes, you can date the earth to at least 10,000 years back, well past the supposed date of creation.

And this is why I mentioned 'Convergent' Dates at the start of this  portion.  Because they are convergent, and they all get the same ages for a single object, and place the objects we have in the same order.  Indeed, Dendochronology was one of the methods used to check the reliability of Radiometric Dating.

Of course, if you really wanted to, you, or some other creationist, could devise your own dating technique and do the experiments yourselves.  I wonder why none of them ever do, but rather spend their time flailing wildly at scientific theories they don't understand?

Of course, this is all unneeded as the Genesis fable and the world flood have been proven to be mere fiction, as evidenced by the fact that there were well developped civilizations around the world on those dates that did not maigcally apear nor magically disappear respectively.

Thank you all class, and don't forget to submit your 10 page Research Paper through the Class' Blackboard Site before 11:59:59PM tonight. No Late papers will be accepted.  See you Tomorrow.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote: Thank you

Sinphanius wrote:

 
Thank you all class, and don't forget to submit your 10 page Research Paper through the Class' Blackboard Site before 11:59:59PM tonight. No Late papers will be accepted.  See you Tomorrow.

Ah Dammit - what time zone do you mean Professor? I've got a job to get to, my significant other is very ill and my cat has gone and buried itself, can I please have an extension?

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 NEIN! NEIN NO YOU MAY

 NEIN! NEIN NO YOU MAY NOT!!!!!

...ah sure, turn it in at exactly 14:82:76 DM Martian Standard Time on the eigth day of the fifth week of Wolfmonth.

And unbury your cat.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 Non-radiometric dating

 Non-radiometric dating methods to help ascertain the actual age of the earth ?   Just throwing this out there for consideration but ...what about glaciers ?  

  Their thickness, measured in thousands of feet, has been examined through core samples. ( Consider also Antartica whose average ice thickness measures at least 1.6 kilometers. )  These samples display evidences of inumerable weather cycles due to the myriad layers that each core sample is composed of and indicate a process lasting more than the YEC Biblical account would allow for.

  How about the extremely low rate of growth for stallagmites and stallagtites ? 

Could the extremely large scale of some samples be accounted for by a measure of only 6,000 years ? ( 6,000 years being only a very short span in geological terms )

   

The growth of mountain ranges such as the Himilayas ?

Based upon current geologic data could Mt. Everest ( 29,029 ft ) in Nepal and its lesser examples have grown to such collossal altitudes in 6,000 years or less ? 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
BE MORE LIKE MichaelMcF, Sinphanius (REPLY TO # 69,71,72)

sinphanius wrote:
I'm glad that you concede defeat, however I am frustrated that you have, once again, ignored everything I have said. Fortunately, I had planned to expand on this point.

I haven’t conceded. I’m only saying if you confess that every action in the universe is involuntary” then there is no purpose to argue, debate, reason with you, because in the end all our preparation, research, “knowledge”, presenting of evidence, and arguing are all involuntarily performed. What came before and will follow after will also be involuntarily performed.

sinphanius wrote:
As I said, 'Involuntary' is an interesting choice of words, because due to the nature of biology, it is a poor choice…

Effectively, humanity, and thus by extension our personalities, are little more than chemcial reactions within the system known as our nervous system, ie our brain, of which some are different, with mine being capable of killing you. As all of our thoughts and actions are the result of our neurochemistry, and our neurochemistry is 'us' so to speak, we are in effect in control of our own actions. ..

Even more ultimately however, as I said, if a fundamentally indeterminate aspect of existence, especially if this takes place on a molecular or submolecular level, could exist, which is still the case, then it is conceivably possible that there could be a fundamentally indeterminate aspect to consciousness, thus allowing for, in a sense, your beloved 'free will'. Of course this would not be a free will without qualifiers. People are influenced by their past actions, and this fact is indisputable. No one can ever take action without consulting their massive archive of memories. Even if one eventually takes a different course of action than they have ever taken before in any even slightly similar situation, this is still influenced by their past memories of those situations.

MichaelMcF wrote:
If the laws of physics are true and the results we've observed in the lab in cognitive science are true, and we've got no real reason to doubt them, then I do believe that we don't have free will.  All our actions are determined by atomic processes that we've only begun to understand.

I also believe however that the vast number and complexity of these interactions makes the illusion of free will indistinguishable from the real thing.  That doesn't stop me from enjoying life.  I'm comfortable with the world I see and the choices I make, even if they are an illusion.  What would stop me enjoying life is if I were to assume that life needed to have some sort of grand cosmic purpose.... oh wait, that's what you're doing.  It's funny that we're accused of being nihilists when it's theists that throw their hands up in despair when they can't find purpose outside their own lives.

How is it a poor choice unless you want to confess that biology involves more than chemicals interacting. As I’ve said, there’s nothing illogical in concluding, given that everything is physical and all physical things must behave according to their “inherit properties”, that all “motion” is involuntary. What’s so funny is that you continually speak as if you do make choices voluntarily. Now given your presuppositions I can see why you would conclude this but as I keeping out this is not a logical conclusion.

You might not be conscious of this but you like most if not all atheists who argue this point propose that all things are physical and all physical things operate uniformly, throw in words like biology, neurochemistry, or what have you and conclude that all things are involuntary but at the same “voluntary”.

It’s implied in your writing that human thoughts are voluntary because we must “consult our massive archive of memories”.  But wouldn’t this consulting be involuntary as well? Come on man, be consistent in your points.

Why can’t you be more like MichaelMcF in His conclusions. According to him “we don't have free will” & “all our actions are determined by atomic processes that we’ve only begun to understand”. At least he’s suggesting that us beginning to understand it is involuntary, that him being comfortable with this is involuntary, the illusory choices he makes are involuntary, enjoying life whether it has some sort of grand cosmic purpose is involuntary, not being a nihilist is involuntary, not throwing his hands up in despair is involuntary, and so forth.

Why can’t you be more like Michael. To me he’s being consistent.

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, to say that everything is involuntary is insulting to the complexity of our brains and the immensely vast number of variables that go into the production of even a simple conversation. Even denying the possibility of a fundamentally indeterminant aspect of existence, minor differences in location, and by minor I mean on the molecular scale, can cause different outcomes. The reason we do still effectively have a choice is because no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to 'run the simulation again' in its perfect pristine state, something will have changed.

Be more like Michael. Are you suggesting that once the complexity of atomic processes reaches a certain threshold, the laws of physics and chemistry no longer apply? You know this is what you’re implying right. I know that many materialist atheists would argue that if all the conditions were known (molecularly and everything else), human behavior would be predicable.

Now I don’t see the point the of the last sentence I quoted of yours. You do still believe that if all the conditions (internally and externally) were met that the same outcome would still occur right?

Sinphanius wrote:
…even if our actions are fundamentally involuntary via their merely being the result of the internal workings of the neural system of our brain that still does not change the fact that these actions were taken and these decisions made. Furthermore, given that, in a localized sense, we are responsible for our own actions…

Hmmm…How are we responsible for our actions if everything we think and do (actions based on our involuntary thinking and involuntary neural system of our brains) is involuntary?

Sinphanius wrote:
…again because of our identity as our neurochemistry, these actions are not involuntary in the traditional sense. The lack of free will and the inability to escape external influences on our actions does not deminish our lives. To quote Carl Sagan, "We are made of star stuff, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself".

Everything,  thought, behavior, and all the rest being involuntary still doesn’t diminish our lives because Carl Sagan involuntarily said so?

Sinphanius wrote:
Even more ultimately however, as I said, if a fundamentally indeterminate aspect of existence, especially if this takes place on a molecular or submolecular level, could exist, which is still the case, then it is conceivably possible that there could be a fundamentally indeterminate aspect to consciousness, thus allowing for, in a sense, your beloved 'free will'. Of course this would not be a free will without qualifiers.

You are still being double minded over this whole thing. Just be like Michael and confess that all of our thoughts and actions are involuntary being determined by involuntary workings of the neural systems of our brains being determined by the involuntary workings of the chemicals/composition of our bodies…all the way down to the involuntary workings in the submolecular level.

When you involuntarily decide to involuntarily confess this, then I’ll involuntarily decide to concede that there is no purpose to discuss this with you…involuntarily.

Sinphanius wrote:
People are influenced by their past actions, and this fact is indisputable. No one can ever take action without consulting their massive archive of memories. Even if one eventually takes a different course of action than they have ever taken before in any even slightly similar situation, this is still influenced by their past memories of those situations.

Does this diminish their choice? Would a judge accept 'Well I was just doing what I rememebered doing' as a defense to excuse personal responsibility?

Revenge of the Son of Ultiamtely, we don't know 100% either way yet, however as I said, the question of whether we have free will or not is fundamentally meaningless beyond a mere philosophical curiosity, as whether we do or not changes nothing, and is impossible to verify. 

Involuntarily right?

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
At this time I'd like to note that the scientific quest for truth does not completely exclude god.  I and many others are atheists because we have found no rational evidence for god so far.  If, in our ongoing quest for knowledge and truth, testable evidence is put forth for the existence of god then we won't recoil in horror put our hands over our ears and say "la la la la laaaaaaaaaaa God isn't true I can't hear you!".  Instead we will test the evidence and, if it stands to logical scrutiny, it will be accepted.

I’ve provided the proof. Your worldview’s presuppositions which you haven’t and cannot prove will not allow for any proof besides what is empirical (what’s allowed and not allowed is conveniently determined by your camp). Although I would argue that by mere observation, man’s thoughts and behavior on the surface are far from being involuntary. Now being involuntary is the logical outcome of your worldviews assumptions.

And please don’t misinterpret this as me denying that matter and energy operate uniformly. I believe they do. As long as God continues to govern the physical aspect of His creation in this manner we won’t have any fear of gravity reversing itself or something like that. But if all you are working with is matter in motion then involuntary motion is the logical conclusion.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Please provide a rebuttal to my answers on your concerns regarding radiometric dating, or concede that you can't…

But tell me dear AiN, what does this have to do with the mechanism of evolution?  What does this have to say about where we came from?  What does it have to do with your objection to radiometric dating?  If you want to use this as an excuse to leave the argument because it's "pointless" then feel free to make your excuse and leave, otherwise I'd ask you one more time to extend me the same courtesy that I and others have extended to you - please address the points we've made.

I will try to come back to the radiometric discussion in my next Post. And once the radiometric matter is concluded, I’ll try to discuss with Kirby the “hobbit” matter. In the meantime if Sinphanius or you Michael have anything more to say about free will or involuntary/voluntary thoughts and behaviors, please do so, but try not to contradict yourselves in the process. I think I’ve provided enough examples (even if in a the condescending manner) of you two doing this.

I REPEAT I WILL COME BACK TO THE RADIOMETRIC DISCUSSION

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:I

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I will try to come back to the radiometric discussion in my next Post. And once the radiometric matter is concluded, I’ll try to discuss with Kirby the “hobbit” matter.

Fair enough.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
In the meantime if Sinphanius or you Michael have anything more to say about free will or involuntary/voluntary thoughts and behaviors, please do so, but try not to contradict yourselves in the process. I think I’ve provided enough examples (even if in a the condescending manner) of you two doing this.

 

Er... I don't think you've given any indication that I've contradicted myself.  My view of free will may differ from Sinphanius but it doesn't really stand as a contradiction.

 

I'd just like to add in that I'm currently watching through a lecture by Daniel Dennett on the function of free will in a deterministic universe.  I've not really had a chance to digest everything he's said, but it could change my views slightly.  He's making some very convincing arguments.

 

I would note that this has taken the thread quite far from evolution though.  I would suggest that a discussion of free will might be better served in the philosophy forum, while the topics more closely tied to the OP (radiometric data etc.) are continued here.

 

M

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
reply to MichaelMcF #77

MichaelMcF wrote:
Er... I don't think you've given any indication that I've contradicted myself.  My view of free will may differ from Sinphanius but it doesn't really stand as a contradiction.

For the record everything I wrote below is alright with you?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Why can’t you be more like MichaelMcF in His conclusions. According to him “we don't have free will” & “all our actions are determined by atomic processes that we’ve only begun to understand”. At least he’s suggesting that us beginning to understand it is involuntary, that him being comfortable with this is involuntary, the illusory choices he makes are involuntary, enjoying life whether it has some sort of grand cosmic purpose is involuntary, not being a nihilist is involuntary, not throwing his hands up in despair is involuntary, and so forth.

_________________________________________________________

Questions before responding to your radiometric dating post.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Why yes they have by using isochron dating, such as is used heavily in the lead-lead dating process.  This isn't some ridiculous or snide attempt at making a "guess".  This is a valid mathematical tool which, through the use of stable and radioactive isotope ratios, allows the determination of the age of a rock without having to make any assumptions about the daughter element.

How do you know its results are reliable? Give a couple of examples of its accurate results.

Are there ever anomalous readings? If yes, how do you determine what are good and what are anomalous?

MichaelMcF wrote:
systems can be contaminated and interfered with if they aren't closed.  Of course they can.  That's why scientists use large sample sets to get an average value for something, which may contain statistical outliers, and will also quote the error associated with that value.  Systems aren't perfect.

Regarding K-Ar dating, what is/are the method(s) to determine what values are in error and which aren't?

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:For

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

For the record everything I wrote below is alright with you?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Why can’t you be more like MichaelMcF in His conclusions. According to him “we don't have free will” & “all our actions are determined by atomic processes that we’ve only begun to understand”. At least he’s suggesting that us beginning to understand it is involuntary, that him being comfortable with this is involuntary, the illusory choices he makes are involuntary, enjoying life whether it has some sort of grand cosmic purpose is involuntary, not being a nihilist is involuntary, not throwing his hands up in despair is involuntary, and so forth.

 

For the record yes.  Though I would like to add that, as I mentioned above, it's an area I'm doing more research into (still haven't finished watching that lecture).  As it stands at the moment that's what I believe.

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

How do you know its results are reliable? Give a couple of examples of its accurate results.

 

I'm assuming that you mean how do we know the radiometric dates obtained are reliable.

 

Variable sources.  getting a number once is luck.  getting it several times is a pattern.

 

Even if we just use Patterson's landmark paper on isochron dating we can see that the dates he arrived at weren't from just one source.  He used a variety of minerals and compared them to various different meteorite samples, which would have undergone less geological transformation than the earth.  By comparing different meteorite samples with a variety of different earth minerals he was able to put a lower limit of the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years.  This matches well with the sampling of Wilde et. al. of the Australian Jack Hills which are the best examples we have of early earth crust.  Wilde reported the age of these to be 4.4 billion years +/- 8 million.  The earth, after all, must be at least as young as it's oldest structure.

 

Even when the process is repeated 40 years later Allegre, Manhes and Gopel - using more sophisticated techniques, refined mathematics and different samples - arrive at similar numbers.  Or how about this data from the University of Tokyo (2001) on separate chondrites which reaches the same number.

 

There is nothing in the technique that requires it to reach numbers in the region of 4.5 billion years.  Nothing at all.  The fact that several hundred different samples from meteorites, the moon, and the earth, - tested using varying techniques but similar principles - return the same numbers is not a coincidence.  It is an identifiable trend which can only reach one conlusion.  The earth is at least, and I'm going to be exceptionally generous, 4.2 billion years old.

 

As Sinphanius already pointed out, this also falls well within the age of the Universe calculated using nothing but light and irrefutable mathematics.  Which leads us onto multiple verification.

 

When several different aging methods - Ur-PB, K-Ar, I-Xe (as used by Wilde) - give the same number for a sample it's not coincidence either.  One ratio of parent to daughter could be 'false' and give you the wrong age.  There's no question of that.   The chance of all of the parent/daughter relationships giving the same false value is frankly absurd.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Are there ever anomalous readings? If yes, how do you determine what are good and what are anomalous?

Of course there are anomalous readings.  As I've said already not all samples are perfect.  Anomalous readings would be those that are either unexpected or that fall out of an established pattern.  If you test 16 samples of rock and 15 age to 4+/- 0.04 billion years, while the 16th comes out at 10 million years then that's an anomalous reading.  It's what we'd call a statistical outlier.

The thing to remember though is that all systems have anomalous readings.  The presence of anomalous readings in radiometric data doesn't raise questions about the veracity of the system.  It simply raises questions about the samples being tested.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Regarding K-Ar dating, what is/are the method(s) to determine what values are in error and which aren't?

This is a rather wooly question.  K-Ar dating is most commonly used to tell us how long it is since rocks cooled; Argon can escape from molten rock but no the solidified rocks.  So thats its application as a dating method.  Coupling that fact with it's long half-life means that the K-Ar method is mostly used to tell us how long a rock has been a rock, but mostly in the older (lower down) geological strata.  This removes doubts about recent volcanic activities and other geolocial phenomena impacting the result.  As to how you determine which values are error I'd refer to above and say it's based on statistical analysis of large data sets and comparison with other techniques.

As a side note, loss of the daughter product in this case would make scientists assume that the rock is younger than it actually is; not older as is the claim lofted at many radiometric methods.

My main reason for bringing up the K-Ar method is that it is most often picked on for not being able to date rocks that it can't actually be used to date (10,000 years or else) which is a shamefully deceitful move by quite a few creation scientists.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Come on man, be

 

Quote:
Come on man, be consistent in your points


Whatever contradictions you have found within my writing, you have imagined them.

I have only ever put forth the idea that we are likely doing things based purely on the physical processes of the neurochemistry of the brain, and have only ever stated that I doubt that we have free will. Ultimately however, as I said, I don't know if we have free will or not and don't really care, as the existence or non-existence of free will changes nothing detectable and is almost assuredly impossible to ever determine.

I left open the possibility of free will because, as I said, to prove or disprove the existence of free will would require omniscience or time travel, both of which are abilities I, sadly, lack.
Though in all honesty I wouldn't take omniscience, for reasons I will describe later, perhaps I might take really-really-reallry-big-science, but omniscience would take all of the fun out of life.

Furthermore, I stated that we effectively still have free will because of the impossibility to ever collect fine enough data to truly predict human actions. This may change some day, I don't know, but for now, I consider people to still have choices because we cannot predict them, even if they are, on some level, 'involuntary'. Please note the word effectively, as I think this is where you imagined my supposed doublethink.  

I say effectively, because I don't think we have free will, however as far as we can tell, the differences between a universe with free will and a universe without are nonexistant, or negligible, or indeterminable, therefore we might as well have free will. However nowhere did I say we did have free will.

Minor point here; I want you to now list my presuppositions, and provide evidence for me operating under them.

I took umbrage at the usage of the word Involuntary not because I consider humans to have free will, nor because I think humans are not ruled by biochemical processes, for neither of those are the case. Rather, I disliked the term because it implied, at least to me, and you may not have meant it in this fashionm, in which case I appologize, that the person might not have wanted to carry out the action that they took, instead being 'forced' by the neurochemistry of their brain, to perform a task they somehow still didn't want to.

Of course, I have no better word to describe this status, so involuntary may have to suffice for now until such time as one has been found, or created. Perhaps 'deterministic' would be a better word. Were you to ask me if I thought the universe was Deterministic I would respond; "I'm not entirely sure, but it certainly does seem that way."

I did say that, in a localized sense, we do have a sort of choice in the universe, because our actions are determined by the neurochemistry of our brains, and this neurochemistry is 'us', therefore we determine our actions. Our choices may be influenced, or totally controlled by, the past events of the cosmos, however I don't really care about that.

Furthermore, to speak of humanity as if they do not have wants or desires simply because we do not have free will, which may not have been a point you were trying to make, in which case you may ignore this paragraph, seems disingenuous at best, insulting at worst. For even if those emotions are simply chemical reactions and the releases of hormones, founded entirely on events of the past, which I do consider to be the case, they still exist.

Ultimately, I don't find life lessened by a lack of 'free will'. I wonder why you would? Because we theoretically could predict people's actions? Why does this matter as we cannot predict such things now? I think at best this worry would merely be a risk for those who come long after us.

I gain fulfillment from life by seeing what happens. Even if all actions can be predetermined, I cannot do such, and to the best of my knowledge none can. This is no different from reading a book; the characters within the book have no free will, their actions being determined by the writer of the book, however, provided the writer is skilled, this in no way makes their lives, no matter how little of them we are given to look at, any less interesting.

Because I gain fulfillment from life by seeing what happens, knowing what will happen would be the greatest of curses for me, and this is why I would reject omniscience, and why I don't understand why the entire species of Tralfamadorians still liked reading books, though of course they didn't have omniscience, merely really-really-really-good-science. And good rocket fuel. And by good I mean cataclysmically bad.

Furthermore, I fail to see why a lack of free will makes debate useless. Like it or not, this conversation will remain in your mind, perhaps not influencing much, but influencing something, and therefore of at least some level of importance. Whether we partook of this exchange from desire or from chemistry is unimportant and impossible to determine.

Life is a book we are all writing.

Or, if that isn't grandiose of a purpose for someone, try this one on for size. Our lives and personalities are purely the result of the physical reactions of our neurochemistry, all of which are built on the reactions that came before them. Thus we are, litterally, the current fountainhead of all of the universe's history.

Of course, I still don't see how this has anything to do with evolution.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I left open

Sinphanius wrote:

I left open the possibility of free will because, as I said, to prove or disprove the existence of free will would require omniscience or time travel, both of which are abilities I, sadly, lack.
Though in all honesty I wouldn't take omniscience, for reasons I will describe later, perhaps I might take really-really-reallry-big-science, but omniscience would take all of the fun out of life.

Perhaps prescience (the ability to see the future) is a better word than omniscience (knowing everything)? Subtle I know but it just seemed a better fit, unless I haven't quite caught the deeper meaning.

Quote:


Of course, I have no better word to describe this status, so involuntary may have to suffice for now until such time as one has been found, or created. 

Fatalism or Fatalistic - believing all things are predetermined and therefore inevitable.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 I still wouldn't take

 I still wouldn't take Prescience though, for the joy comes from seeing things happen as they do, and being able to pit myself against all other humans by trying to predict them, or just sitting back and enjoying the ride.  What I need, is a term for a broad knowledge of everything currently happenning, but not to too fine of a detail, and not knowledge of the future.  Though even this would detract from life as another aspect of my fun is trying to figure out just what is happenning.

Fatalism is a good word with a nice ring to it.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
reply to MichaelMcF #79

 

 

 

A FEW MORE QUESTIONS PLEASE

_______________________________________________________

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
There is nothing in the technique that requires it to reach numbers in the region of 4.5 billion years.  Nothing at all.  The fact that several hundred different samples from meteorites, the moon, and the earth, - tested using varying techniques but similar principles - return the same numbers

Can you tell me if anything in this method (isochron dating) needs to be assumed (maybe even run me through a quick example of the process) and can the samples be susceptible to contamination and if so what does that do to the results?

How close of a value can you get from this method; hundred of years, thousands, millions of years?

MichaelMcF wrote:
As Sinphanius already pointed out, this also falls well within the age of the Universe calculated using nothing but light and irrefutable mathematics.  Which leads us onto multiple verification.

Light and mathematics; what if the conditions/assumptions are incorrect, the math can still be right but the results are not? Explain these methods please (especially using light).

MichaelMcF wrote:
As a side note, loss of the daughter product in this case would make scientists assume that the rock is younger than it actually is; not older as is the claim lofted at many radiometric methods.

On the subject of contamination/anomalous samples. If more of the daughter product is present than it's results suggest an older date. If less of the parent, it's older, if more of the parent it's younger, right?

Can any of the conditions above arise from contamination?

MichaelMcF wrote:
My main reason for bringing up the K-Ar method is that it is most often picked on for not being able to date rocks that it can't actually be used to date (10,000 years or else) which is a shamefully deceitful move by quite a few creation scientists.

What methods can be used to date relatively new (within a few hundred years or even 1 or 2 thousand years) samples that we do know the age of because they formed during recorded history. Are these methods used to date older (beyond recorded history) samples?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
AIN, I read through most of

AIN, I read through most of the posts in this thread. I have noticed that you use the word "certainty" a lot in regards to evolution and scientific proof in general. I was wondering, where have you researched evolution? I am not suggesting that you haven't, (although some may argue that you haven't) I am merely interested in where you have gotten your information. Has it been hearsay? Has it been books? Has it been college classes? Has it been strictly from internet forums?

I am asking you this because I used to sound a lot like you. I would get a lot of the same posts in reply to my concerns about evolution that you are getting. I remember being frustrated at seeing how many people regarded my concerns as sicentifically naive. I sure as hell didn't think they were when I raised them. Is it that these people at the RRS are all crazy? Or, is it that I am somehow misunderstanding what it is I am fighting against?

 

Consider this post: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_mail_bag/7165

I created that post following some initial attacks on atheism that I posted my first time on the forum here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_mail_bag/7062

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/7120

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/7176

[The following posts are dead and I do not wish to dicuss them. I merely posted them to show a change in my motivations and understandings.]

 

By posting these, I am not trying to suggest that you and I are indentical or raise the same issues concerning atheism and evolution. I posted them here for you to read because I noticed a similar hangup on the concept of certainty in regards to atheism and evolution.

Please read through the posts I posted here and consider doing what I did. If you don't like evolution and atheism, learn about them more in order to better understand your problems with them. I guarantee this will help ease your mind and clarify your present objections. Supposing of course they will still exist in their present form after your honest research.

Books that I found very helpful in clarifying things for me:

Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet

Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller

The Language of God by Francis Collins  (theist biased)

Vital Dust by Christian De Duve (I didn't finish this book, but it's pretty amazing)

 

And lastly, a great clarifying force were these forums. I found the contributors here very helpful in guiding me through my re-education. Thanks everyone.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Light and mathematics; what if the conditions/assumptions are incorrect, the math can still be right but the results are not? Explain these methods please (especially using light).

 

Well the only real assumption that is made in the method described is that the speed of light is constant and the properties of emitted light (spectra, luminosity) are universal physical properties.  We have no reason to believe that either of these things has changed or is not true so they're fairly valid assumptions.  Sinphanius already explained Parallax so I don't feel I have to repeat it (although I will direct you to the wikipedia article).

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Can you tell me if anything in this method (isochron dating) needs to be assumed (maybe even run me through a quick example of the process) and can the samples be susceptible to contamination and if so what does that do to the results?

How close of a value can you get from this method; hundred of years, thousands, millions of years?

 

Two things to cover here; isochron dating and the problem of contamination.  I'll deal with isochrons first and then talk about contamination.

 

I would highly recommend you look a the Talk Origins pages on the age of the earth and isochron dating.  They both do a remarkable job of explaining the technique.  However, for the sake of discussion I'll take some of their material and give you a basic run down.

 

Isochron dating involves measuring the amount of parent isotope (P), daughter isotope (D) and a non-radiogenic isotope of the Daughter (D1).  We then plot D/D1 against P/D1 which gives us the following information:

If the samples you're testing came from a common pool of matter which had homogenously distributed isotopes then all the data would form a single point on the graph.

If the samples came from a common pool of matter but weren't as homogeneous - for example cooling minerals taking up different levels of isotope because of their chemistry - then the data will sit on a straight line.

 

The only real assumption you make with the isochron method is the one I've highlighted twice above; the material came from a common pool of matter.  The beauty of it is that the method itself tests the assumption.  If your data points lie on a straight line then they came from a common pool of matter.  Simple.

 

So over time P will begin to decay to D thus shifting the points on the graph.  As radioactive decay rates are constant then all the points will move proportionally to one another and you'll get something like this:

And it's actually what we see with meteorite and terrestrial samples

So we know that they all came from a common pool of matter.  But the graph also tells us a couple of other things.

  • The slope of the graph is the ratio of enriched D to remaining P (enriched being D that is added through radioactive decay) and this ratio fits into the equation  age = halflife x log2(1+D/P)
  • As with all regression data any error in the slope of the graph caused by points not lying perfectly on the line also gives us data... it gives us the error in the calculated age
  • The intercept of the line, the point at which it crosses the Y axis, gives the ratio D/D1 at the point P=0.  In other words we know the universal initial ratio of D/D1.  We now know how much daughter product everything started with.

 

So we have 1 major assumption which is tested by the method itself and we get a hell of a lot of data.  It's a stunningly powerful bit of maths.

 

Are you happy with this so far?

 

Ok, contamination.  Contamination can and has altered the ratios of parent and daughter in a sample.  Geological events which remelt rocks or cause some other disturbance are very capable of doing this.  In your question:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

On the subject of contamination/anomalous samples. If more of the daughter product is present than it's results suggest an older date. If less of the parent, it's older, if more of the parent it's younger, right?

Can any of the conditions above arise from contamination?

you're really making the assumption that we're dealing with one sample.  If the ratio of P to D has been altered then we'll record an older or younger age than is true. 

However when dating materials, especially with the isochron method, many different samples are tested many different times to increase accuracy and precision.  If all the samples were contaminated then you wouldn't get a colinear plot and the data would be useless.  If some of the samples are contaminated but most of them aren't then you'll get a straight line with a degree of error in it which will be incorporated into the age calculation.  If there is zero contamination then you get a perfect colinear plot.  So the method also takes into account contamination.

 

As I've mentioned previously, using several different techniques also limits the error of contamination.  If all the techniques point to the same age you know you've got a pretty stable rock.  If 5 out of 6 techniques give the same age then it's probably safe to assume that the 6th technique has been screwed by contaminants.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
What methods can be used to date relatively new (within a few hundred years or even 1 or 2 thousand years) samples that we do know the age of because they formed during recorded history. Are these methods used to date older (beyond recorded history) samples?

 

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure on dating younger rocks.  If I recall correctly chlorine may be involved somewhere but I'd rather you didn't quote me on that.  I suppose one way to do it would be to radiocarbon date any remains you found in that layer of rock.  That would give you a rough time frame for when the rock formed.  To be perfectly honest I don't see the need to be aging rocks that are that young anyway.  Radiometric dating is used to try and look at geological timescales which go back further than recorded history.  I can't really see a need or a reason to date a rock that's a few hundred or a couple of thousand years old.

In answer to the last part of your question - no, methods used to date samples formed during recent history would not be used to date samples formed beyond recorded history.  It's a simple fact of how they work.  Something with a half life short enough to give us information on recent times is useless beyond a certain point (radiocarbon dating for example).

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
For periods down to hundreds

For periods down to hundreds of years, we have Luminescence dating, whose mechanism is quite unrelated to radiometric techniques.

Another page on that site lists a range of different dating techniques, and provides links to other resources on the general subject of dating.

Ice cores also provide evidence for tracing some aspects of earth's history, especially climate variations, or anything affecting the atmosphere, including dust from volcanic eruptions, back up to 800,000 years.

There is also dendrochronology, or tree-ring dating, which gets us back in some cases more than 10000 years.

All these different techniques can be cross-checked and compared to varying degrees, so we get an overall picture of the reliability of the various techniques, and the result is that we have very good grounds for treating the current scientific view of history and prehistory as fairly accurate, certainly within a few tens of percent at worst, a few percent at best.

EDIT: To argue against the current estimates of the age of the Earth and fossil record, you have to cast serious doubt on most of science, not just radioactive decay theory.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side Reply to jread #84

jread, no disrespect, but I'm going to assume that you're not a Christian theist. I would also have to conclude that you're not a theist anymore. I mean they're not simply promoting evolution, they're attacking any form of theism. "Believe in God? We can fix that."

I don't have all the time in the world to read through all your threads, but I want to make myself clear to you. I am a Christian theist. If you're not a Christian theist, then whether you're a theist (supposedly) or an atheist, you're an unbeliever to me. The Scriptures make it clear that there are only two types of people in the world; the saved and the unsaved; the regenerate and the unregenerate. It doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you've accepted evolution. When your presuppositions are not based on scripture, of course it's going to agree with unbelieving presuppositions.

You claim you've read through most of the post, read some more. Read elsewhere about presuppositions and how they ultimately determine how we interpret "evidence" and the conclusions we come to, even the forms of evidence we accept, and how they make us biased toward particular positions. Presuppositions, in this light, sound dangerous, but they're necessary and every individual has them (even though they may not be clearly defined). However can people's presuppositions account for logic (deduction, discourse, argumentation), science (account for induction), account for knowledge (can we know what we claim to know to be true), or account for morality (not just personal opinions about human behavior)? I argue they cannot. I argue that ONLY Christian theism can account for all the above, logically and coherently.

jread wrote:
Is it that these people at the RRS are all crazy?

No one at RRS is crazy. They're very logical for the most part. For the most part they're consistent with their presuppositions.

They're not, when I bring up the "involuntary" objection for example. Many of them dodge it (refuse to answer it even). Only a couple have admitted to it (I don't know why - it's damaging to their case) but still in practice they don't.

____________________________________________________________________________________

If you want to quote anything Dawkins concedes to, I'd be interested in knowing them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, I did find the post regarding gravity to be laughable. Gravity does exist by the way and we can be certain of it. When we can make zero gravity rooms to "turn" it off or invent the centrifuge to simulate a gravitational field, I would say we're pretty certain of it. We can be certain of a lot of things because we've applied it to some extent for our use and/or invent devices to simulate or reproduce them. So I'm not against what was, is, and ought to be science. I'm against the speculative stuff (pseudo science) that "originally" was used to rationalize away the existence of the Christian God. You should know the difference.

(Now don't confuse what I'm saying here with my criticism of Atheism of not being able to account for the things they claim to know to be true. I'm saying in theory, if the materialist view of the universe were true, knowledge would be impossible because of the involuntary behavior of matter & energy. In addition this would lead to many if not all things listed above impossible and/or meaningless)

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Since I have a very small

Since I have a very small amout of knowledge about this subject let me put it in very simple terms as best that I understand it.

Do you accept there is inheritance? Children retain properties of there parants.

Do you accept there is Mutation? We are not exact clones of our parents.

Do you accept there is scarcity? It can reproductive partners, food, anything, there is not enough for everyone to have everything they want/need.

 

If you accept these three I don't understand how you can reject evolution.

Think about it change in populations is the only possible outcome from this. After all animals that are "better" will have more babies (weather is be because they can get more food or whatever, better chance of surviving to reproducing age or even better at geting a mate). because there babies inherit things it is likly that they will get that trait that made there parents "better" as well as possibly a few new thing from mutation. Just from that the first change happens multiple that over billions of years and looks what you get. I would be suprised if there was a differant result.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I'm saying in

 

Quote:
I'm saying in theory, if the materialist view of the universe were true, knowledge would be impossible because of the involuntary behavior of matter & energy. In addition this would lead to many if not all things listed above impossible and/or meaningless)

Why?
Prove it.

Explain Wolfram Alpha.

I'm still waiting for that list of my presuppositions. Remember, include evidence.

And now I'm also waiting for you to explain how you remain in the minority of christians even in the United States, as everywhere else they accept evolution and don't consider it an attack on god, which it isn't.

 

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any assertion that an

Any assertion that an organism such as ourselves cannot display behavior and attributes that our ultimate components cannot themselves display is committing the logical fallacy of composition.

A proton cannot reproduce itself - a bacterium can, and we have documented the processes by which that occurs, and it does not require anything supernatural, although it arguably does go beyond the concepts of reductionist materialism, the 'nothing but' version. That is another fallacy of argument, the 'straw man', arguing against a position that your opponent does not endorse. 

There are an infinite number of such examples, contrasting levels of description of reality, from subatomic particles to conscious beings and galaxies. At each step up in structural complexity, attributes of an 'object', entity, or substance, become discernible that are impossible or meaningless to attribute to the separate constituent parts of the 'object' or substance. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms cannot be said to be 'wet'.

This argument invokes yet another fallacy, the false dichotomy - that the only alternative to reductionist materialism is some form of supernaturalism.

So AiN's position explicitly involves at least three logical fallacies, and is therefore the true 'nonsense' here.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

jread, no disrespect, but I'm going to assume that you're not a Christian theist. I would also have to conclude that you're not a theist anymore. I mean they're not simply promoting evolution, they're attacking any form of theism. "Believe in God? We can fix that."

I don't have all the time in the world to read through all your threads, but I want to make myself clear to you. I am a Christian theist. If you're not a Christian theist, then whether you're a theist (supposedly) or an atheist, you're an unbeliever to me. The Scriptures make it clear that there are only two types of people in the world; the saved and the unsaved; the regenerate and the unregenerate. It doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you've accepted evolution. When your presuppositions are not based on scripture, of course it's going to agree with unbelieving presuppositions.

You claim you've read through most of the post, read some more. Read elsewhere about presuppositions and how they ultimately determine how we interpret "evidence" and the conclusions we come to, even the forms of evidence we accept, and how they make us biased toward particular positions. Presuppositions, in this light, sound dangerous, but they're necessary and every individual has them (even though they may not be clearly defined). However can people's presuppositions account for logic (deduction, discourse, argumentation), science (account for induction), account for knowledge (can we know what we claim to know to be true), or account for morality (not just personal opinions about human behavior)? I argue they cannot. I argue that ONLY Christian theism can account for all the above, logically and coherently.

Sigh.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

jread wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

jread, no disrespect, but I'm going to assume that you're not a Christian theist. I would also have to conclude that you're not a theist anymore. I mean they're not simply promoting evolution, they're attacking any form of theism. "Believe in God? We can fix that."

I don't have all the time in the world to read through all your threads, but I want to make myself clear to you. I am a Christian theist. If you're not a Christian theist, then whether you're a theist (supposedly) or an atheist, you're an unbeliever to me. The Scriptures make it clear that there are only two types of people in the world; the saved and the unsaved; the regenerate and the unregenerate. It doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you've accepted evolution. When your presuppositions are not based on scripture, of course it's going to agree with unbelieving presuppositions.

You claim you've read through most of the post, read some more. Read elsewhere about presuppositions and how they ultimately determine how we interpret "evidence" and the conclusions we come to, even the forms of evidence we accept, and how they make us biased toward particular positions. Presuppositions, in this light, sound dangerous, but they're necessary and every individual has them (even though they may not be clearly defined). However can people's presuppositions account for logic (deduction, discourse, argumentation), science (account for induction), account for knowledge (can we know what we claim to know to be true), or account for morality (not just personal opinions about human behavior)? I argue they cannot. I argue that ONLY Christian theism can account for all the above, logically and coherently.

Sigh.

 

Ouch.

 

 

Nothing like heartwarming theists together, right? I think this shows what I see most, with the 18 christian organisations on campus always fighting over who is the "true" christian, all convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt they are.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Miscellaneous (ClockCat that is)

ClockCat wrote:
Theism is why we can't have nice things.

True about general theism. That and atheism are ultimately in the same boat.

The reason there's pain and suffering in the world is because of the spirit of rebellion & autonomy promoted by general theism and atheism.

The presuppositions of Atheism and general theism are the reason why people go to hell in the first place; the reason for the fall.

ClockCat wrote:
I think this shows what I see most, with the 18 christian organisations on campus always fighting over who is the "true" christian, all convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt they are.

18 Christian organizations really? Can you list them for me and tell me what campus you're referring to?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
I say, where did all these

I say, where did all these Scotsmen come from?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I say,

Sinphanius wrote:

I say, where did all these Scotsmen come from?

Funny how they just appeared out of no where.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, at least they aren't

Well, at least they aren't real Scotsmen, I can't stand Real Scotsmen.

 

Them and the Dutch. Fuck 'em.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Them and

Sinphanius wrote:

Them and the Dutch. Fuck 'em.

Klootzak.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I still don't understand why

I still don't understand why knowledge is impossible without God. I wish I knew how AIN reached that conclusion.

Edit: Could you, possibly, show a philosophical proof of this? Maybe, like a:

P1...

P2...

Conclusion: Knowledge is impossible!

jread wrote:
Sigh.

A fitting response.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
Theism is why we can't have nice things.

True about general theism. That and atheism are ultimately in the same boat.

The reason there's pain and suffering in the world is because of the spirit of rebellion & autonomy promoted by general theism and atheism.

The presuppositions of Atheism and general theism are the reason why people go to hell in the first place; the reason for the fall.

ClockCat wrote:
I think this shows what I see most, with the 18 christian organisations on campus always fighting over who is the "true" christian, all convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt they are.

18 Christian organizations really? Can you list them for me and tell me what campus you're referring to?

 

No, I can't list them. I remember a few of their names, campus crusade for christ (creepy name), baptist campus ministries, and baptist student union...there are a few for catholics, protestants, mormons, southern baptists, and some other ones too. They all fight eachother all the time, when they aren't loudly being obnoxious about their religion in public places or starting new groups like the anti-abortion one they made, designed to harass people that walk around campus that could care less as they try to walk to the cafe to eat.

 

I think they like to fight over who are "true" christians a lot. That is usually what I hear. They all have the exclusive truth(tm), and it is different depending on who you talk to. All of them are bigots though. Just to varying degrees.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 When your presuppositions are not based on scripture, of course it's going to agree with unbelieving presuppositions.

/facepalm

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I argue that ONLY Christian theism can account for all the above, logically and coherently.

But of course, Islamic theism cannot.

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''