Evolution with AIN

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
SSBBJunky

SSBBJunky wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

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

/facepalm

When your actual presupposition is that some specific 'scripture' is the only reliable source of 'truth', rather than a broader examination of reality, both at first hand where possible, and from a wide range of other sources for things you can't personally check, and for fresh ideas that haven't personally occurred to you, you have really lost the plot.

Quote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

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

But of course, Islamic theism cannot.

AiN's arguments are actually a series of logical fallacies, rather than logical arguments, as I recently pointed out - without response. It obviously wasn't my turn...

 

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
ClockCat wrote:  Nothing

ClockCat wrote:

 

 

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.

Ah, but clearly we are not together. I have chosen to not reply to his post because it clearly expresses a lack of desire to hear a reply. I am much more content to read his reponse and quietly move on. I don't believe in those shouting matches you are refering to, they somehow seem impious and misguided.

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Side reply to BobSpence1 #90 & #101

BobSpence1 wrote:
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'.

Bob, all you say is blah blah blah. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. I repeat I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. Do you mean to tell me that at the highest complex “level”, it’s “operation” is not determined by the immediate level below it? And that level’s operation is not determined by the immediate level below it? That that levels operation is not determined by the immediate level below it?...(Skipping a million or more of the same statement until&hellipEye-wink That the individual atom’s operation is not determined by the subatomic level and so forth?

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

So concede that it’s possible for things non physical to exist or that it’s possible for some forms of matter & energy to exist that do not adhere to the laws of physics or chemistry. Otherwise my arguments are not straw man (not that they were to begin with or that they will be if you concede J).

BobSpence1 wrote:
AiN's arguments are actually a series of logical fallacies, rather than logical arguments, as I recently pointed out…

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.

Bob, maybe you need to read up on what the logical fallacy of composition is. Look at some of the examples provided and see that my objection is no where as ridiculous as the actual fallacies. And another thing Bob, did you just conveniently reword my objection to try to fit it into your desperate attempt of again dodging it? Don’t forget that I have at least one of you admitting that human choice is illusion not to mention many material atheist who hold somewhat to this view of determinism (human behavior being 100% predictable if all the antecedent factors are known). Let me give some examples of actual fallacies committed that I’ve found or were given:

Example 1:

·        Atoms are not visible to the naked eye

·        Humans are made up of atoms

·        Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

Example 2:

This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.

You are a desperate man Bob, Instead of owning up to it, you’ve tried so hard to avoid it, making your fellow atheists by association commit the fallacy that you’re accusing me of committing when they’re simply being logical.

The only problem with them confessing it (conceding to this conclusion) is that they don’t recognize the problematic situation this places them under: everything they do is involuntary. They’re not “rational”, “logical”, “scientific”, “brave & fearless”, “intelligent”, etc because they chose to be, rather they’re all those things involuntary (involuntarily determined to be). Similarly all the things theists are accused of being, i.e. “irrational”, “illogical”, “unscientific”, “cowardly & fearful”, “delusional”, etc are not so because we had some say in the matter (involuntarily determined as well). This discussion we’re engaged in, the side of the debate you’re on, or the side of the debate I’m on is not voluntary (rather involuntarily determined). Ultimately it’s the determined outcome of the first chemical/physical reaction that occurred a “long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away”.

BobSpence1 wrote:
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,

You know you haven’t proven this. I mean to use scientific methods to prove the supernatural would prove that it’s not supernatural. You’ve simply made a claim without any scientific proof. To be fair, I would have to ask you how life even evolved from the non living from a materialist perspective. Don’t forget to provide scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This argument invokes yet another fallacy, the false dichotomy - that the only alternative to reductionist materialism is some form of supernaturalism.

I hope that I didn’t state it like that Bob. I’ve simply showed that your presupposition that the universe is solely physical is wrong given what we do as human beings. No matter how you explain it, complexity of composition (when all you have is matter) doesn’t give rise to self-awareness and “freedom” (many determinist materialist Atheists would agree).

Not any supernaturalism claim out there is logical or rational also.

Looking at morality:

It’s meaningless in Hinduism when the traditionalist Hindu would argue that ultimately there are no true distinctions between good and evil.

To the Buddhist (also the materialist Atheist), right and wrong are completely arbitrary.

For Atheism, logically speaking, might makes right (those who can or are on the side that can enforce it), not to mention to the fact that it’s always changing. In the past, slavery was okay, today it isn’t. In the past homosexuality was taboo, then allowed, then banned again, and now allowed once more. To argue that homosexuality for example is not immoral would be meaningless. On top of this, you have the involuntary thing against you which makes it right from the start meaningless.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So AiN's position explicitly involves at least three logical fallacies, and is therefore the true 'nonsense' here.

In your wildest dreams desperado.

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
 And yet you continue to

 And yet you continue to ignore me, most likely because you know you cannot win. Oh well, if your idiotic screaming of involuntary helps you sleep without crying, I suppose that is your 'choice'.

I appear to be quite similar to Nuclear Warfare.  Awesome.


A few things;

Quote:
I’ve simply showed that your presupposition that the universe is solely physical is wrong given what we do as human beings. No matter how you explain it, complexity of composition (when all you have is matter) doesn’t give rise to self-awareness and “freedom” (many determinist materialist Atheists would agree).


Except you haven't shown, much less proven, anything. All you have done is assert that a purely physical universe cannot give rise to these things. So I will ask you to;
Quote:
provide scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc


Maybe it cannot give rise to pure 'freedom' as you think it exists, but you still haven't proven that such freedom exists at all so if a purely Physical Universe cannot produce freedom, this isn't really a problem.

You're assertion that a purely Physical Universe cannot create self-awareness is just that, an assertion. As you have not provided any
Quote:
scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc
That purely Physical Universes cannot create self-awareness, this 'point' need not be adressed beyond mocking it for the idiocy it is.
Before you tell me that I can't explain how intelligence and self awareness evolved, I would like to point out that Yes we can And we have.

Quote:
They’re not “rational”, “logical”, “scientific”, “brave & fearless”, “intelligent”, etc because they chose to be, rather they’re all those things involuntary (involuntarily determined to be).

And yet this doesn't change the fact that we are still all of those things. So, what is your point?

If someone is in a high stress situation, where it is literally do or die, does that diminish their accomplishments when they do?

Another example, if someone kills someone accidentally, they didn't do it voluntarily. Does this change the fact that the person they killed is now dead, or is this like Japan?

Quote:
In the past, slavery was okay, today it isn’t. In the past homosexuality was taboo, then allowed, then banned again, and now allowed once more.

No shit, our morality is based on our culture, and cultures change. For instance, quess who's beloved holy book was used to support the slave trade? Come on, guess. I dare ya.

All this is proof of is that absolute morality doesn't exist. Thank you for making my argument for me.

Quote:
Bob, all you say is blah blah blah. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. I repeat I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be complex. Do you mean to tell me that at the highest complex “level”, it’s “operation” is not determined by the immediate level below it? And that level’s operation is not determined by the immediate level below it? That that levels operation is not determined by the immediate level below it?...(Skipping a million or more of the same statement until&hellip That the individual atom’s operation is not determined by the subatomic level and so forth?

Wow, you managed to write an entire paragraph without saying anything at all relevant to anything we have said. Now I can't speak for Bob, but my guess is his response would be something along the lines of;
"You idiot, I'm not talking about how it operates, I'm talking about what properties its operation and it itself have."
IE; Of course the level's operation is determined by the operation of the level below it and so on down to the smallest level, that doesn't change the fact that neither Hydrogen nor Oxygen are 'wet', while their combined Molecule of Water is. Bob wasn't saying anything about Determinism or Freedom, he was talking about Emergent Properties.

Quote:
So concede that it’s possible for things non physical to exist or that it’s possible for some forms of matter & energy to exist that do not adhere to the laws of physics or chemistry. Otherwise my arguments are not straw man (not that they were to begin with or that they will be if you concede J).

He never said non-physical things couldn't exist, of course this is inherently pointless as until you prove that such non-physical things exist, then there is no reason to believe in them.
You're building up to a nice ole God of the Gaps argument aren't you?

Fallacy of Composition:
wiki wrote:
A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

To say that, because individual atoms are not Sentient, they cannot give rise to Sentience, is an example of the Fallacy of Composition. To state such would be to state that because all of the parts of the whole (the atoms) are non sentient, thus the whole (the brain) must be non-sentient, is Fallacious. Get over it.

I'm still waiting for the list of my Presuppositions and evidence that I make all of them. Remember;
Quote:
provide scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc


Quote:
You know you haven’t proven this. I mean to use scientific methods to prove the supernatural would prove that it’s not supernatural. You’ve simply made a claim without any scientific proof. To be fair, I would have to ask you how life even evolved from the non living from a materialist perspective.

So wait, now you don't accept the idea of reproduction without something supernatural? What, does your god have to intervene every single time one or more creatures reproduce? Man, he must be incompetent, we hardly need to supervise our machines anymore when they are making cars.
So the fact, the indisputable fact that can and generally is demonstrated by highschool biology students, that if you place a bacterium in an environment with ample food it will multiply is, not, evidence that bacterium can reproduce? Uh huh. Or is this still just god hand crafting each individual bacterium. In which case see my previous comment.
Your god is a retarded incompetent fool. I could design a system of self replicating life, even without omniscience.
Though you almost bring up a good point, we haven't proven that nothing supernatural exists, but then again, we don't need to. You need to provide proof that the supernatural does exist.
You also need to actually provide some coherent definition of supernatural. I'll wait.

As for how life came from non-life, we don't know yet, but there are a number of good hypothesis, furthermore, scientists have been able to create the base building blocks of RNA, and there are several more examples of similar experiments at the end of a Google Search.  

Once again, if you actually knew anything about the subject you so ardently criticize, then many of your questions would already be answered.

I'll let you get back to crying yourself to sleep at night.

 

 Good Day sir.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
*sigh*I hate coming back to

*sigh*

I hate coming back to this discussion repeatedly after I said I was leaving; I'll probably just end up even more frustrated, but I can't stop looking at it. It's like a bad car accident.

Of course, now that this thread has gone on longer, I think I have a better grasp of exactly what your problems with atheism are. So, let me try again.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
The only problem with them confessing it (conceding to this conclusion) is that they don’t recognize the problematic situation this places them under: everything they do is involuntary. They’re not “rational”, “logical”, “scientific”, “brave & fearless”, “intelligent”, etc because they chose to be, rather they’re all those things involuntary (involuntarily determined to be). Similarly all the things theists are accused of being, i.e. “irrational”, “illogical”, “unscientific”, “cowardly & fearful”, “delusional”, etc are not so because we had some say in the matter (involuntarily determined as well). This discussion we’re engaged in, the side of the debate you’re on, or the side of the debate I’m on is not voluntary (rather involuntarily determined). Ultimately it’s the determined outcome of the first chemical/physical reaction that occurred a “long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away”.

We'd have to clarify what you mean by voluntary and involuntary in the context of determinism, but sure. I am nothing but atoms, if that's what you were looking for. In fact, almost everything that you've charged to be meaningless in atheism so far, rationality, morality, etc. really is meaningless from the Christian perspective, in that it holds no cosmic significance. Yep, so:

- The concept of morality is a human abstraction. So, you might ask, what makes my morality better than, say, Hitler's, on a cosmic level? Well, the answer is....(drumroll!!!)....nothing!

- Everything, to our knowledge, is determined by natural processes. Does that make my actions involuntary? If so, then, okay, my actions are involuntary. So now, you're probably thinking, since our discussion is 'meaningless,' why don't I leave? Well, if it's really meaningless, then it doesn't matter either way, right, so, why can't I stay? Ah, but then why do I choose to stay even though it's meaningless? Well, because I want to stay.

Quote:
To be fair, I would have to ask you how life even evolved from the non living from a materialist perspective. Don’t forget to provide scientific proof (observably verifiable), not more theories supported by assumptions supported by methods supported by more assumptions, etc.

By 'observably verifiable,' you don't mean directly observed, do you?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/chemical_evolution

Quote:
No matter how you explain it, complexity of composition (when all you have is matter) doesn’t give rise to self-awareness and “freedom” (many determinist materialist Atheists would agree).

I don't believe in free will either. I don't see why complexity can't produce self-awareness though.

Quote:
For Atheism, logically speaking, might makes right (those who can or are on the side that can enforce it), not to mention to the fact that it’s always changing. In the past, slavery was okay, today it isn’t. In the past homosexuality was taboo, then allowed, then banned again, and now allowed once more. To argue that homosexuality for example is not immoral would be meaningless. On top of this, you have the involuntary thing against you which makes it right from the start meaningless.

First, you say 'might makes right.' Then, you say it's meaningless. Isn't that inconsistent?

But, anyways, yeah, it's all meaningless in the cosmic sense. So, what's your argument?

If Ain can't feel the comfort of absolute morality and eternal belonging in a perfect universe, his feelings will be crushed?

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: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:He never

Sinphanius wrote:

He never said non-physical things couldn't exist, of course this is inherently pointless as until you prove that such non-physical things exist, then there is no reason to believe in them.

Ha, Ain keeps on making a strawman of our position by declaring that we can't know that there is nothing supernatural.

Why, Ain, I agree. It's possible that supernatural things exist. Unfortunately, by labeling them supernatural, you've also effectively terminated any possible discussion regarding their characteristics. Isn't semantics great?

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I hate coming back

 

Quote:
I hate coming back to this discussion repeatedly after I said I was leaving; I'll probably just end up even more frustrated, but I can't stop looking at it. It's like a bad car accident.


I look at this entire discussion, and Atheism is Nonsense in general, as one massive digital Boppo the Clown thing. You just keep beating the shit out of it and it keeps coming back, not because it has anything new to offer or because it is right, but because it just can't help but be unable to realize its purpose in life is little more than to serve as target practice.

Quote:
Does that make my actions involuntary? If so, then, okay, my actions are involuntary. So now, you're probably thinking, since our discussion is 'meaningless,' why don't I leave?


I disagree with this, primarily because I think you, and AiN have both skipped a step, so I will run through it as I see it;

1: All actions are caused by physical/chemical reactions and are thus deterministic.
2: ????
3: Everything is meaningless.

Why is everything Meaningless? Why does a lack of 'free will' or absolute volition rob us of our purpose? How do we get from there to Profit! Or Prophet! whatever the case may be?

I argue against AiN's assertion that without 'free will' Life is without Purpose. Perhaps to his small little mind which is obviously too afraid of having to come up with its own purpose to survive as a sentient human no purpose can be had without one given.

Furthermore, if purpose can only ever come from some higher power, then guess what, your purpose, you never chose it, your purpose was given to you by another whether you wanted it or not. Guess what that makes it....

Involuntary.
 

 Till next time, I remain, forever, that guy in the hat.

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
Also, have you read through

Also, have you read through my post on isochron dating AiN?  Bob's following post on methods for dating younger materials?  Do you have any response?

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

Not quite yet Michael. I wish everyone else would stop commenting. If they can hold their peace until I respond. When they keep jumping in, I have an obligation to answer their objections.

It will take a while by the way.

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
Side reply to butterbattle #105

butterbattle wrote:
almost everything that you've charged to be meaningless in atheism so far, rationality, morality, etc. really is meaningless from the Christian perspective, in that it holds no cosmic significance.

It's funny how after all this time you still don't get the point. Let me give you this illustration and hopefully, you're get the point I'm making and the meaning of meaningfulness in connection with the whole involuntary objection.

You have a tall tree that sits close to the side of your house. After some time, one of it's branches grows out long to break a window during a storm.

Did the tree voluntarily choose to grow it's branches? Did the tree voluntarily choose to whack the window and break it when the wind blew too hard?

Perhaps the tree "wanted" it's branches trimmed and sought this as a means by which it's branch would be?

Perhaps the tree was a "bad" tree and "voluntarily" "decided" to behave naughty and broke the window when the storm came around.

When I say that this level of determinism (a logical conclusion given the premise that all is physical and all physical things adhere to natural laws) results in meaningless of everything, the above is what I mean. Just as all I said above regarding the tree is ridiculous so would all that you and I do. Of course you can argue that trees do experience voluntary behavior to diminish my point.

butterbattle wrote:
- The concept of morality is a human abstraction. So, you might ask, what makes my morality better than, say, Hitler's, on a cosmic level? Well, the answer is....(drumroll!!!)....nothing!

If by "human abstraction" you mean something invented in the minds of humans, you haven't proven this. Also why stop there (at the cosmic level)? Why not anywhere beneath the cosmic level?

Why not murder everyone who upsets you if you can get away with it (even think that you can get away with it). Why subject yourselves even to the laws of your "peers". Why do they get to say what's lawful or not? Screw em according to arbitrary "morality".

butterbattle wrote:
By 'observably verifiable,' you don't mean directly observed, do you?

Not the example you gave, I mean as you can observe a particular child age from infancy to adulthood for example. You cannot ever provide that sort of evidence to prove that humans evolved from a simple organism. You don't even have that sort of evidence to prove that a particular animal evolved into another different "kind" of organism (a more complex one - after all we did evolve and not devolve right?).

Here's a related example. I have an inventory management system that I developed that before I implemented corporate wide, tested it on a group of local stores. After the testing, we concluded (after physical count of the inventory) that for the most part it's reliable with some marginal room of error (internal/external theft, human entry error, etc). Even after implementing it nationwide. Once a year, we still pay loads of money for a third party company to audit our inventory by physically counting all the individual items to do our reconciliation.

In this example it would be stupid to get rid of my method because of these small errors.

Point that needs to be made from this example:

I can actually gauge the accuracy of my method (I can in the end physically count the individual items of inventory for accuracy) during the development of the method and even when in use.

You cannot. In the end it's at best an educated guess with no means of ever knowing for certain unless you can travel back in time.

butterbattle wrote:
First, you say 'might makes right.' Then, you say it's meaningless. Isn't that inconsistent?

Do a word search in this thread and search for the word "grant"

Because when I argue I don't do strawman or the crap that BobSpence1 or todangst likes to do. I present it so that you know without a shadow of a doubt that your position is utterly foolish by your own standards.

If I were to "grant" you voluntary thought and behavior, you still have to contend with the fact that morality can be nothing more than an biased description of human behavior. Arguing about the "merits" of something would be self defeating, because nothing has merits on a universal level in an atheist universe. You should simply and only try to get in a place of authority to impose your views over others.

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:I have an obligation

 

Quote:
I have an obligation to answer their objections

Except you obviously don't as you haven't responded to any of my posts for a while.

Quote:
Not the example you gave, I mean as you can observe a particular child age from infancy to adulthood for example. You cannot ever provide that sort of evidence to prove that humans evolved from a simple organism. You don't even have that sort of evidence to prove that a particular animal evolved into another different "kind" of organism (a more complex one - after all we did evolve and not devolve right?).

Yes We Have. You have not looked at the evidence, it is all there.

We have an extremely full fossil record of human ancestry, further supported by Genetic Evidence, further supported by the Radiometric Dating of the fossils themselves, and their position in the Geologic Column. You have not refuted this, you have not adressed this, you haven't even looked at this.

As for your silly tree analogy, why does 'voluntary' or 'involuntary' matter? The tree broke the window, thus it affects the universe, however small that effect may be, it is still felt somewhere. Thus how is the tree's growth meaningless?

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
Side reply to Sinphanius #111

Sinphanius wrote:
Yes We Have. You have not looked at the evidence, it is all there.

We have an extremely full fossil record of human ancestry, further supported by Genetic Evidence, further supported by the Radiometric Dating of the fossils themselves, and their position in the Geologic Column. You have not refuted this, you have not adressed this, you haven't even looked at this.

I would've thought that my example of the inventory method would explain the point I was making regarding all the above clearly.

Again the theories are nice and all but in the end you don't have the observed proof; you or anyone else was not there when it happened to verify that it happened as it was theorized (that the dating method is accurate, that the fossils are the evolutionary ancestors of man, that the geological column is as you suppose it is, etc.

Has any man traveled back in time (over 47 million years back) and located the organism that was the direct "ancestor" of the latest lizard creature that reportedly is the missing link (I'll call it ML) to first verify that the earth has been at least that old. Next track the ancestry of the organism and witness it's transformation into ML? I mean this would tell us a few things. (1) that the dating used to date ML is pretty close to accurate and (2) that evolution actually is true because I mean to see with your own eyes the evolution of one kind of organism become ML.

Again I would've thought the example of verifying inventory was clear enough. With the inventory method, I could verify whether it was for the most part accurate. I could put it to the test after a year. After 50 years, I'm sure my predictions would be way off. Now I know that radioactive decay is a lot different than my example, but the variances can and do exist and no one can verify whether over a million years or even less the rate of decay is actually linear or in whatever shape you claim it to be. Without actually being there in the past and verifying for yourself you can NEVER TRULY KNOW.

I hope I've made my point clear.

Sinphanius wrote:
As for your silly tree analogy, why does 'voluntary' or 'involuntary' matter? The tree broke the window, thus it affects the universe, however small that effect may be, it is still felt somewhere. Thus how is the tree's growth meaningless?

Again here i would've though that my example was clear still. Tell me Sinphanius, hypothetically speaking would you have called the tree in my example evil or bad or say it had a motive for breaking your window and meant it?

I know the answer is no. Why would you not? Because the tree cannot help but do what it does.

Now if everything that happens in the universe, including humans (in thought and action) was involuntary, it would seem just as "irrational" to call the man who involuntarily throws a rock at your window and breaks it immoral as it would the tree immoral for involuntarily breaking your window. The sad thing is you calling the man a criminal or calling the tree some nasty word out of anger would be an involuntary "choice" and "act" on your part.

Further more looking at your response: "it is still felt somewhere"; it is surely felt somewhere but it's done so involuntarily.

Sinphanius wrote:
Except you obviously don't as you haven't responded to any of my posts for a while.

The reason I haven't answered your past posts is because what you wrote in them doesn't pose any problem what so ever, so I can easily put it off for later.

BobSpence1 on the other hand has posted some of the most ridiculous and misleading arguments; in the same manner as todangst and conveniently dodged my objections. So I had to answer him.

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.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:Did

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Did the tree voluntarily choose to grow it's branches?

No.

I already said, "If so, then, okay, my actions are involuntary."

Quote:
Did the tree voluntarily choose to whack the window and break it when the wind blew too hard?

No.

Quote:
Perhaps the tree "wanted" it's branches trimmed and sought this as a means by which it's branch would be?

Um, no...

Quote:
Perhaps the tree was a "bad" tree and "voluntarily" "decided" to behave naughty and broke the window when the storm came around.

Uuuuhhh, no.

Quote:
When I say that this level of determinism (a logical conclusion given the premise that all is physical and all physical things adhere to natural laws) results in meaningless of everything, the above is what I mean.

I know.

Quote:
Just as all I said above regarding the tree is ridiculous so would all that you and I do.

In that sense, you're correct.

Quote:
Of course you can argue that trees do experience voluntary behavior to diminish my point.

They don't.

Quote:
If by "human abstraction" you mean something invented in the minds of humans, you haven't proven this.

There is no evidence that morality as more than some kind of abstraction actually exists, and humans are the only living things that talk about morality. So, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that it's a human concept.

Quote:
Also why stop there (at the cosmic level)? Why not anywhere beneath the cosmic level?

Oh, we do. We judge it based on culture, psychology, etc.

But, it's my impression that to Christians such as yourself, all talk of morality below the cosmic level is meaningless, so I'm trying to explain my perspective on morality in a way that would make the most sense to you.

Quote:
Why not murder everyone who upsets you if you can get away with it (even think that you can get away with it).

I don't want to.

Quote:
Why subject yourselves even to the laws of your "peers".

That depends on what the laws are. The two main reasons would, of course, be:

1) The punishment.

2) I agree with the law, so I'm not going to break it.

Quote:
Why do they get to say what's lawful or not?

That depends on what you mean by that question. Maybe you meant it in sort of a pragmatic sense, in which case the ones who determine what is lawful would be those in power or with authority. Or, perhaps, they get to decide because they are wise or they follow the conscience of most of the population. 

I don't think any human has any more a monopoly on morality than any other human.

Quote:
Screw em according to arbitrary "morality".

If I disagree with them, sure. That's how it works with religion too anyways, except it's more of an interaction between in-out-groups as opposed to individuals. 

There tends to be confusion with these terms too. I guess the best way to clarify would be to paste what I wrote in another thread.

"I choose to be moral because I want to be moral. That's really all there is to it. I don't like stealing. I enjoy helping people. Etc.

As for what I define as "moral," I now consider myself a moral pluralist. I don't think there are any perfect ethical systems; instead, we have to mix them up to determine the best course of action in any specific situation. Also, there is no inherent morality or any morality independent of humanity or any Platonic forms representing good or evil. However, there are many moral sentiments that are pretty much universal in our species. Some good starting points for a preferable morality would be:

- The Golden Rule.

- People might not necessarily want you to do to them what you want them to do to you. Hence, if you are unsure, ask first."

Quote:
You cannot ever provide that sort of evidence to prove that humans evolved from a simple organism.

Well, of course not. I hope I don't have to live that long.

Quote:
You don't even have that sort of evidence to prove that a particular animal evolved into another different "kind" of organism

You have to clearly define "kind." Otherwise, you'll just have a beautiful shifting goalpost.

Quote:
(a more complex one

That's rather ambiguous. What's more complex?

Is one more base pair considered more complex? If so, then voila!

Quote:
- after all we did evolve and not devolve right?).

Devolve is a silly term.

Natural selection simply selects for the organisms that are best fit to the survive in the specific environment. It's hard to say what is better or worse.

Quote:
You cannot. In the end it's at best an educated guess with no means of ever knowing for certain unless you can travel back in time.

You're going to have to do more than just make the assertion to convince anyone on this forum.

Quote:
I present it so that you know without a shadow of a doubt that your position is utterly foolish by your own standards.

I guess I'm just closed-minded then, because I still can't figure out why my position is foolish.

Quote:
You should simply and only try to get in a place of authority to impose your views over others.

Why should I? That's not what I want. I don't want to impose my views on others. 

I'll take freedom of expression over censoring those that disagree with me any day of the week.

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: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I disagree

Sinphanius wrote:

I disagree with this, primarily because I think you, and AiN have both skipped a step, so I will run through it as I see it;

1: All actions are caused by physical/chemical reactions and are thus deterministic.
2: ????
3: Everything is meaningless.

Why is everything Meaningless? Why does a lack of 'free will' or absolute volition rob us of our purpose? How do we get from there to Profit! Or Prophet! whatever the case may be?

Meaningless, as in it has no affect on the fate of the universe. It has no "cosmic" significance. 

For many theists, if they cannot have this kind of meaning, then there is no meaning at all for them. I'm sorry if my post was misleading. I'm trying to figure out how to communicate with Ain.

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 It Speaks!I already

 It Speaks!

I already explained to you why the 'we haven't seen it' argument is patently retarded. No living person ever saw the Battle of Hastings, does this mean it didn't happen? No living person ever saw the eruption of Vesuvius, should we doubt that too?

Or the example I used, do you need to have video evidence of a murder in order to pronounce a verdict, or is forensic evidence such as DNA testing and fingerprint analysis enough?

True, we can't be 100% certain it happened the way we think it happened, but then again, we don't need to be. 99.999% certain is quite good enough, hell, we don't even need to be that certain, so long as the available evidence does not contradict the explanation, and the explanation itself explains the available evidence, it is rational to accept it as truth.

Now I will ask you, since you love the 'you weren't there' claim so much;
Were you there? No? Then how do you know? Okay, lets look at which side the collected evidence supports;

Frankly, we do have evidence, bucketloads of it. Furthermore, the Human Genome has been completely mapped out, and so have several primate genomes in our ancestry, and they fit exactly with evolutionary theory. This Genetic Testing is the exact same that is used in Paternity Tests and Murder Cases. If you want to declare this wrong as well, you better be prepared to get rid of those too.

Or, you could just ignore all of the evidence like you have been doing up until this point. At this point I am really just repeating myself.

Now then, what evidence, remember, evidence that you have observed, do you have of your creation story?

As for the tree, I might call it bad, but bad has more definitions than simply dealing with morality. As for the man casting the stone, Immoral is a word applied to people who do things I don't like. Why they did that is of little consequence to me, therefore I don't see how it is irrational to call someone who does wrong immoral as that fits perfectly with the definition of Immoral, which never speaks of 'choice', merely of action.  

Regardless, I still can feel hatred towards it, as it has damaged my house, something which I don't like. Even if these are merely chemical reactions that are built solely upon the preceeding reactions and thus completely out of my control, this does not negate the fact that I still experience the emotions. Likewise, just because the tree or man is not in control of its actions does not mean I cannot get angry at it.

However deterministic the Universe may be in absolute terms, for humans a sort of 'Free Will' effectively exists because we can never have all of the variables necessary to predict a sentient beings behavior, a point I have already made which you have ignored.

Ultimately, I consider it damaging to my house, why they did it is of little consequence to me. I'm still going to try to stop it. Immoral and Moral are just words constructed to describe actions committed by sentient beings as we observe them. Were a man to break into my house, I would call him immoral and try to stop him. Were a tree to break into my house, I would likely call it something profane, and get me an axe.

However this completely dodges my point. I thought you were saying that a deterministic universe negates purpose, not morality, or fault. It must get tiring carrying those goal posts back and forth.

I will ask again, how does a deterministic universe negate purpose?
I will ask again, how does a deterministic universe negate Morality?

If someone is driving too close to me and I need to slam on my brakes, and they rear end me, it doesn't matter why they were driving so close to me. They still have to pay for my repairs.

You still haven't proven that Free Will existws.

@butterbattle:

Because living in a universe that exists purely to be wiped out in some galactic cosmic struggle between a being that is supposedly omnipotent so shouldn't even need to fight and his former minion who somehow chose to commit a sudden but innevitable betrayal despite never being endowed with free will* and who draws all of his power solely from his creator who is now his enemy makes life so much more meaningful.
NOTE: I'm not saying you believe this butterbattle.

Funny thing is our actions can have cosmic significance, if we survive long enough to become a truly space-faring species. Even if we can't, Chaos theory gives us some influence, however minor.

Other than that, fair enough, I just wanted to throw that point into the arena.

*I have never been given a satisfactory answer as to whether or not Lucifer or any other angels were givel free will.

Now if you excuse me, I have a Galaxy to Build.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I rather doubt AiN witnessed

I rather doubt AiN witnessed any of the events described in the Bible, so whatever doubts he has in things like evolution and radiometric dating, etc, for which there is vastly more sound physical and mathematical evidence than there is for Biblical events, he has zero grounds for treating them as any more certain than evolution etc, on his own criteria!

Regarding radiometric dating, I appear to have missed AiN's response to my description of how radiometric dating is just one of a whole bunch of different techniques which have been cross-compared to build up a very solidly justified approach to establishing dates over a wide  range of time periods. Assuming he did not ignore it all...

 

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


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
So ( saying this while I'm

So ( saying this while I'm drunk).... can I gloat cos AiN hasn't answered?

 

Excuse my drunk spelling

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 #117

MichaelMcF wrote:

So ( saying this while I'm drunk).... can I gloat cos AiN hasn't answered?

 

Excuse my drunk spelling

Hardly.

 

Michael, you seem like a smart guy, you ought to know what my objections to evolution are from even a non-Christian perspective given my posts in this thread and how I'll ultimately respond to all your "evidence/proof" gathering (again even from a non-Christian perspective). I'll clarify them later if you still don't know.

Before I do that I'd like for you to answer a few questions from an evolutionist perspective.

(1) Are humans obligated to be reasonable or rational; ought we to be reasonable or rational?

(2) Ought humans to be honest, fair, and just?

(3) Ought humans to promote the well being of others? I understand for the prolonging of one's own life and well being we "need" to get along with others, but observing how gangs operate (looking out for your kind and "screw all the rest&quotEye-wink, can't we get by with that outlook?

(4) If I'm married and have children, what obligation do I have to avoid extramarital affairs if I think I can get away with it (Have my cake and eat it too)?

(5) If you are opposed to slavery, ought I also to be opposed to it for any reason other than being ostracized if that is the general consensus of the society I am a part of (that slavery is evil)? (consider also same sex unions and abortions)

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability; avoiding question begging answers. For example if your answer to question (2) is: humans ought to be honest, fair, and/or just because it promotes the equity, advancement, or other developmental aspect of the human species (I expect for you tell me why these ideals are intrinsically/universally accepted ideals, i.e. why we're "obligated" to promote them - remember avoid question begging answers even at this level). If your answer for example is ultimately humans have no obligation to be honest, fair, or just, please say so and explain why.

Again, answer all these questions from an evolutionist perspective.

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:

Again, answer all these questions from an evolutionist perspective.

 

1)  I really should stop sitting down at the computer when I'm drunk.

 

2)  No.  I'm not answering any of your questions until you address the topics that you raised.  I have answered your questions on radiometric dating.  Do you accept those answers, thus accepting that your argument that the "presuppositions" of radiometric dating are shaky is a false one?

 

Until we tie off the original conversation I refuse to let you shift the goalposts and start using this thread (which was on evolution) to go over the tired "but where do morals come from?" schtick.

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 #119 & other Evolutionists

MichaelMcF wrote:
...address the topics that you raised.  I have answered your questions on radiometric dating.  Do you accept those answers, thus accepting that your argument that the "presuppositions" of radiometric dating are shaky is a false one?

Until we tie off the original conversation I refuse to let you shift the goalposts and start using this thread (which was on evolution) to go over the tired "but where do morals come from?" schtick.

Michael, I asked the questions about radiometric dating thinking that you would tell me that you devised a way to travel back in time to test the methods evolutionists use to date materials which they in turn use to measure the possibility that the evolutionist philosophy is true. Even if/when we can properly date things that we happen the know the age of through historians or what have you by using such methods; how can we ever know the factors we hold as constant remain so in a billion years or even less 50 thousand years (not to mention account for any unforeseen factors)? Has recorded history extended even to that time?

Now the evolutionist theory has been presented as if itself and the arguments for it are scientific. THEY ARE NOT. If it takes millions if not billions of years for a kind of living thing to evolve into a distinctively different kind of living thing, then hopefully in millions of years into the future, the human race (if it's still human) will know whether evolution is true or not; hopefully by then, we will have verified through millions of years of observation and data collecting that what we know as dogs evolved into a blahbidiblah! Until then, evolution remains not a scientific theory but a "religious" philosophy. You hold on to it religiously despite it being unprovable, its ultimate and ridiculous claims of humanity and man, and the "bigotry" and hypocrisy it has shown against its proponents despite it's vast short comings, etc (making sure that no other voice may be heard but that you evolutionists may be the expounder and interpreter of what is truth - all the while denying the knowability of truth).

Again evolution CANNOT BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. Get that through your thick religiously bigoted heads.

(1) Over and over again you provide "speciation" as the proof that evolution is true, yet the speciation that you provide is not the speciation that we're thinking about when we're told that the cat or dog evolved from some living thing that was not a cat or dog. Even if a certain breed of cat could no longer breed effectively with another, unless we observe it become anything other than a "cat", the theory of evolution remains unscientific and unproven. Also you may claim that the domestic cat evolved from the wild cats (Lions, tigers, panthers, bobcats, etc) even this hasn't been observed/scientifically verified and never can be unless you hitch a ride with the Delorean and travel back to the past to record their evolution. OUCH! So many strikes against you so far.

(2) How are we going to prove that the earth has existed for billions of years? We can't. Assumptions are made and theories are proposed even based on observable things, but it still will remain unproven. This assumption is philosophical in it's origin and again without the age of the earth having been scientifically verified or even experienced (time travel), evolution remains unscientific.

(3) The fossil record. What does that prove? Was man there at any of the catastrophic events to observe what was living in each epoch if the earth is billions of years old? How do we know how the fossil record would look given a billion year outlook? Were we there to observe the fossil deposits? Again, it's not scientifically verifiable. The evidence there is interpreted by people who believe that the earth is old; it's assumed that the layers would look like that against the backdrop of that paradigm; but again you will never know if that's the case, because you can't travel back in time to verify it.

IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC, IT'S PHILOSOPHY, LIKE OTHER PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS IT'S HELD ON TO RELIGIOUSLY AND CANNOT BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK RELIGIOUSLY BIGOTED HEADS! I MEAN EVEN AT THE BIRTH OF EVOLUTION, IT WAS RIGHTLY LABELED AS A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW. TRADING GOD FOR MATTER OR NATURE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS RELIGIOUS OR PHILOSOPHICAL.

RADIOMETRIC DATING, THIS CRAPPY VERSION OF SPECIATION THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING UP, THE FOSSIL RECORD, DOESN'T PROVE EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE. IT MAY ALLOW FOR IT TO REMAIN A POSSIBLE THEORY TO EXPLAIN FOR THE WORLD WE EXPERIENCE BUT IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL.

IS ANYONE IN THE HOUSE CLAIMING SPECIAL REVOLUTION? HAVING EXPERIENCED THE EARTH TO BE BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME? TO HAVE STEPPED BACK IN TIME TO SAY "YUP, MY METHODS AND CALCULATIONS USING ISOCHRON DATING OF THIS EARTH FRAGMENT IN THE PRESENT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY MY TIME TRAVELING TO BE PRETTY ACCURATE."?

GIVE IT A REST PEOPLE! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. THAT'S FINE BY ME, ATHEISTS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GIVE INTELLIGENT RESPONSES TO SUCH QUESTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD BEGIN NOW.

BUT SO THAT YOU DON'T THINK THE QUESTIONS ARE OFF THE SUBJECT. YOU STILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR MORALITY, HOW MALE/FEMALE CAME ABOUT, HOW RATIONAL INTELLIGENCE CAN BE PRESSURED INTO EXISTENCE AND HOW ALL OF THIS AND MUCH MORE CAN BE EXPLAIN BY YOUR GOD "MATTER" & ITS METHOD "EVOLUTION"

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.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:(1)

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

(1) Are humans obligated to be reasonable or rational;

Define obligated.

Quote:
ought we to be reasonable or rational?

Yes.

Quote:
(2) Ought humans to be honest, fair, and just?

Yes.

Quote:
(3) Ought humans to promote the well being of others? I understand for the prolonging of one's own life and well being we "need" to get along with others, but observing how gangs operate (looking out for your kind and "screw all the rest&quotEye-wink, can't we get by with that outlook?

Yes.

Quote:
(4) If I'm married and have children, what obligation do I have to avoid extramarital affairs if I think I can get away with it (Have my cake and eat it too)?

None, except your conscience. Of course, realistically, there is always a chance that you will be caught.

Quote:
(5) If you are opposed to slavery, ought I also to be opposed to it for any reason other than being ostracized if that is the general consensus of the society I am a part of (that slavery is evil)?

I think it's wrong.

Quote:
(I expect for you tell me why these ideals are intrinsically/universally accepted ideals, i.e. why we're "obligated" to promote them - remember avoid question begging answers even at this level). If your answer for example is ultimately humans have no obligation to be honest, fair, or just, please say so and explain why.

Again, answer all these questions from an evolutionist perspective.

Huh? Well, if you're implying what obligation do we have to do these things on an inherent/universal cosmic level, the answer is undoubtedly that there is no sufficient obligation. We've been through this before.

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: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:IT'S

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC, IT'S PHILOSOPHY, LIKE OTHER PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS IT'S HELD ON TO RELIGIOUSLY AND CANNOT BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK RELIGIOUSLY BIGOTED HEADS! I MEAN EVEN AT THE BIRTH OF EVOLUTION, IT WAS RIGHTLY LABELED AS A PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW. TRADING GOD FOR MATTER OR NATURE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS RELIGIOUS OR PHILOSOPHICAL.

RADIOMETRIC DATING, THIS CRAPPY VERSION OF SPECIATION THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING UP, THE FOSSIL RECORD, DOESN'T PROVE EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE. IT MAY ALLOW FOR IT TO REMAIN A POSSIBLE THEORY TO EXPLAIN FOR THE WORLD WE EXPERIENCE BUT IT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL.

IS ANYONE IN THE HOUSE CLAIMING SPECIAL REVOLUTION? HAVING EXPERIENCED THE EARTH TO BE BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? THE ABILITY TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME? TO HAVE STEPPED BACK IN TIME TO SAY "YUP, MY METHODS AND CALCULATIONS USING ISOCHRON DATING OF THIS EARTH FRAGMENT IN THE PRESENT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY MY TIME TRAVELING TO BE PRETTY ACCURATE."?

GIVE IT A REST PEOPLE! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. THAT'S FINE BY ME, ATHEISTS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GIVE INTELLIGENT RESPONSES TO SUCH QUESTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD BEGIN NOW.

BUT SO THAT YOU DON'T THINK THE QUESTIONS ARE OFF THE SUBJECT. YOU STILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR MORALITY, HOW MALE/FEMALE CAME ABOUT, HOW RATIONAL INTELLIGENCE CAN BE PRESSURED INTO EXISTENCE AND HOW ALL OF THIS AND MUCH MORE CAN BE EXPLAIN BY YOUR GOD "MATTER" & ITS METHOD "EVOLUTION"

.............caps lock.

So...are you going to actually respond to our explanations of morality and knowledge from a non-theistic perspective, the reliability of radiometric dating and other dating methods, the scientific process and induction, etc?

I guess not.

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply to butterbattle #122

butterbattle wrote:
So...are you going to actually respond to our explanations of morality and knowledge from a non-theistic perspective

I will...can you point me again to where you explained it? just tell me which page of this thread.

 

butterbattle wrote:
So...are you going to actually respond to our explanations of...

the reliability of radiometric dating and other dating methods, the scientific process and induction, etc?

I guess not.

so i suppose you're going to continue holding on to your religious dogma in the face of the lingering problem of your pseudo scientific claim. I've already posted the problem with radiometric dating and the other forms of "proof" you use to validate evolution; that in the end, you have no way of verifying the accuracy of the method over any number of years past recorded history (forget about billions of years); that in the end evolution can be nothing more than a philosophical view/theory and that it's not scientific (it's claims direct or indirect are philosophical not scientific). I see you haven't addressed that obvious fact. Please continue to hold on to it with religious fervor.

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
 Were you to google "How

 Were you to google "How can Radiometric Dating be Verified"* you would come to This Paper whose full version can be viewed Here. This paper goes into an in depth explanation of how radiometric dating works, and how it is checked, with the goal of refuting the creationist  claim that radiometric dating is unreliable or wrong from the perspective of a christian. Alternatively, there is a shorter version between the full article and the abstract in length here.

This paper also contains a list of non-Radiometric Dating methods viable for the last 100,000 years.


Ten bucks says you won't even click any of the links and certainly won't read even the abstract. But I stand to be proven wrong, refute this article.
 

Oh, Morality and knowledge were explained here and here.  These pages take less than ten minutes to read.

Once again, your 'we haven't seen it' complaint is patently idiotic. If no one sees a murder is it impossible to ever figure out who dun it?  No living person ever saw the Battle of Thermopylae, does that mean it never hapenned and the only way to think it hapenned is through faith and religion?

Granted, if I had to worship someone, Leonidas would be high up on the list, though still not even in my top three

*You could even feel lucky, punk.

P.S. Radioactive Decay Rates operating on the half-life principle are kind of one of the more fundamental tenets of modern nuclear chemistry, so if you want to say that they are unreliable, you will kind of need to refute that.  Good luck, and have fun Storming the Castle.

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 Sinphanius #124

Sinphanius wrote:
This paper also contains a list of non-Radiometric Dating methods viable for the last 100,000 years.

I wasn't aware that recorded history extended back 100,000 years. News to me Smiling


Sinphanius wrote:
Ten bucks says you won't even click any of the links and certainly won't read even the abstract. But I stand to be proven wrong, refute this article.

If I took the bet, you would win. Like I said, you cannot verify that it's accurate even 15,000 years back how are you going to tell us if something is billions of years old? What would I be refuting? That his math was incorrect? Or that all the variables that he considered aren't considered in the calculations (or whatever)?

I'll ask again, did he go back in time and see the formation of the material in question and recorded the date and then compared it with the results of the methods used by evolutionists to verify it's accuracy?

Sinphanius wrote:
Oh, Morality and knowledge were explained here and here.  These pages take less than ten minutes to read.

I'll be sure to read over it and respond back.

Sinphanius wrote:
Once again, your 'we haven't seen it' complaint is patently idiotic. If no one sees a murder is it impossible to ever figure out who dun it?  No living person ever saw the Battle of Thermopylae, does that mean it never hapenned and the only way to think it hapenned is through faith and religion?...

...P.S. Radioactive Decay Rates operating on the half-life principle are kind of one of the more fundamental tenets of modern nuclear chemistry, so if you want to say that they are unreliable, you will kind of need to refute that.  Good luck, and have fun Storming the Castle.

First of all, don't try to mislead any of your readers with your awful comparison. You're comparing apples and oranges. If your referring to forensic science, the methods used in forensic science have been tested and verified. Everything we need to verify the methods are accessible to us. This is real science.

Regarding the historical battle, its plausible that the battle never happened and it was some big conspiracy executed by all the parties said to be involved in the battle. But aside from that, again different category here. We have the writings of historians who lived in that day who either witnessed it firsthand, knew someone who witnessed it firsthand, or knew someone who knew someone who witnessed it firsthand, other literary works to cross reference, and don't forget that people were there to at least witness that time in history. It's RECORDED history. I mean do we even have anything in writing in the past that records the observation of some kind of living thing evolving into a different kind of living thing?

Radiometric dating is employed for dating things. To verify the accuracy of a dating method you would actually need to KNOW the date of the thing being dated which we have no way of actually knowing (please build the delorean to prove me wrong); otherwise you're just guessing; even if it is an educated guess. The dates in question are beyond recorded history. This is pseudo science.

Sinphanius wrote:
Granted, if I had to worship someone, Leonidas would be high up on the list, though still not even in my top three

*You could even feel lucky, punk.

Whatever floats your boat.

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.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
*sigh*Okay, what about

*sigh*

Okay, what about dendrochronology? Do you agree that we can determine the age of trees by analyzing their tree-ring growth?

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:

CAPSLOCK FURY! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH

You know I'm not usually one for non-scientific, "folksy" statements, but my dad always told me that if I ended up shouting at the guy across the table from me I'd probably lost the argument.  That being said, I'll adress the points you tried to make before you started being huffy.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Michael, I asked the questions about radiometric dating thinking that you would tell me that you devised a way to travel back in time to test the methods evolutionists use to date materials which they in turn use to measure the possibility that the evolutionist philosophy is true. Even if/when we can properly date things that we happen the know the age of through historians or what have you by using such methods; how can we ever know the factors we hold as constant remain so in a billion years or even less 50 thousand years (not to mention account for any unforeseen factors)? Has recorded history extended even to that time?

 

Ok, I'm going to condense my post about isochron methods into a series of bullet points to help out the hard-of-thinking:

  • Isochron dating makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.
  • Data points only sit on a straight line if the assumption that all materials involved formed a common pool of matter is true.
  • The gradient of that line will increase with time due to the nature of radioactive decay
  • That gradient will tell us the point at which the materials formed.
  • The technique suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
  • This has been confirmed by testing a slew of radioative materils, none of which are required to give the same value for the age of the earth unless that value is true.

This is a fact.  You don't need a time machine to see that this is true.  It is tested and proven by materials we have today.  And before you hide behind the "But... but... but.... the pastor says that we don't know what happened a gajillion years ago" argument need I remind you that scientists have tried to alter the conditions of radiactive decay using pressure and temperature - the two things most likely to alter the rate of a chemical process - and, in the case of the rocks we use for dating, they found no significant changes.  FYI no significant changes means a shift of 1 million years in 140 million.  It's not a big deal before you get your panties in a twist.  We have absolutely no good reason to assume that the mechanism nor the rates of radiactive decay have changed in the past 10, 100, 1000, 1 million or 1 billion years.  I highly suggest you look at the Talk Origins articles I linked to as well as the materials that Sinphanius has directed you to.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Now the evolutionist theory has been presented as if itself and the arguments for it are scientific. THEY ARE NOT.

Bold faced assertions are fun!  Can I try?  yes they are.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If it takes millions if not billions of years for a kind of living thing to evolve into a distinctively different kind of living thing, then hopefully in millions of years into the future, the human race (if it's still human) will know whether evolution is true or not; hopefully by then, we will have verified through millions of years of observation and data collecting that what we know as dogs evolved into a blahbidiblah! Until then, evolution remains not a scientific theory but a "religious" philosophy. You hold on to it religiously despite it being unprovable, its ultimate and ridiculous claims of humanity and man, and the "bigotry" and hypocrisy it has shown against its proponents despite it's vast short comings, etc (making sure that no other voice may be heard but that you evolutionists may be the expounder and interpreter of what is truth - all the while denying the knowability of truth).

Again evolution CANNOT BE PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. Get that through your thick religiously bigoted heads.

But we have observable data.  The stratiography, taxonomy and phylogeny (supported by modern molecular genetics) of all creatures we have ever studied all agree with each other on the shape of the "tree of life".  This is an observable fact and one which would only be true had an evolutionary process occured.

For the record the shortcomings of a theory don't make it wrong.  Hell a paper is going to be published soon that aruges that orang-utans are our closest living relatives, not chimpanzees.  It's controversial and many people don't agree with this view, but the paper will still be published as a dissenting view and is open to scrutiny.  That's how honest science works.  So you can cram your suppression of truth line up your ass.

Way to go on calling us bigots.  We're discussing evolution here, what does that have to do with religious bigotry?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

(1) Over and over again you provide "speciation" as the proof that evolution is true, yet the speciation that you provide is not the speciation that we're thinking about when we're told that the cat or dog evolved from some living thing that was not a cat or dog. Even if a certain breed of cat could no longer breed effectively with another, unless we observe it become anything other than a "cat", the theory of evolution remains unscientific and unproven. Also you may claim that the domestic cat evolved from the wild cats (Lions, tigers, panthers, bobcats, etc) even this hasn't been observed/scientifically verified and never can be unless you hitch a ride with the Delorean and travel back to the past to record their evolution. OUCH! So many strikes against you so far.

Wrong.   Speciation is speciation.  The types of changes that allow bacteria to develop the ability to digest nylon are the same types of changes that allowed cats and dogs to evolved from the original carnivorae and that allowed us and monkeys to evolved from a common ancestor.  This is one of the biggest mistakes of the creationism movement.  There's this false suggestion of two different types of speciation when that's blatantly untrue.  The mechanism that has been suggested for the evolution of humans from a primate ancestor is a mechanism we see in action today.  It's observable and testable.  Tell me AiN, what is unscientific about this?

And it has been verified that domestic cats are related to wild cats, don't be a dick.  Phylogeny and taxonomy - both accepted sciences supported by molecular biology - make that link very well.

No strikes - no ouchy!  Yeah!

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

How are we going to prove that the earth has existed for billions of years? We can't. Assumptions are made and theories are proposed even based on observable things, but it still will remain unproven. This assumption is philosophical in it's origin and again without the age of the earth having been scientifically verified or even experienced (time travel), evolution remains unscientific.

I refer you above on radiometric dating.  The assumption isn't philosophical, it's physical and can be tested.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The fossil record. What does that prove? Was man there at any of the catastrophic events to observe what was living in each epoch if the earth is billions of years old? How do we know how the fossil record would look given a billion year outlook? Were we there to observe the fossil deposits? Again, it's not scientifically verifiable. The evidence there is interpreted by people who believe that the earth is old; it's assumed that the layers would look like that against the backdrop of that paradigm; but again you will never know if that's the case, because you can't travel back in time to verify it.

And now you're sounding desperate, I suppose that explains why you then went into "CAPSLOCK FURY".  The fossil record proves that life has gradually got more complicated over time.  End of story.  If you disagree with this conclusion then please provide a reasonable explanation, and evidence, for how the fossils came to lie in the stratic pattern we observe without it being a process inherent to time.

 

Since you love time machines so much I'm going to follow what has already been implied in this thread but set it more as a direct challenge to you.  I'm going to list two scenarios for you, one realistic one phrased childishly, and I would like to to answer the questions that follow both.

 

 1)  A man has been found murdered in the street.  Forensic analysis and molecular biology have identified the method of his execution - right down to what direction he was hit from and the violence of the blows - and have also positively identified his killer with only a 1 in a million shot that the DNA belongs to someone else.

  • How do we know the police have the correct man or that the murder took place as described?  No-one saw the attack.  The accused claims an evil djin commited the murder and planted evidence.  As no-one was there the police cannot scientifically verify the claim of evil spirits.  Can they still prosecute?  They're basing their conclusions on scientific evidence which doesn't let anyone see what actually happend but points heavily toward the accused having comitted murder.  Is this fair?

2)  The Bible says that jesus walked on water.  It says he was crucified and rose from the dead

  • Where you there?  Did you see it?  Do you have a time machine to prove it to me?  People still argue over Elvis's favourite burger recipe and the JFk assassination which happend less than 50 years ago.  We know stories change.  How do you know that the jesus story hasn't changed over 2000 years?  How do you know the claims made by an old book are verifiable.  How do you know it wasn't made up?  Can you scientifically verify all this?
  • Provide me with scientific evidence or your time machine and I'll listen.

 

 

 

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


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
PS - I highly recommend you

PS - I highly recommend you watch the series of YouTube videos by AronRa entitled foundational falsehoods of creationism.  I only discovered this series recently and it does an excellent job of explaining the evidence we have for evolution and why many of your arguments are misguided.

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:If I took the bet,

 

Quote:
If I took the bet, you would win.

So you are admitting right here that you don't care what the evidence says at all, you just want to remain perpetually ignorant.
I hate to break it to you, but we actually don't live in a world of English Socialism, so you might want to reevaluate your life strategy.

Quote:
I'll be sure to read over it and respond back.

We both know this is a lie.

They weren't Misleading examples, they were perfect analogies.

The methods used in Radiometric Dating have been observed and documented. Carbon-14 only works reliably up to 5000 or so years into the past because of its very short half-life. This has been confirmed to work by dating samples of known age. All of the other radiometric dating techniques work on the exact same principle, they simply use different elements, however the early stages of their decay has been mapped out. How do you think we determined their half-life? Really, in order to argue that the Radiometric Dating we do use for really old stuff doesn't work you will need to provide an entirely new explanation of modern nuclear chemistry and explain just how and why Carbon-14 works one way but all of the others work a completely different and useless way.

I'll wait.

More specifically, Carbon-14 can then be used to check such things as Glacial Ice Core Samples and Dendochronology (which you haven't adressed, and which can give us dates almost 20 thousand years in the past), which can then check the other dating methods.


Furthermore, since you seem to have such a cosmic stiffy for recorded history, it should be noted that we have recorded history extending well beyond the supposed 'date of creation' as determined by Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland in the 17th Century, as outlined Here.

@MichaelMcF: I already suggested that series to him, he refused to watch it. I also suggested potholer54's wonderful 'Made Easy' Youtube Series which, like the FFoC adresses all of his concenrs. He won't watch them, just as, by his own admission, he won't read anything we give to him.

The two series effectively kill any possible argument for creationism, as the Made Easy Series effectively says why we are right while the FFoC Series deals with why creationism is dead wrong about everything. Sprinkle a little "Why do People Laugh at Creationists" by Thunderf00t on for seasoning, and let simmer for 20 minutes and you have got yourself one fine meal.

P.S. My boat is floated by a mixture of Helium with trace amounts of Hydrogen thrown in because everything is better with fire.
 

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
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

 @MichaelMcF: I already suggested that series to him, he refused to watch it. I also suggested potholer54's wonderful 'Made Easy' Youtube Series which, like the FFoC adresses all of his concenrs. He won't watch them, just as, by his own admission, he won't read anything we give to him.

 

My bad, didn't realise that's where you'd pointed him before.

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


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
PPS - AiN, I'd ask you to

PPS - AiN, I'd ask you to look for a thread in the Atheist vs Theist forum that I'll title "AiN and other Theists..."

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 butterbattle#126 MichaelMcF#127

butterbattle wrote:
Okay, what about dendrochronology?
No. First of all don't pretend that there aren't any problems encountered with it. As with all the other dating methods, once you go out of the scope of recorded history, it's guessing from a scientific perspective.

MichaelMcF wrote:
I'll adress the points you tried to make before you started being huffy.
Just for emphasis, not being "huffy".

MichaelMcF wrote:

  • Isochron dating makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.
  • Data points only sit on a straight line if the assumption that all materials involved formed a common pool of matter is true.
  • The gradient of that line will increase with time due to the nature of radioactive decay
  • That gradient will tell us the point at which the materials formed.
  • The technique suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
  • This has been confirmed by testing a slew of radioative materils, none of which are required to give the same value for the age of the earth unless that value is true.

I remind you that scientists have tried to alter the conditions of radiactive decay using pressure and temperature - the two things most likely to alter the rate of a chemical process - and, in the case of the rocks we use for dating, they found no significant changes.

First of all, the evolutionist scientists did all of this involuntarily, right? Again Michael, the scientist know all that could happen to rocks over a time span of billion of years (I mean likely - guessing)?

But the thought came to me, Adam and Eve were created as adults. The Bible claims also that God created the earth and all that is in them in a moments time, not through any processes that we're accustomed to. The earth itself could be aged beyond anything we can experience but still only begin to exist a few thousand years ago.

Aside from that, you still can't verify the accuracy of the methods, because man didn't live that far back or at least didn't write about it and you don't have a time machine so it's not remotely scientific. You keep believing that the universe came about through evolutionary processes and interpreting your experiences on the backdrop of that paradigm.

MichaelMcF wrote:
The stratiography, taxonomy and phylogeny (supported by modern molecular genetics) of all creatures we have ever studied all agree with each other on the shape of the "tree of life".  This is an observable fact and one which would only be true had an evolutionary process occured.

Rock on Michael, you keep interpreting the evidence according to your religious beliefs; stay true to your faith. They have to be interpreted that way in order for evolution to be viable.

Again from a scientific perspective, you can't go back in time and observe it. No historic writings were produced from that time, etc. so it's not verified. I suppose all my Caps Lock writing didn't get you to read much of it because I addressed most of it.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Way to go on calling us bigots.  We're discussing evolution here, what does that have to do with religious bigotry?

Because Christians are often called bigots (unfortunately it may apply where ever it's applicable), but evolutionists have taken over the public schools, leveraged the scientific community not because evolution is true but because they control the key positions and dictate what's taught or what's accepted as the norm. Christian "bigotry" has been replaced with Atheist bigotry (no quotations - the real deal).

MichaelMcF wrote:
Wrong.   Speciation is speciation.  The types of changes that allow bacteria to develop the ability to digest nylon are the same types of changes that allowed cats and dogs to evolved from the original carnivorae and that allowed us and monkeys to evolved from a common ancestor... Tell me AiN, what is unscientific about this?

It's unscientific in the fact that it's not observed as you claim it is but assumed because of your faith in evolution. You're going to make the facts (not of cats and dogs evolving from something other than a cat or dog - but of some nylon digesting bacteria (still a bacteria I see - and probably engineered in a lab if not simply already existing but only now noticed it's existence).

MichaelMcF wrote:
And it has been verified that domestic cats are related to wild cats, don't be a dick.  Phylogeny and taxonomy - both accepted sciences supported by molecular biology - make that link very well.

No strikes - no ouchy!  Yeah!

Actually no verification, no proof, just interpreting the facts to fit your theory. Strike Two!

I suppose no artist that ever lived ever produced similar pieces of art. You couldn't identify a Rembrandt from a Picasso, etc, right?

MichaelMcF wrote:
I refer you above on radiometric dating.  The assumption isn't philosophical, it's physical and can be tested.

Evolution is a philosophy actually. Denying it will not change what it is. Again with radiometric dating, what you date to be billions of years old can never be verified to be billions of years old. 5000 years is a speck compared to billions of years old, even a million years. Yes you have accounted for anything and everything that can happen that could alter the results (even for 50,000 years)?

MichaelMcF wrote:
The fossil record proves that life has gradually got more complicated over time.  End of story.  If you disagree with this conclusion then please provide a reasonable explanation, and evidence, for how the fossils came to lie in the stratic pattern we observe without it being a process inherent to time.

If you assume that the different layers are what you claim them to be, then it gives credibility to your theory. But that's just the problem isn't it; since you haven't experienced it (not just you but no one in recorded history) it's should liken to an untested hypothesis. And to prove as you're trying to prove evolution with an untested hypothesis is not scientific; it's speculative and philosophical.

MichaelMcF regarding scenario 1 wrote:
Can they still prosecute?

I'm assuming he did it. Why else would he claim that an evil djin commited the murder?

He could've simply fabricated an alibi with false witnesses that places him no where near the crime. If he had done that, even with all the forensic evidence, the alibi and false testimony (without any motive or intention) would produce reasonable doubt (1 in a million shot) and acquit him. (Note: I'm not suggesting people give false testimony and lie)

Now if he had claimed the djin commited the murder and had no alibi or false witnesses with all the forensic evidence, I suppose it would remove any doubt that he murdered the victim.

Strange example Michael.

MichaelMcF regarding scenario 2 wrote:
The Bible says that jesus walked on water.  It says he was crucified and rose from the dead. Where you there?  Did you see it?...

Michael, I can tell that you're desperate and haven't read much of what I've written. Jesus was a historical figure. Aside from the Bible writings (which itself contain historical writings and itself as a whole is historical), we have secular sources that verify his existence. The Apostles witnessed it and verified the miracles and wrote the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation, etc. Luke wrote a Gospel and Acts, researched, interviewed people who witness them first hand, and even participated in the ministry of the Apostle Paul (so it claims).

In the Old Testament, Moses aside from his own experiences receives revelation regarding the time before his experience (the creation of the universe, etc). The witness to that is God. Now this isn't scientific proof. Christians have never claimed the Bible to be scientific proof that God exists.

It gives it credibility that we have over 5 thousand greek manuscript copies of the original writings of the New Testament, 8,000 in Latin, 1,000 of others, with all the little errors here and there over a span of hundreds of years (articles, misspellings, etc that do not affect the substantial content of the writings).

The general rule is the more copies you have over along span of time the more likely you're find substantial change in writings. No other work of antiquity comes close to the number of copies we have, not to mention the substantial accuracy of copies over a span of a 1,000 years or more.

Not only that, your archaeologists date the earliest one 125 A.D. and the entire New testament before 300 A.D. These aren't the originals. When you compare it to the writings of Plato for example, his earliest extant manuscript is 1250 years past his death. The New Testament originals supposedly have been written before 100 A.D. and we have the earliest at just 125 A.D. That's remarkable in the history of ancient writings.

We have writings of early Church Fathers that quote New Testament writings throughout their own writings (we see what they knew to be Scripture before it was even officially canonized)

How do we know that the Bible is not fool of crap? Because of the archeological evidence that is out there. They give credibility to the historical aspects of the Bible; the peoples of the time, the culture, language, events, etc.

The things we experience in the world give credibility to Christianity

Again, I can't conduct some experiment to verify the miracles recorded in the Bible. I hope no Christian ever has claimed that. I believe it on faith just as you believe by faith that evolution is true (without any verifiable proof of the accuracy of your methods projected out 1 billion years in the past, when every piece of experience is interpreted in that light). You can take the whole of scripture and produce an philosophical view of the universe from it and if you begin with the Triune Personal God revealed in His Word then you account logically for the universe and man's place in it, not to mention prerequisite for science to work in the first place (induction), morality to be more than simply the conflicting desires and opinions of men. I mean go and tell Obama or a black man that Slavery was not evil in the past because society allowed it and is only now because morality has evolved to it's current condition.

It can account for all the rest.

In regards to my objection to evolution. Don't think that you have rightly placed it in the same situation as your second scenario.

Men claimed to witness it and wrote about it (you may not believe the miracles but I don't expect you, given your naturalistic religion but you cannot discredit the rest of their writings without discrediting everything you believe in and hold to be true that you haven't personally yourself experienced rather than reading about it or believing it to be true based on someone else authority. We have an unbroken chain of historic writings that connect our present to that past.

I'm asking did any man live 1 million years in the past? Did he witness anything and write it down? Do we have an unbroken chain of historic writings that connect our present to that past? I don't think so.

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
It's clear to me that you're

It's clear to me that you're not even properly reading the points I've addressed, which is disappointing because in the first page of this topic it looked like you were genuinely open to discourse.  I shall carry on regardless.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

First of all, the evolutionist scientists did all of this involuntarily, right? Again Michael, the scientist know all that could happen to rocks over a time span of billion of years (I mean likely - guessing)...

...Aside from that, you still can't verify the accuracy of the methods, because man didn't live that far back or at least didn't write about it and you don't have a time machine so it's not remotely scientific. You keep believing that the universe came about through evolutionary processes and interpreting your experiences on the backdrop of that paradigm.

 

Christ-on-a-fucking-pogo-stick.  Do you even have basic comprehension skills?  The isochron dating method is simply a mathematical tool.  It makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.  The only assumption is that the matter formed at the same time.  A creationist could take this assumption from Genesis and say "Well God created all the matter at the same time" and get the straight line that an isochron plot predicts.  At that point the tool works for a scientist and a creationist.  It's the same tool and, from two similar assumptions, it would appear to work.   But the creationist would still arrive at the same answers as the scientist.  There's nothing about the method that assumes age.  There's nothing about the method that requires it to arrive at billions of years.  For all Patterson knew the only straight line he could have got would have been rocks dating the earth to 6,000 years.  There's nothing about the method dependent on the bias of the observer.  It can't be affected by bias!  The only thing the method can do is return an independent number.

 

Of course the rocks won't stay perfect over billions of years.  Contaminants may get on or isotopes may escape through whatever process.  Do you know what that does to the data in our sample set?  It creates an error.  Hence why you'll never find a scientist saying the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years exactly.  The actual answer comes in at 4.54 billion years +/- 0.04 billion.

 

Again this is an independent number.  It is not affected by bias.  For fuck sake man, different radioactive materials give the same age.  There's no reason for them to do this.  There's no way you can manipulate this with bias.  The only way that several different techniques give the same number is if that number is true.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

But the thought came to me, Adam and Eve were created as adults. The Bible claims also that God created the earth and all that is in them in a moments time, not through any processes that we're accustomed to. The earth itself could be aged beyond anything we can experience but still only begin to exist a few thousand years ago.

 

Christ, surely you're above this - God created the world 6,000 years ago but made it look 13.9 billion years old?  creating light in transit and everything?  To quote Bill Hicks "I'm a prankster God, I'm killing me!".  What purpose would this serve?  Plus it doesn't mention that in the Bible, it's clutching at straws.

If you want to go down that route:  I'm God.  I created the Universe at 00:53, June 23rd 2009.  Everything before it that you think you've experienced is an implanted memory and I've decided to make the universe look older that the couple of minutes it actually is.  Explain to me why this is not true.


AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Rock on Michael, you keep interpreting the evidence according to your religious beliefs; stay true to your faith. They have to be interpreted that way in order for evolution to be viable.

Again from a scientific perspective, you can't go back in time and observe it. No historic writings were produced from that time, etc. so it's not verified. I suppose all my Caps Lock writing didn't get you to read much of it because I addressed most of it.

 

OK.  The anatomic, physiological and molecular biological trees suggest that all life, not all kinds, but all life is related.  I'll take evolution out the equation.  That's the evidence you have.  Please explain the apparent relationship between all living things.  Please interpret the evidence.  Back up your claim with sound logic.

 

Your caps lock writing didn't address anything.  You shouted that evolution was a religion, made the same baseless assertions that have already been addressed and once again tried to move the conversation towards the concept of determinism in the universe in a bid to step away from the actual discussion.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Because Christians are often called bigots (unfortunately it may apply where ever it's applicable), but evolutionists have taken over the public schools, leveraged the scientific community not because evolution is true but because they control the key positions and dictate what's taught or what's accepted as the norm. Christian "bigotry" has been replaced with Atheist bigotry (no quotations - the real deal).

And you sir are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist.  Seriously?  Atheists hold all the power?  So George Bush was High Chief atheist was he?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It's unscientific in the fact that it's not observed as you claim it is but assumed because of your faith in evolution. You're going to make the facts (not of cats and dogs evolving from something other than a cat or dog - but of some nylon digesting bacteria (still a bacteria I see - and probably engineered in a lab if not simply already existing but only now noticed it's existence).

And in this one statement you prove the vast depth of your lack of understanding of speciation and science in general.  Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that  a dog should give birth to something nothing like a dog.  creatures just formed into different kinds of creatures.  The next creature to evolve from us will be "still a human" just as we are "still apes" who are "still primates" who are "still eukaryotes".

The bacteria were not engineered in a lab, they were found on trash dumps if memory serves me correctly.  This is a recent species.  It wasn't just stumbled upon.

 

 

AtheismIsNonsnese wrote:

Actually no verification, no proof, just interpreting the facts to fit your theory. Strike Two!

I suppose no artist that ever lived ever produced similar pieces of art. You couldn't identify a Rembrandt from a Picasso, etc, right?

Yet another bold assertion.  This is not interpreting facts to fit a theory.  Even if we ignore the obvious similarities between domestic cats and lions, or dogs and foxes, DNA evidence clearly shows the animals are related.  Are you prepared to deny this fact?  If you are then you must deny that DNA evidence can work in paternity tests, or that it can trace hereditary diseases.  Are you bold enough to make these claims?

Plus I'm pretty sure to the trained eye it's a piece of piss to tell a Rembrandt from a Picasso.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Again with radiometric dating, what you date to be billions of years old can never be verified to be billions of years old. 5000 years is a speck compared to billions of years old, even a million years. Yes you have accounted for anything and everything that can happen that could alter the results (even for 50,000 years)?

Pressure, Temperature and a shift in the isotope ratio.  All have been accounted for.  Tell me dear AiN, what else would affect the perceived decay rate of a radioactive material?  Bear in mind that this single thing must affect all the ratios of radioactive material in the solar system, if not the universe,

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

If you assume that the different layers are what you claim them to be, then it gives credibility to your theory. But that's just the problem isn't it; since you haven't experienced it (not just you but no one in recorded history) it's should liken to an untested hypothesis. And to prove as you're trying to prove evolution with an untested hypothesis is not scientific; it's speculative and philosophical.

So what are the layers then?  Explain stratification with a credible hypothesis.

 

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Strange example Michael.

Only because you failed to understand it.  Forensic science cannot tell you exactly what happened in the past.  It is incapable of witnessing previous events.  But it can solve murders up to 50 years old.  How?  Because the techniques and principles used build up a plausible framework that point towards the most likely scenario.

All other science does the same.  We can't say exactly what happened because we weren't there.  We can paint the best picture though.  Which leads us to...

 

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Michael, I can tell that you're desperate and haven't read much of what I've written.

This is rich coming from man who has so far come back with the same response to any comment on radiometric dating and resorted to unleashing CAPSLOCK FURY at the end of a post.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Jesus was a historical figure. Aside from the Bible writings (which itself contain historical writings and itself as a whole is historical), we have secular sources that verify his existence. The Apostles witnessed it and verified the miracles and wrote the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation, etc. Luke wrote a Gospel and Acts, researched, interviewed people who witness them first hand, and even participated in the ministry of the Apostle Paul (so it claims).

This is brilliant.  Aside from the Bible we have secular sources, and here's all the bits of the Bible that back it up?  FYI you're supposed to put your secular sources in the middle there.  It makes your argument... what's the word?... credible.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

In the Old Testament, Moses aside from his own experiences receives revelation regarding the time before his experience (the creation of the universe, etc). The witness to that is God. Now this isn't scientific proof. Christians have never claimed the Bible to be scientific proof that God exists.

So why mention it? If the Bible doesn't prove anything... then why keep bringing it up?  Why mention the revelation of Moses if it doesn't mean anything?

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It gives it credibility that we have over 5 thousand Greek manuscript copies of the original writings of the New Testament, 8,000 in Latin, 1,000 of others, with all the little errors here and there over a span of hundreds of years (articles, misspellings, etc that do not affect the substantial content of the writings).

The general rule is the more copies you have over along span of time the more likely you're find substantial change in writings. No other work of antiquity comes close to the number of copies we have, not to mention the substantial accuracy of copies over a span of a 1,000 years or more.

Well fuck me with a shitty stick.  A book tied to a religion that was held up by a succession of Empires and held as the authority in the land for hundreds of years of human existence has lots of copies?  Really?

So it's credible because it contains less errors than other ancient manuscripts?  The facts that it was enforcedly popular (having to stick to canon) and any error in it takes away from the perfect word of God doesn't affect the credibility?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Not only that, your archaeologists date the earliest one 125 A.D. and the entire New testament before 300 A.D. These aren't the originals. When you compare it to the writings of Plato for example, his earliest extant manuscript is 1250 years past his death. The New Testament originals supposedly have been written before 100 A.D. and we have the earliest at just 125 A.D. That's remarkable in the history of ancient writings.

Certainly it's remarkable.  But what does that have to do with the veracity of the book?  Doesn't it indicate more that people went to great lengths to preserve it?  Again that says nothing for the veracity of it, just that people thought it was important.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

We have writings of early Church Fathers that quote New Testament writings throughout their own writings (we see what they knew to be Scripture before it was even officially canonized)

Wow.  The men responsible for leading the religion quoted their own holy book?  What are the odds?
 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

How do we know that the Bible is not fool of crap? Because of the archaeological evidence that is out there. They give credibility to the historical aspects of the Bible; the peoples of the time, the culture, language, events, etc.

Yet, you've still not cited a secular source.  Read this article on the historical Jesus.  Please explain why none of the historians listed ever spoke about him.  Bear in mind these are papers not from 150 AD, but covering the years and regions of Jesus supposed life.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Men claimed to witness it and wrote about it you may not believe the miracles but I don't expect you, given your naturalistic religion but you cannot discredit the rest of their writings without discrediting everything you believe in and hold to be true that you haven't personally yourself experienced rather than reading about it or believing it to be true based on someone else authority. We have an unbroken chain of historic writings that connect our present to that past.

I'm asking did any man live 1 million years in the past? Did he witness anything and write it down? Do we have an unbroken chain of historic writings that connect our present to that past? I don't think so.

 

I can discredit the rest of their writings and maintain what I know to be true.  Why?  Because other things I've read have independent agreement.  They are things I can observe and test.  They are things that have been tested.  Many times over.

Would you please stop repeating the "You weren't there" argument, you're beginning to sound like some sort of Vietnam vet.  You don't have an unbroken chain.  You've got a book, with no independent corroboration, with several other books arguing against it, that you can only find 150 years after the events it claims to describe.  How is this an unbroken chain.

 

In closing:

  • I'll throw your claim back at you, expanding on the comment I made about DNA earlier.  If you reject the science behind evolutionary theory, you reject all molecular biology for the past 50+ years, you reject pharmacological science, you reject the study of heredity, you reject the DNA evidences of familial lineage, and almost every other important advance that has helped shape our understanding of medicine and biology.
  • You didn't see any of the events described in the bible and you've only got that book with no independent verification to go on.  How do you know that's what happened?  How do you know the Koran isn't true?  Apply your own standards to your own arguments and see how far you go.

 

 

 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:No.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
No. First of all don't pretend that there aren't any problems encountered with it.

I didn't. There are potential problems with every dating method, but you can always control for them and check them against other methods.

Quote:
As with all the other dating methods, once you go out of the scope of recorded history, it's guessing from a scientific perspective.

- If you can analyze the mechanisms of a dating method and determine that the method is accurate within the scope of recorded history, isn't it a given that the method works, and will, therefore, also work beyond recorded history?

- All the dating methods that we've cited have, in countless experiments, accurately dated materials of known age. Is your position, then, that they work for objects within recorded history, but that you are simply skeptical of their reliability beyond recorded history? Or, perhaps, it's your position that such experiments have never occurred/succeeded?

- I find it immensely compelling that the conclusions of different dating methods can be compared to ensure their accuracy. What is your take on this? If it was demonstrated that several different dating methods always found the same date for the same piece of material, as long as the materials were within the age range of each of the dating methods, would you consider it sufficient evidence for the reliability of these dating methods or would you have other objections?  

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


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Questions for MichaelMcF #133

MichaelMcF wrote:
The isochron dating method is simply a mathematical tool.  It makes no assumptions about the age of the earth.  The only assumption is that the matter formed at the same time.

You must a lot of this for a living. Tell me about some published works in which isochron dating was used on known aged rocks (within say 2 thousand years or even a little more). Make sure the rock sample is rock that we know the age of, say from volcanic eruption or something like that (some historically known catastrophic event) and walk me through the process step by step. Don't think this is tedious or a waste of time. Anyone can say I'm a geologist by profession and the methods we use are reliable just trust me; or tell me generally what goes on without disclosing any of the problems or steps that are never known by the general public. (Tell me how the sample is selected, how it's prepared, etc you don't have to go into great detail of each step, only make sure you disclose each step).

The reason I'm asking for this is because (1) every date you provide me is always beyond the scope of recorded human experience (2) the process is generally explained, I don't know the full story. For all I know you can get a reading on some sample that you have a idea of it's age and get a wide range of dates and pick the the one that comes close to the target date and discard the rest as variant readings.

 

MichaelMcF wrote:
I'm God...Explain to me why this is not true...

Please explain the apparent relationship between all living things.  Please interpret the evidence.  Back up your claim with sound logic...

So George Bush was High Chief atheist was he?...


I've already given you my reason, it paints a big picture of the universe and my experience makes sense in light of it. If I were to judge your claims in the same way, it would be those two lines you gave me. Not much to work with and insignificant to my life.

The relationship between them is they are created by the one true living God; he made the world uniform and orderly to be discoverable and to be manipulated; he made it operate "naturally" living creatures have blood, blood is a major theme in man's salvation. The blood of animals was used as analogy of man's atoning blood (only man's blood can atone for another man's shed blood, because the physical life is in the blood). We're made in his image. As he is creative, so we are creative. Like he made feline looking creatures and dog like looking creatures, so also artists go through several stages of their careers, Picasso's earlier work is nothing like his later work but within each group, they are similar yet distinct.

Our DNA determines our physical structures, so to find similar DNA between members of the cat family doesn't have to be explained by evolution. You have to because that's what you believe in. It's part of your metaphysics whether you admit to it or not. Every bit of experience will be interpreted in this light.

You should be logical and answer my questions on morality. butterbattle has, why do you avoid it? I want to hear it from you and then I'll respond to both of you regarding atheist morals and knowledge.

As for Bush. I don't recall mentioning anything about government. He's not a scientist or in the public school system is he?

It's kind of like how churches get corrupted. The ones that deny the Bible's teachings sneak in, fill in all the influential roles and start changing policies and reforming views making them anti-Biblical

MichaelMcF wrote:
And in this one statement you prove the vast depth of your lack of understanding of speciation and science in general.  Nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that  a dog should give birth to something nothing like a dog.  creatures just formed into different kinds of creatures.  The next creature to evolve from us will be "still a human" just as we are "still apes" who are "still primates" who are "still eukaryotes".

The bacteria were not engineered in a lab, they were found on trash dumps if memory serves me correctly.  This is a recent species.  It wasn't just stumbled upon.

so when did the single cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism and eventually evolved into an insect and next into a lizard, and then a bird, and so on until humans appeared? Like I said your speciation can't prove evolution.

So as far as you know that particular bacteria might have always been able to digest nylon, right?

MichaelMcF wrote:
So what are the layers then?  Explain stratification with a credible hypothesis.

It wouldn't matter, because I can't go back into time to prove it and certainly can't bring about a world wide flood caused by continual rains, and geological upheavals and spewing forth of ground water for us to observe it's effects.

But are you saying that evolution is at best a credible hypothesis that can't be tested?

MichaelMcF wrote:
Forensic science...50 years old

50 years versus 1 billion years and more...didn't I say that. In the last 50 years people have been around right, the accused is still around, etc?

MichaelMcF wrote:
FYI you're supposed to put your secular sources in the middle there.  It makes your argument... what's the word?... credible.

Funny, you asked how I knew that the miracles were performed. I told you by faith just like you believe that miracle of evolution is true. You asked me how I know that the Bible wasn't altered within 2000 year span; I told you we have manuscript copies that date back to 125 A.D. less than 100 years and over the span of 2000 years the content hasn't changed.

Also the Bible being the Bible doesn't disqualify it from being reliable. I've told you that archeology is the Bible's best friend (although I don't believe it was intended to be) in verifying the historical data to be accurate. The miracles you don't believe because you didn't witness them; but like I said at least someone claimed to witness them and claimed that multitudes of people witnessed it also. Who's claimed to witness the evolution of some living thing or travel back in time? Who's experienced the evolution that takes billions of years? Let's start there please for evolution to be scientific.

MichaelMcF wrote:
So why mention it? If the Bible doesn't prove anything... then why keep bringing it up?  Why mention the revelation of Moses if it doesn't mean anything?

Now I didn't say it means nothing and doesn't prove anything. It ought to mean something important to all humans. Because the worldview that it produces can logically account for the universe and human experience. Philosophically it's logical and perfect, while evolution and all competing worldviews are not. It means that there is no excuse to reject God so that he will be just when sends people to hell.

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also wouldn't it have been more beneficial for living things to continue to reproduce asexually/replicate for maximal survival, why male and female from the evolutionist perspective?

MichaelMcF wrote:
Well fuck me with a shitty stick.  A book tied to a religion that was held up by a succession of Empires and held as the authority in the land for hundreds of years of human existence has lots of copies?  Really?

So it's credible because it contains less errors than other ancient manuscripts?  The facts that it was enforcedly popular (having to stick to canon) and any error in it takes away from the perfect word of God doesn't affect the credibility?...

Certainly it's remarkable.  But what does that have to do with the veracity of the book?  Doesn't it indicate more that people went to great lengths to preserve it?  Again that says nothing for the veracity of it, just that people thought it was important.

You don't comprehend well what you read do you Michael? You certainly don't remember questions you ask either.

You asked for how I knew that no changes were made to the Bible over 2000 years. The many copies was to show you that the likelihood of that many copies over a span of about a thousand years would normally amount to errors galore but the Bible is almost entirely exempt from that (no substantial change to content).

Next time remember what you asked.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Wow.  The men responsible for leading the religion quoted their own holy book?  What are the odds?

I wrote this just in case you wanted to say something about the books of the New Testament Canon.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Yet, you've still not cited a secular source.  Read this article on the historical Jesus.  Please explain why none of the historians listed ever spoke about him.  Bear in mind these are papers not from 150 AD, but covering the years and regions of Jesus supposed life.

aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

How convenient of him to arbitrarily call them "forged" and "disputed passages". He doesn't like that they exist and don't fit with what he thinks is a bullet proof argument to his point so the reason that they exist must be because it's forged or ambiguous.

Only three people in his group of historians would've been contemporaries of Jesus and the rest were born after.

I don't know why these people would not have written about him. I don't see how this proves anything.

However the only concern to me is of one of the three who were his contemporary but never met him before his ascension, The nerve of the author of this article to claim that St. Paul and the other New Testament Writers that When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus’ life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history."

He also gives this ridiculous interpretation of (Gal. 1:11-12, 1:15-16) saying that Jesus only spoke "in a revelation" and not in "flesh and blood"...it was a subjective experience in the mind of the believer....

Where does it say HE ONLY and NOT IN? If he had read event the first chapter, he would know that Paul was making the point that there is only one Gospel and this Gospel was not fabricated by mere men but was the very revelation of God and give himself much more credibility than the men who were preaching another message, he tells them that the Gospel he preached to them was not received by hearing from other men but from the Lord himself (Like the Apostles and disciples before him who were taught directly by Jesus); The Gospel he preached was the real Gospel! This guy lacks any reading comprehension skills. (Either that or he'll lie to give his point credibility)

From Gal. 1:13-2:14 these accounts fit in with the accounts in Acts. Luke wrote Acts. He began Acts with:

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 

Now what could that former book be??? The Gospel according to Luke.

In opening of Luke we read:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Obviously the same author.

I bring this up because in Gospel of Luke (which was first of the two, the destruction of the temple is predicted). During around chapter 20, Luke is now with Paul he speaks in the first person (I, us, we, etc), the book ends with Paul in prison (having not died yet). Paul dies before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now if by the time Acts was finished the destruction of Jerusalem had not occurred yet and Luke's Gospel came before Acts, then Luke's Gospel was before 70A.D. and the prediction of it's destruction was exactly that a prediction/prophesy.

Some of this I just wanted to write down (excuse me if it appears I went out of subject).

The life and ministry of Jesus is circulating according to Luke's opening in his Gospel through word if not by writing:

Luke 1:1-3 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

In 1 Cor. 15 Paul writes:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

All these events are found recorded in the Gospels and Acts.

In Philippians 2:5-8 Paul writes:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
 6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
 7but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
 8And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!

In 1 Peter 2:21-25 Peter writes:

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
 22"He committed no sin,
      and no deceit was found in his mouth."[e] 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

(He died an innocent man, his conduct towards his accusers and scoffers)

In 2 Peter 1:16-18 Peter writes:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(this is known as the mount of Transfiguration in the Gospels)

In the Gospels, Jesus taught them as if they were "babes", after the Holy Spirit they new the truth that Jesus taught them, so they taught in their epistles as men who knew the truth as Acts 4:13 reports, "when they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

They were Apostles and given the keys to the Kingdom. Whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and what they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. In a sense they spoke with authority so why would they need to quote Jesus word for word? Instead we read that they taught the things they learned from him without quoting him directly.

That article is a joke, purposefully misleading or bad scholarship. You take the pick.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Would you please stop repeating the "You weren't there" argument, you're beginning to sound like some sort of Vietnam vet.

Quit claiming that you've provided verified proof of evolution and I won't have to.

MichaelMcF wrote:
In closing:

  • I'll throw your claim back at you, expanding on the comment I made about DNA earlier.  If you reject the science behind evolutionary theory, you reject all molecular biology for the past 50+ years, you reject pharmacological science, you reject the study of heredity, you reject the DNA evidences of familial lineage, and almost every other important advance that has helped shape our understanding of medicine and biology.
  • You didn't see any of the events described in the bible and you've only got that book with no independent verification to go on.  How do you know that's what happened?  How do you know the Koran isn't true?  Apply your own standards to your own arguments and see how far you go.

Bob already posed this to me while back and I'll answer you as I answered him that rejecting evolution doesn't reject all the above. No one who practices any of the above has to believe in evolution. You create this false dichotomy but provided no evidence to back it up. You really are desperate dude.

I've answered your second objection (you use unscholarly and prejudiced sources to back up your point) providing you the proof texts, speaking about the worldview of Christianity and how it can logically account for human experience and all the rest. I believe the miracles by faith as I've said before. Those who witnessed it first hand observed them.

As for the Koran/Muslims, I guess they'll have to reconcile their claims about Jews and Christians being people of the book but at the same time their enemies (contradiction), that Jesus was a prophet yet his teachings contradict the Koran and vice versa (many and huge contradictions). That man was created from a clot. Conflicting accounts of the saints that both share however the Bible was first in those accounts at least a thousand years.

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years or so. And your methods are telling us trust us as far as one billion years or even 50,000 years (that's still a stretch)?

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years so to verify the accuracy of radiometric/isochron dating, the evolution of one kind of living thing to another kind of living thing.

Please answer the first thing I asked in this Post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You must a lot of this for a living. Tell me about some published works in which isochron dating was used on known aged rocks (within say 2 thousand years or even a little more). Make sure the rock sample is rock that we know the age of, say from volcanic eruption or something like that (some historically known catastrophic event) and walk me through the process step by step. Don't think this is tedious or a waste of time. Anyone can say I'm a geologist by profession and the methods we use are reliable just trust me; or tell me generally what goes on without disclosing any of the problems or steps that are never known by the general public. (Tell me how the sample is selected, how it's prepared, etc you don't have to go into great detail of each step, only make sure you disclose each step).

The reason I'm asking for this is because (1) every date you provide me is always beyond the scope of recorded human experience (2) the process is generally explained, I don't know the full story. For all I know you can get a reading on some sample that you have a idea of it's age and get a wide range of dates and pick the the one that comes close to the target date and discard the rest as variant readings.

Actually I don't do any of this for a living.  I'm a chemist, not a geologist, but I still understand the principles behind it.

1)  I've already explained that most radiometric dating methods that I'm discussing cannot be used on rocks within the last 2,000 years.  Other techniques, such as those discussed by Bob and Butterbattle*, do this job very well.

2)  I've already explained that the numbers you get out of dating are independent of bias.  If a number doesn't fit the "expected age" then one of two things happen.

  • It's an obvious statistical outlier - it's the only 1 of 150 samples that gives the wrong date and can therefore be ignored.
  • It's not an obvious statistical outlier and this information is included in the data set and accounts for the stated error.

3)  Why should I eplain exactly how rocks were picked, sampled or whatever else?  I've already explained how the effects of pressure, temperature and contamination are accounted for (P and T have no effect, the other introduces error).  What do you hope to get out of the minutiae of the sampling process that won't come back to one of these three?

If you must know my understanding of the process is thus: rocks are picked which are least likely to have undergone any large amount of geothermal activity, as these are least likely to be contaminated (so rocks far from volcanos, the moon and meteorites) and are most likely to match rocks formed when the solar system formed.  These will be stored in air-tight, chemically resistant containers (probably radio-proof) and then tested in a clean environment that ensures the rocks can't be contaminated with anything else.  I don't know the full mechanics of sample selection or testing.

I've been nice and listed this (non-expert) information here.  My fear is that by focusing on the minutiae that you're desperately looking for a minor flaw so that you can claim the whole thing is built on a deck of cards.  Which is false.

 

*as an additon to something that butterbattle implied.  Radiocarbon dating, which is much more prone to error than other methods because of fluctiating carbon levels, has been shown to reliably date objects within living history - error included.  The principal of this technique is exactly the same as the one used for other radioactive materials.  What evidence do you have that this technique changes over time?  Radioactive decay is a known property that obeys physical laws.  Why should it change before recorded history?  

 

 


AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I've already given you my reason, it paints a big picture of the universe and my experience makes sense in light of it. If I were to judge your claims in the same way, it would be those two lines you gave me. Not much to work with and insignificant to my life.

Because something feels right it doesn't make it true.  And you haven't adressed the point that it doesn't mention God creating an old universe in the bible, nor have you explained why he would do this.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

The relationship between them is they are created by the one true living God; he made the world uniform and orderly to be discoverable and to be manipulated; he made it operate "naturally" living creatures have blood, blood is a major theme in man's salvation. The blood of animals was used as analogy of man's atoning blood (only man's blood can atone for another man's shed blood, because the physical life is in the blood).

Funny that.  As far as I'm aware animal sacrifice is really only a big deal in the Old Testament, before the idea of annointing human blood comes up.  Are you suggesting that the peoples of ancient Israel did not engage in animal sacrifice?  Are you suggesting all these stories are analogies?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Our DNA determines our physical structures, so to find similar DNA between members of the cat family doesn't have to be explained by evolution. You have to because that's what you believe in. It's part of your metaphysics whether you admit to it or not. Every bit of experience will be interpreted in this light.

Our survey saaaaaaaaaayyyyys?..... Eh-Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.  Wrong!.  Some of our DNA determines our physical structure, some of it decides on chemical balance, and some of it does - wait for it - nothing.  DNA contains a lot of vestigial, useless junk like endogenous retroviruses.  Tell me, why does DNA that does nothing for the animal whatsoever exist in obviously familial species like cats?  Or even humans and monkeys?  I'd buy your argument if our entire genetic code decided what we looked like with the minor changes reflecting the physical changes but that is not true.  A lot of the DNA we share with chimps and cats share with lions doesn't do anything.   Transcription does not imply function.  Why do we have the same non-coding DNA?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You should be logical and answer my questions on morality. butterbattle has, why do you avoid it? I want to hear it from you and then I'll respond to both of you regarding atheist morals and knowledge.

As I've already said, because I want to tie off the original conversation - the one tied to the OP first.  Otherwise the conversation wanders all over the shop and anyone can jump about on the flow of consciousness to avoid questions.  If you really want me to answer those questions I'm happy to.  Start a thread in the philosophy or "atheist vs. theist" forums and I'll happily go there and engage you.  I'd like to keep this thread for science.

 


AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

So as far as you know that particular bacteria might have always been able to digest nylon, right?

No, wrong again.  The bacteria were found (I got this wrong first time) in a pond containing waste water from a factory that produce nylon.  The materials they were able to digest, including 6-aminohexanoate, did not exist before 1935.  The bacteria were not found anywhere else.  The only reasonable conclusion, because of the locality, is that the bacteria developed this ability through natural selection.

Based on this hypothesis scientists were able to make a testable prediction:  bacteria without this ability may evolve a similar trait if forced to live in an environment without any other nutrients (bacteria are ideal for evolutionary study as you can run through several generations very quickly).  They tried it and guess what?  That prediction of evolutionary theory was true - the bacteria under test eventually produced a mutation that allowed enzymatic destruction of the synthetic materials.  Look at that, a testable hypothesis!  It's almost like real science!

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It wouldn't matter, because I can't go back into time to prove it and certainly can't bring about a world wide flood caused by continual rains, and geological upheavals and spewing forth of ground water for us to observe it's effects.

But are you saying that evolution is at best a credible hypothesis that can't be tested?

No that's not what I'm saying at all.  I maintain that evolution is a credible theory that can be tested.  I was being kind to you and, for the sake of argument, removing scientific interpretation from strata (which has nothing to do with evolution by the way).  I was willing to go with the presupposition argument and remove my "evolutionist glasses".  I wanted you to explain strata to me.

You've just told me that you're best guess is a world-wide flood that you can't provide evidence for.  I don't even want you to go back in time.  Can you provide modern day evidence that even suggests that a flood happened.  I'm willing to be forensic here.  You don't have to say "This is EXACTLY what happened" just give me something that can let you say "This is most likely to have happened because..."

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

50 years versus 1 billion years and more...didn't I say that. In the last 50 years people have been around right, the accused is still around, etc?

You really are missing the point here.  The number of years is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if people existed or not if none of them witnessed the event.  The scientific evidence suggests an event which no-one witnessed.  Why is it more credible if the evidence is 50 years old than if it's 3,000?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Funny, you asked how I knew that the miracles were performed. I told you by faith just like you believe that miracle of evolution is true. You asked me how I know that the Bible wasn't altered within 2000 year span; I told you we have manuscript copies that date back to 125 A.D. less than 100 years and over the span of 2000 years the content hasn't changed.

And you're certain those match the original documents?  Could you point me somewhere that shows that the current gospel of Mark matches the 150 AD documents?  I'm not being a dick here, these are genuine questions I'd like an answer to.

What about the gospels that have been removed?  The gospel of Judas?  Any of the Nag Hamadi scripts?

 

Back to the dickishness... you still haven't given a secular source, for something like:

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Also the Bible being the Bible doesn't disqualify it from being reliable. I've told you that archeology is the Bible's best friend (although I don't believe it was intended to be) in verifying the historical data to be accurate. The miracles you don't believe because you didn't witness them; but like I said at least someone claimed to witness them and claimed that multitudes of people witnessed it also.

Could you link to the archaeological evidence you're talking about?  I accept archaeology as sound evidence so I'm happy to read whatever you have.

So claiming to see something is good evidence, and claiming that other people saw it too also counts.  I just saw a 55 foot long pig fly over the skies of Glasgow.  Everyone in my work saw it too and I can get them to give you their written accounts...

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Who's claimed to witness the evolution of some living thing...Who's experienced the evolution that takes billions of years? Let's start there please for evolution to be scientific.

Uh... the scientists involved in the long-term E. Coli experiment.  That's evolution in action my friend.  You're still bringing up this false idea that evolution somehow changes over long time scales, that the evolution we see today is somehow a different process from the one that brought us here.  It's not.  It's the same process.  It's the same mechanics.  We can see it happening.  Watch the videos we've already recommended.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

It ought to mean something important to all humans. Because the worldview that it produces can logically account for the universe and human experience.

Except this perfect logic demands that the earth is 6,000 years old and science is wrong or that your God created an old looking world - even though there's no mention of that in the book and it's therefore not a logical conclusion but complete guesswork.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Philosophically it's logical and perfect, while evolution and all competing worldviews are not. It means that there is no excuse to reject God so that he will be just when sends people to hell...

...I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions.

As mentioned, I'll leave philosophical discussion to another thread.  Please start one and I'll be happy to weigh in.  (on a side note, if you could address this thread I'd be pleased).

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Also wouldn't it have been more beneficial for living things to continue to reproduce asexually/replicate for maximal survival, why male and female from the evolutionist perspective?

At this point I'll point you to cdk007's videos on the evolution of sex and the origin of sexual reproduction where he clearly shows that sexual reproduction is more beneficial than asexual replication.  Asexual replication tends to give you a very limited gene pool and we all know where that leads.

 

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:


You don't comprehend well what you read do you Michael? You certainly don't remember questions you ask either.

You asked for how I knew that no changes were made to the Bible over 2000 years. The many copies was to show you that the likelihood of that many copies over a span of about a thousand years would normally amount to errors galore but the Bible is almost entirely exempt from that (no substantial change to content).

I hadn't forgotten what I asked.  I was frustrated and being flippant and for that I apologise. 

You answered my original question with the response that only minor changes have occured in the bible.  Fair enough.  As I asked above could you point me in somewhere that will outline these minor changes and/or the similarities between todays bible and the historical documents.  Again, genuine interest.

On that note surely a change is a change in a book.  Don't minor changes affect interpretation of a translated text?  What about deleted chapters?  How do you know the story hadn't change in the 150 years before the original copies that started to be accepted as canon?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

How convenient of him to arbitrarily call them "forged" and "disputed passages". He doesn't like that they exist and don't fit with what he thinks is a bullet proof argument to his point so the reason that they exist must be because it's forged or ambiguous.

Okay, so provide some evidence that refutes his argument.  Show sources that back up the validity of Josephus testimony.  Otherwise you're projecting.  You don't like an argument because it doesn't fit with your world view so it must be unscientific or unverifiable....

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Only three people in his group of historians would've been contemporaries of Jesus and the rest were born after.

I don't know why these people would not have written about him. I don't see how this proves anything.

So we have 3 contemporaries who don't write about a man that was a Nazarean rock star?  A man that could command hundreds and raise the dead.  These contemporaries didn't think this was important enough to comment on?

It doesn't prove anything, but it does cast doubt on the historical veracity of Jesus.  If contemporaries that were writing a history and account of their people didn't mention it why not?  Is it maybe that the man didn't exist?  Maybe this Jesus character grew out of a Mythic religion which had one fatal flaw when meeting Judaism - they needed a real messiah not a metaphorical one?  A confusion of ideas?  I'm not saying this suggestion is true but without other evidence the lack of mention by contemporaries is really rather odd.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

However...

...That article is a joke, purposefully misleading or bad scholarship. You take the pick.

I've edited the rest of this out because it amounted to you showing that passages from the bible referenced other passages in the bible, thus using the book to prove it's own veracity.  Given the idea the authors knew each other (and ignoring contradictions between gospels) it's not surprising that they talk about the same subjects.  Please provide the other archaeological and historical evidence you speak of that's not contained in the bible.

 

 


AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You create this false dichotomy but provided no evidence to back it up. You really are desperate dude.

Again, I'm not the one that refuses to cite materials or starts shouting matches when things aren't going his way.  If evolutionary theory were not true we would not be able to make predictive assumptions about what genetic changes will be passed to offspring and what effect medicines will have future offspring.  We can.  Without evolutionary theory we would not be able to track hereditary illnesses.  We can.  Evolutionary theory is what gave us the knowledge to use DNA to identify family memebers.  If you deny this exact same science doesn't show familiarity between other animals you're denying the technique and therefore the results used in paternity tests.  This is not a false dichotomoy it is true.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I've answered your second objection (you use unscholarly and prejudiced sources to back up your point) providing you the proof texts, speaking about the worldview of Christianity and how it can logically account for human experience and all the rest. I believe the miracles by faith as I've said before. Those who witnessed it first hand observed them.

Claims of prejudice are the hiding place of last resort.  Prove that the article was unsholarly.  And you have not provided proof texts other than the bible.  Give me something else.  You've claimed historical and arhcaeological sources.  Provide them and I will listen.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

As for the Koran/Muslims, I guess they'll have to reconcile their claims about Jews and Christians being people of the book but at the same time their enemies (contradiction), that Jesus was a prophet yet his teachings contradict the Koran and vice versa (many and huge contradictions).

Because there are no contradictions in the bible....

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Because That man was created from a clot. Conflicting accounts of the saints that both share however the Bible was first in those accounts at least a thousand years.

Which is more believable than man coming from dirt?  And the Torah came first, the bible only has a couple hundred years on the Koran.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years or so. And your methods are telling us trust us as far as one billion years or even 50,000 years (that's still a stretch)?

Again no record of human witness past 6,000 years so to verify the accuracy of radiometric/isochron dating, the evolution of one kind of living thing to another kind of living thing.

 

You don't need to go back in time to verify the method or the principal as you've already been shown.  Why do you think time would change things?

Evolution of one kind to another kind is again a false premise.  Evolution doesn't allow what creationism defines as "one kind into another".  It's a false premise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 #136

So you're not going to provide me with some examples of rocks we have dated that we know the age of right? Figures you don't know but talk about it like you've been there and done that. Keep reading about it and believing everything evolutionists tell you. Maybe butterbattle will provide the info.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Because something feels right it doesn't make it true.  And you haven't adressed the point that it doesn't mention God creating an old universe in the bible, nor have you explained why he would do this...

Except this perfect logic demands that the earth is 6,000 years old and science is wrong or that your God created an old looking world - even though there's no mention of that in the book and it's therefore not a logical conclusion but complete guesswork...

You don't need to go back in time to verify the method or the principal as you've already been shown.  Why do you think time would change things?

Because He made the world natural/physical. He couldn't make the man a baby and have them grow up without any parental care. He's logical. As for aged rock. I didn't say he did, it's possible he made it that old. He didn't use natural processes to create it; again He's logical, He made the universe natural so physical compositions have to be accordingly (Adam and Eve as adults didn't have the physiology of a new born baby but adults at the moment of creation). Again He's logical.

I still don't see how you  (finite man, intellect, wasn't there as a witness) can account for all the natural factors that could have caused the results dating methods produce. We haven't witnessed a flood even remotely close to the magnitude that the Scriptures claims happened to gauge it's effects on rocks. We weren't there to witness the atmospheric conditions prior to, after, but prior to man's writing/recording of his history. There are so many unknowns.

Why would different methods yield the same results? Provided that the method was applied correctly, the agents in rocks were affected in exactly the same proportions. I don't know. I wasn't there, neither were you.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Funny that.  As far as I'm aware animal sacrifice is really only a big deal in the Old Testament, before the idea of annointing human blood comes up.  Are you suggesting that the peoples of ancient Israel did not engage in animal sacrifice?  Are you suggesting all these stories are analogies?

You seem to be void of any reading comprehension. He didn't make the Israelites sacrifice people. He substituted the sacrifices with animals. The sacrifice of animals was analogous of the true demand of justice; blood for blood. The Ultimate sacrifice Jesus made for His people (those who would throughout history, past present future) who would be saved. I thought your man AronRa claimed evolutionists were so knowledgeable of many different fields of study like religion. His, yours, and the article authors understanding are a joke.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Which is more believable than man coming from dirt?  And the Torah came first, the bible only has a couple hundred years on the Koran.

Try about 500 years at least buddy on the New Testament. And when I spoke about the 1000 years I was referring to the Torah (that's where Muhammad retell the stories of Abraham, Joseph, etc). Also don't look at the New Testament as if it's disconnected from the OT. All you have to do is read Acts 7 or the Epistle to the Hebrews and everywhere else to know they're one unified thought.

Regarding dirt, are you saying that the physical composition of man cannot be found in earth in some form? That in a very poetic manner of speaking he is not literally dirt?

MichaelMcF wrote:
So claiming to see something is good evidence, and claiming that other people saw it too also counts.  I just saw a 55 foot long pig fly over the skies of Glasgow.  Everyone in my work saw it too and I can get them to give you their written accounts...

At least that's a start, make the claim. Now I have to ask you does this in anyway change your view of reality? Or are you going to try to explain what you witnessed to fit your worldview?

MichaelMcF wrote:
So we have 3 contemporaries who don't write about a man that was a Nazarean rock star?  A man that could command hundreds and raise the dead.  These contemporaries didn't think this was important enough to comment on?

It doesn't prove anything

Right, it doesn't prove anything. You actually have only 2, Paul wasn't as the author claimed remember.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Given the idea the authors knew each other (and ignoring contradictions between gospels) it's not surprising that they talk about the same subjects.

You wanted proof I gave you proof. I told you the only concern was what he claimed regarding Jesus' Apostles. I showed you that their writings complemented the Gospels and of Jesus' life.  You made the claim, I refuted it. Don't get upset and try to rationalize how this was so.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Claims of prejudice are the hiding place of last resort.  Prove that the article was unsholarly.  And you have not provided proof texts other than the bible.

I've provided you proof. I told you I was only concerned with his claims that Jesus' disciples didn't write anything about His life in their writings and this was proven false. See He didn't do his research, he just assumed out of prejudice and tried to pass his work as being scholarly. Also the fact he demonstrated the lack of simple reading comprehension skills in expositing the Text in Galatians out of bias - either that or out of stupidity.

Look at http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/ for archaeological finds. They substantiate the peoples, historical figures, events, etc.

I'd give you Time Magazine articles that touched on the subject.' but I can't put my hands on it.

Also you can't be completely devoid of this knowledge considering again your man AronRa claimed that evolutionists being so well versed in so many fields of study including archeology.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Okay, so provide some evidence that refutes his argument.  Show sources that back up the validity of Josephus testimony.  Otherwise you're projecting.  You don't like an argument because it doesn't fit with your world view so it must be unscientific or unverifiable....

He hasn't provided proof just some supposedly rational explanation as to why they shouldn't be considered. In the end the writings are accredited to them. He says they're forged, the burden of proof is on him.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Evolution of one kind to another kind is again a false premise.  Evolution doesn't allow what creationism defines as "one kind into another".  It's a false premise.

So what are you telling me Michael, that Man has always been man and looked like man and billions of years in the past, he still looked like man? I thought he was amoeba looking or something?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please either you or someone who is a geologist who has experienced radiometric dating provide me what I asked two or three posts back.

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.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
@ Michael McF, Sinphanius and Butterbattle

Thank you for you patient, thoughtful and extensive explanations of some very complex issues. Unlike AiN I have been following the links you've provided and read and learned quite a lot. I just wanted to let you know that your efforts are not completely wasted.

You guys seem like the type that would be good to go and have a beer with. Or perhaps some wine (I've perfected the art of turning wine into piss, which can then be turned into water - still working on the other way around), perhaps pick up a couple of Mary Magdalenes and once the hour's up we can go nuts and whack some kids, Jephthah or Abraham style. Oh wait, that's Christian morals... Maybe we'll just stick with the beer.

@AiN - I've given up reading all of the drivel you put up now which is a shame because I was genuinely interested in how you would reconcile the example I provided (4 times now, including the other thread in which you established me to be "a foreign exchange student, possibly from Dumb Town, Stupidburg&quotEye-wink of another species of human. I was facinated as to whether you think God screwed it up the first time or simply thought we were better humans that the other lot so wiped them out - now however I'm bored which your tired, deliberately recalcitrant rhetoric.

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


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

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

So you're not going to provide me with some examples of rocks we have dated that we know the age of right? Figures you don't know but talk about it like you've been there and done that. Keep reading about it and believing everything evolutionists tell you. Maybe butterbattle will provide the info.

 

Fine, the Uranium-Thorium dating method which has accurately dated rocks from the eruption of mount vesuvius in 79 A.D.  This method requires the laws which govern the methods used to date older rocks to be true.  If this method is accurate - and it is - then it is safe to assume that the other methods are accurate as the physical laws governing them are the same.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Because He made the world natural/physical. He couldn't make the man a baby and have them grow up without any parental care. He's logical. As for aged rock. I didn't say he did, it's possible he made it that old. He didn't use natural processes to create it; again He's logical, He made the universe natural so physical compositions have to be accordingly (Adam and Eve as adults didn't have the physiology of a new born baby but adults at the moment of creation). Again He's logical.

So he didn't use natural processes to make the universe, making it possible that he made it old - the explanation being that he had to make the universe a natural/physical thing so physical laws and the compositions thereof have to behave accordingly?  Is that correct?  (Your language is a little confused here).  So why don't the physical laws and compositions simply point to a 6,000 year old earth.  I'm sure God could decree the laws to behave as he wished, if he were logical.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I still don't see how you  (finite man, intellect, wasn't there as a witness) can account for all the natural factors that could have caused the results dating methods produce. We haven't witnessed a flood even remotely close to the magnitude that the Scriptures claims happened to gauge it's effects on rocks. We weren't there to witness the atmospheric conditions prior to, after, but prior to man's writing/recording of his history. There are so many unknowns.

Radioactive dating is a chemical process governed by seemingly quantum effects.  Normal chemical processes are largely governed by pressure and temperature, with the perceived end result of the radio-process also prone to contamination by changes in daughter or parents.  Scientists have put radioactive materials under extremes of temperature and pressure, even the pressures created by a world-wide flood of the scale claimed in the bible, and have not seen any alteration in the rate of decay.  It is very easy to calculate the pressure on a rock under any mass of water.  We don't need to have seen the flood to determine the pressure.  Atmospheric conditions largely don't affect radio decay either, unless they introduce contaminants, and contamination only introduces error in an isochron with enough sample points, it doesn't blow it out the water.

Also the atmospheric conditions are also negated by the use of meteorite and lunar samples.  Isochron techniques, by their self-testing assumption, clearly show that meteorites, the moon and the earth all formed from the same pool of matter at roughly the same time.  Were the moon and the meteorites covered by the flood too?  Did they suffer from the earth's atmospheric effects?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Why would different methods yield the same results? Provided that the method was applied correctly, the agents in rocks were affected in exactly the same proportions. I don't know. I wasn't there, neither were you.

A single event would affect chemical results greatly.  What it would not do is affect the proportions of all chemicals equally, purely by virtue of them all reacting differently due to their immutable atomic properties.  Any interference that affects all will cause each different radiodating method to throw up a different result.  The only way they all throw up the same results is if that result is true.  It's the only way.  Period.

 

AhteismIsNonsense wrote:

You seem to be void of any reading comprehension. He didn't make the Israelites sacrifice people. He substituted the sacrifices with animals. The sacrifice of animals was analogous of the true demand of justice; blood for blood. The Ultimate sacrifice Jesus made for His people (those who would throughout history, past present future) who would be saved.

Good... because I wasn't referring to human sacrifice in the OT, I was referring to animal sacrifice.  Seeing as I said "animal sacrifice is only a big deal in the OT".  When I mentioned annointing human blood I was referring to the crucifixion of christ in the NT.

You said that the animal sacrifice was analogous to human sacrifice, I wanted to know whether you meant that the stories of animal sacrifice in the bible were analogies.  You've now answered that and are suggesting that the animals were analogous of the blood for blood sacrifice.  That's cleared that up.  Except... did the Israelites know that these animal sacrifices were supposed to allude to something greater?

 

While we're on the Bible still... no comment on the Gnostic texts?

 

AthismIsNonsense wrote:

I thought your man AronRa claimed evolutionists were so knowledgeable of many different fields of study like religion. His, yours, and the article authors understanding are a joke.

This is a cheap shot and you know it.  Just because AronRa claimed that many evolutionists were knowledgeable in all these fields of study it does not follow that all evolutionists are expert in these areas nor does it mean that all will have knowledge of all these areas.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

 

Try about 500 years at least buddy on the New Testament. And when I spoke about the 1000 years I was referring to the Torah (that's where Muhammad retell the stories of Abraham, Joseph, etc)...

...Regarding dirt, are you saying that the physical composition of man cannot be found in earth in some form? That in a very poetic manner of speaking he is not literally dirt?

I know it's picky but the Torah is not the Bible.  The Torah is a written history of the Jewish people, the Bible is a book consisting of the Torah plus the New Testament of christ.  The Torah predates the Koran 1000 years, the Bible predates it by 500.

Can we not find the physical composition of man in a blood clot?  Still doesn't explain why the dirt story is better than the clot one.

EDIT:  Also, no comment on biblical contradictions?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Right, it doesn't prove anything. You actually have only 2, Paul wasn't as the author claimed remember.

OK. 2 contemporary historians, not biblical authors, that don't mention the living Son of God.  You don't find that strange?  Not even worth commenting on?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I told you the only concern was what he claimed regarding Jesus' Apostles. I showed you that their writings complemented the Gospels and of Jesus' life...

...I told you I was only concerned with his claims that Jesus' disciples didn't write anything about His life in their writings and this was proven false. See He didn't do his research, he just assumed out of prejudice and tried to pass his work as being scholarly. Also the fact he demonstrated the lack of simple reading comprehension skills in expositing the Text in Galatians out of bias - either that or out of stupidity.

OK.  I'll hold my hands up here and admit I was wrong at this part.  As soon as I see books of the bible referencing other books of the bible in a veracity claim I switch off.  I shouldn't have done that in this case and I apologise.  I'll go back and give your point a thorough reading in regards to freethoughtpedia article.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Look at http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/ for archaeological finds. They substantiate the peoples, historical figures, events, etc.

I'd give you Time Magazine articles that touched on the subject.' but I can't put my hands on it.

Thank you for this.  I'll have a look and get back to you.  I'll see if I can find the Time article.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Also you can't be completely devoid of this knowledge considering again your man AronRa claimed that evolutionists being so well versed in so many fields of study including archeology.

Another cheap shot at the AronRa statement.  He didn't say all evolutionists.  I'm reasonably well versed in the physical sciences but not so much in archaeology - hence why I'm asking you for information.  Is it a crime to try to be informed now?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

He hasn't provided proof just some supposedly rational explanation as to why they shouldn't be considered. In the end the writings are accredited to them. He says they're forged, the burden of proof is on him.

What do you have to say to the criticisms outlined here?

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

So what are you telling me Michael, that Man has always been man and looked like man and billions of years in the past, he still looked like man? I thought he was amoeba looking or something?

No that's not at all what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is this: 

Evolutionary theory posits that life transformed over the years by a number of discrete steps which are guided by natural selection.  This means that life at some point was something like a bacterium - lets call it a eukaryote -  and over successive generations natural selection allowed a new type of eukaryote to form.  It seemed remarkably like the previous eukaryote but there were minor changes - maybe it could process oxygen - all in all they're near identical.  Repeat this over 10,000 naturally selected transitions.  Each transition will bear a remarkable similarity to it's predecessor BUT the 10,000th form will bear no resemblance to the 1st form.  It's a process of small, gradual changes.

Based on the idea that evolution is a process of gradual change we can say "for this to occur there must be a mechanism of inheritance which is open to change".  What do you know, we discovered genetic inheritance.  We can then make a testable prediction of the theory: "for evolution to be true we must be able to see a change in this mechanism - lets call it a mutation - that differs descendants from their ancestors".  Guess what we see that too.

What we don't see is a dogs giving rise to horse like animals in 100 years, or fish developing the ability to walk on land in 50.  Evolutionary theory does not predict this.  It does not predict the false kind of change in kinds that creationists look for.  It's a strawman!  Creationist sit and go "We've never seen a crockoduck" or "we've never seen one kind (whatever kind is) of animal turn into another kind of animal".  All evolutionists have to say is "Good, because the theory doesn't predict that". 

Not only that, if we're going to be really picky, and a little bit flippant, we could also say we are one "kind" - all animals are eukaryotes after all.

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


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
wkirby wrote:Thank you for

wkirby wrote:

Thank you for you patient, thoughtful and extensive explanations of some very complex issues. Unlike AiN I have been following the links you've provided and read and learned quite a lot. I just wanted to let you know that your efforts are not completely wasted.

You guys seem like the type that would be good to go and have a beer with...

 

NIce to see someone is listening.  If you ever find youreself in Scotland I'll happily share a beer with you Smiling

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


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

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Look at http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/ for archaeological finds. They substantiate the peoples, historical figures, events, etc.

I'd give you Time Magazine articles that touched on the subject.' but I can't put my hands on it.

 

I've had a look at the article you provided and the Time Magazine article, or at least the article I presume you were referring too.

Both were interesting but it seems to me that the archaeological evidence points towards events, places and people of the old testament and only serves to suggest that, at best, the OT/Torah is a written history of the Jewish peoples.  I'm not seeing any evidence here of the miraculous figures of the bible or of god's hand.

I think I'd have to agree with one of the archaeologists in the Time article and take the middle ground.  It's certainly interesting that there is evidence for the history alluded to in the Bible (and there's more evidence than I thought) but there's not enough to suggest that it's history as we would write history i.e. there's still the possibility that it's an embellished history.

Thanks for the links.

 

M

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


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
.

Again the theories are nice and all but in the end you don't have the observed proof; you or anyone else was not there when it happened to verify that it happened as it was theorized (that the dating method is accurate, that the fossils are the evolutionary ancestors of man, that the geological column is as you suppose it is, etc.

I'm coming in way late to this but so be it.

My emphasis added.

IF THAT IS YOUR STANDARD FOR TRUTH THEN WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? JESUS IS NOT MENTIONED BY HIS HISTORICAL CONTEMPORARIES AND YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. YOU FAIL RELIGION FOREVER.

Also, the pope said evolution was a fact. 

Okay, I'm done. Sorry, reading three pages of your BS was very frustrating.

 

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
REPLY TO cervello_marcio #142

This is for cervello_mcarcio. No one else reply to this unless cervello asks please. He wrote his piece he should be able to defend himself.

________________________________________________________

cervello_marcio wrote:
I'm coming in way late to this but so be it.

My emphasis added.

IF THAT IS YOUR STANDARD FOR TRUTH THEN WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? JESUS IS NOT MENTIONED BY HIS HISTORICAL CONTEMPORARIES AND YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. YOU FAIL RELIGION FOREVER.

Also, the pope said evolution was a fact. 

Okay, I'm done. Sorry, reading three pages of your BS was very frustrating.

I see that you're late in this. Can you quote me as saying that I'm a Christian because I saw Jesus' miracles or can in some laboratory experiment produce a miracle, or can prove in some scientific experiment that Jesus is the Son of God?

Are you claiming that you know all the intentions of people, what they were doing, etc in that time in history?

Are you asserting that unless someone other than the person or person's witnessing an event can vouch for it, that that event could not have occurred?

Are you a Catholic Christian? If not when did you start listening to the pope? If you are a Catholic Christian, are you denying Jesus' miracles? Does the pope deny Jesus' miracles?

Hypothetical Question (this might sound ridiculous but humor me): If Alexander Fleming never demonstrated or had others besides him (who weren't directly involved in the treatment - patients, assistants, etc) observationally verify that penicillin cured certain bacteria infections but could explain in lengths and details how penicillin "cured" certain bacteria infections, would the scientific community claim that penicillin actually (for a fact) cured certain bacteria infections, never witnessing it first hand or it never being administered outside of Fleming's private experience?

cervello_marcio wrote:

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

Down with hypocrisy. I hate those hypocrite religious leaders also. Jesus sure told them off (Matthew Chapter 23).

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:This

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

This is for cervello_mcarcio. No one else reply to this unless cervello asks please. He wrote his piece he should be able to defend himself.

Don't care, I can answer them anyway

 

AiN wrote:

cervello wrote:

IF THAT IS YOUR STANDARD FOR TRUTH THEN WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? JESUS IS NOT MENTIONED BY HIS HISTORICAL CONTEMPORARIES AND YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. YOU FAIL RELIGION FOREVER.

Also, the pope said evolution was a fact. 

Okay, I'm done. Sorry, reading three pages of your BS was very frustrating.

I see that you're late in this. Can you quote me as saying that I'm a Christian because I saw Jesus' miracles or can in some laboratory experiment produce a miracle, or can prove in some scientific experiment that Jesus is the Son of God?

You didn't say any of these things, but you dismiss scientific results because no one saw them. So, understandably, cervello holds you to the same standard.

 

AiN wrote:

Are you claiming that you know all the intentions of people, what they were doing, etc in that time in history?...

...Are you asserting that unless someone other than the person or person's witnessing an event can vouch for it, that that event could not have occurred?

No... but you do.  You claim that radiometric dating and other methods cant be true because noone was around.  If these things can't be true for science... if we weren't there to see them... then your stories can't be true either.

 

AiN wrote:

Are you a Catholic Christian? If not when did you start listening to the pope? If you are a Catholic Christian, are you denying Jesus' miracles? Does the pope deny Jesus' miracles?

It doesn't matter if cervello is a catholic (for the record it's how I was raised), the point he was making is that one of the many spokesmen of god has said evolution is ok.  The chief spokesman in fact. Keep in mind that christian churches came after the catholic church (so they knew jesus before you).  Keep in mind that the only difference between catholocism and christianity is that "christians" wanted away from the exceses of the church.  What protestants forget is that they're "portestant catholics" and that, aside from idolatry, the follow the same book and rules.

 

So... cervellos point still stands:  Someone that believes in much as god as you do - in fact has dedicated his life so much to the divine that he now leads a church of several million people - says that evolution is compatible with god.  Are you saying that the pope isn't an accomplished theologan?

 

AiN wrote:

Hypothetical Question (this might sound ridiculous but humor me): If Alexander Fleming never demonstrated or had others besides him (who weren't directly involved in the treatment - patients, assistants, etc) observationally verify that penicillin cured certain bacteria infections but could explain in lengths and details how penicillin "cured" certain bacteria infections, would the scientific community claim that penicillin actually (for a fact) cured certain bacteria infections, never witnessing it first hand or it never being administered outside of Fleming's private experience?

 

No they wouldn't.  This is fucking ridiculous.  Scientific claims are tested regardless of the claimants circumstances.  It doesn't actually matter whether Fleming saw what he saw;  the claim would be tested the same way regardless.  The only question is "can the claim be repeated".  If he'd been talking out his arse he would have been found out quickly enough.

Also, you show little understanding of how penicilin was discovered.  Fleming wasn't treating people, or observing people under treatment when he discovered penicilin.  The discover of this chemical is perhaps the greatest example of serendipity in the world.

 

AiN wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

Down with hypocrisy. I hate those hypocrite religious leaders also. Jesus sure told them off (Matthew Chapter 23).

 

Why are they hypocrites?  And please explain this without falling into the one true scotsman fallacy (which I hate because I am a scotsman).

 

Also, please feel free to answer any of the arguments I gave you previously which you seem to have ignored.

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 #144

MichaelMcF wrote:
You didn't say any of these things, but you dismiss scientific results because no one saw them. So, understandably, cervello holds you to the same standard.

Michael, Michael, Michael. I never said that miracles and the supernatural could be proven scientifically or naturally. If I could do that, I guess they wouldn't be what i claimed them to be. I thought my initial questions clarified that. You're suppose to provide the evidence that empirical science demands because you're the one claiming that evolution is scientific. So far by the way you've failed in providing the evidence. You gave an answer earlier as if that met what I asked for. You didn't name the steps (I can only guess because steps can be added or subtracted to get the results you want). I'm skeptical because you're claiming to be the scientific one but don't know or am afraid to disclose the secrets of atheist scientist. Smiling

Again you're claiming evolution is scientific so show some real scientific evidence. Maybe in a billion years the collective observable/verifiable data gathered can continue to be analyzed and the proof might surface but until then it's only philosophical or theory at best.

MichaelMcF wrote:
Keep in mind that christian churches came after the catholic church (so they knew jesus before you).

You obviously don't know anything about church history. The knowledge you have is laughable. Have you heard the Eastern Churches reason why they're the true church? I think it's more plausible than Romes' (not that Romes' is plausible). Hahaha.

I think you would kiss the popes ring if you in his presence.

MichaelMcF wrote:
No they wouldn't.  This is fucking ridiculous.  Scientific claims are tested regardless of the claimants circumstances.  It doesn't actually matter whether Fleming saw what he saw;  the claim would be tested the same way regardless.

I love that you wrote what you wrote. I'll comment on it later and the rest.

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:

Michael, Michael, Michael. I never said that miracles and the supernatural could be proven scientifically or naturally. If I could do that, I guess they wouldn't be what i claimed them to be. I thought my initial questions clarified that. You're suppose to provide the evidence that empirical science demands because you're the one claiming that evolution is scientific. So far by the way you've failed in providing the evidence. You gave an answer earlier as if that met what I asked for. You didn't name the steps (I can only guess because steps can be added or subtracted to get the results you want). I'm skeptical because you're claiming to be the scientific one but don't know or am afraid to disclose the secrets of atheist scientist. Smiling

So firstly....what?  The language here is very confused, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

 

ManWhoWon'tListen wrote:

Again you're claiming evolution is scientific so show some real scientific evidence. Maybe in a billion years the collective observable/verifiable data gathered can continue to be analyzed and the proof might surface but until then it's only philosophical or theory at best.

I'm done with this.  You've been given links and a million other links to evidence.  It's not my fault you don't pay attention to it.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You obviously don't know anything about church history. The knowledge you have is laughable. Have you heard the Eastern Churches reason why they're the true church? I think it's more plausible than Romes' (not that Romes' is plausible). Hahaha.

I think you would kiss the popes ring if you in his presence.

Then please explain why my knowledge is laughable, much as I've taken the time to show that your knowledge of science is laughable.

 

EDIT:  I'd like to clarify this - I've written paragraphs on why your scientific understanding is not sufficient.  I'd like you to do the same to prove to me that Martin Luther, the founder of protestant faith, wasn't a protestant catholic.

 

Plus, I'm as likely to kiss the pope's ring as I am yours.  Take from that what you will.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

I love that you wrote what you wrote. I'll comment on it later and the rest.

EDIT:  Try and sound less like you're talking to a child

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


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF

MichaelMcF wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

This is for cervello_mcarcio. No one else reply to this unless cervello asks please. He wrote his piece he should be able to defend himself.

Don't care, I can answer them anyway

 

AiN wrote:

cervello wrote:

IF THAT IS YOUR STANDARD FOR TRUTH THEN WHY ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? JESUS IS NOT MENTIONED BY HIS HISTORICAL CONTEMPORARIES AND YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. YOU FAIL RELIGION FOREVER.

Also, the pope said evolution was a fact. 

Okay, I'm done. Sorry, reading three pages of your BS was very frustrating.

I see that you're late in this. Can you quote me as saying that I'm a Christian because I saw Jesus' miracles or can in some laboratory experiment produce a miracle, or can prove in some scientific experiment that Jesus is the Son of God?

You didn't say any of these things, but you dismiss scientific results because no one saw them. So, understandably, cervello holds you to the same standard.

 

AiN wrote:

Are you claiming that you know all the intentions of people, what they were doing, etc in that time in history?...

...Are you asserting that unless someone other than the person or person's witnessing an event can vouch for it, that that event could not have occurred?

No... but you do.  You claim that radiometric dating and other methods cant be true because noone was around.  If these things can't be true for science... if we weren't there to see them... then your stories can't be true either.

 

AiN wrote:

Are you a Catholic Christian? If not when did you start listening to the pope? If you are a Catholic Christian, are you denying Jesus' miracles? Does the pope deny Jesus' miracles?

It doesn't matter if cervello is a catholic (for the record it's how I was raised), the point he was making is that one of the many spokesmen of god has said evolution is ok.  The chief spokesman in fact. Keep in mind that christian churches came after the catholic church (so they knew jesus before you).  Keep in mind that the only difference between catholocism and christianity is that "christians" wanted away from the exceses of the church.  What protestants forget is that they're "portestant catholics" and that, aside from idolatry, the follow the same book and rules.

 

So... cervellos point still stands:  Someone that believes in much as god as you do - in fact has dedicated his life so much to the divine that he now leads a church of several million people - says that evolution is compatible with god.  Are you saying that the pope isn't an accomplished theologan?

 

AiN wrote:

Hypothetical Question (this might sound ridiculous but humor me): If Alexander Fleming never demonstrated or had others besides him (who weren't directly involved in the treatment - patients, assistants, etc) observationally verify that penicillin cured certain bacteria infections but could explain in lengths and details how penicillin "cured" certain bacteria infections, would the scientific community claim that penicillin actually (for a fact) cured certain bacteria infections, never witnessing it first hand or it never being administered outside of Fleming's private experience?

 

No they wouldn't.  This is fucking ridiculous.  Scientific claims are tested regardless of the claimants circumstances.  It doesn't actually matter whether Fleming saw what he saw;  the claim would be tested the same way regardless.  The only question is "can the claim be repeated".  If he'd been talking out his arse he would have been found out quickly enough.

Also, you show little understanding of how penicilin was discovered.  Fleming wasn't treating people, or observing people under treatment when he discovered penicilin.  The discover of this chemical is perhaps the greatest example of serendipity in the world.

 

AiN wrote:

cervello_marcio wrote:

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."

Down with hypocrisy. I hate those hypocrite religious leaders also. Jesus sure told them off (Matthew Chapter 23).

 

Why are they hypocrites?  And please explain this without falling into the one true scotsman fallacy (which I hate because I am a scotsman).

 

Also, please feel free to answer any of the arguments I gave you previously which you seem to have ignored.

Took the words right out of my mouth. And then made them better. And them strung them into a cohesive, coherent argument. Thanks, Michael.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


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

cervello_marcio wrote:

Took the words right out of my mouth. And then made them better. And them strung them into a cohesive, coherent argument. Thanks, Michael.

 

I do apologise for jumping across your discussion like that though, but I couldn't help myself.

 

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


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Don't panic folks.  This is

Don't panic folks.  This is just a bit of thread necromancy to get this near the top of my threads for easy reference.  This discussion is long, loooooooooooong dead.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:Don't panic

MichaelMcF wrote:

Don't panic folks.  This is just a bit of thread necromancy to get this near the top of my threads for easy reference.  This discussion is long, loooooooooooong dead.

Persecuting the poor, hapless Christian with facts and evidence. You cruel bastards!.

Seriously all, nicely researched.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin