You respond to a theist who will be coming on the show soon...
Offline We accepted his request. We also alerted him that we're posting this thread, and will alert him to it....
YOU RESPOND:
FROM: Dave M
Hello All
Your website and your efforts are very interesting. I've even viewed some
of the video clips from blasphemychallnege.com, and I have some questions
for you. First off, many folks who adhere to these views repeat the
mantra that they've come to their conclusions via logic and reason. However, I've not been able to find on your site, or any other similar
site for that matter, any explanation of the origin of the universe. You
see, the big bang theory is predominant among many atheists. A stable
singularity the size of a baseball that contained all the matter and
energy in the known universe that suddely exploded into what we see today.
Physics proved that objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted
upon by an outside force, and objects at rest will remian at rest unless
acted upon by an outside force. Can you answer the question of What force
acted on the singularity that caused the Big Bang? This would be most
helpful in your debates.Also, many who adhere to your philosophy would also adhere to the fact
that we are all here by chance. Science has proven that all of the
information contained in our own DNA would fill the Grand Canyon forty
times over with books of information. Thats incredible considering that
it happened by chance. It would be like dropping the pieces of a scrabble
board on the floor and getting the first sentence of War and Peace, very
unlikey.In conclusion I would like to say that yes indeed I am a Christian, but I
used to study Evolution, and I will admit that I used to share the same
views as you. I also saw on your website that you have a radio show. I
would very much like to challennge anyone at your organization to an
on-air debate so that I can prove that your ideas are flawed.Let me know,
Dave
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Tilberian wrote:Good, since you never even began to respond to ANY of the rebuttals to your attacks on Big Bang theory and evolution.First of all, I did respond to the rebuttals
No, you didn't, and you've already revealed that you don't know much of anything about evolution or cosmology.
I tend to think that the proof lies within the fine tuning.
Fine tuning arguments beg the question that universal constants can be different. Again, you don't have any idea, whatsover, of what you're talking about, and it shows.
I'm gonna copy and paste now, like my buddy Yellow, but you'll get the point.
Yellow pastes a good deal, but he doesn't 'copy'... he pastes arguments that he's written and given before. More importantly, he pastes arguments that he understands.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Care to take say a question like this on? How have I forgot about this thread? Sapient mentioned you'd be on the show? I cannot wait.
Reminds me of what Winston Churchill said when told about a possible Nazi invasion across the English Channel: "England awaits, and so do the fishes"
I also posted the actual Darwin "eye" quote for him... how much do you want to bet that he continues to use the argument anyway?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow pastes a good deal, but he doesn't 'copy'... he pastes arguments that he's written and given before. More importantly, he pastes arguments that he understands.
I doubt this tremendously! First of all, if Yellow or Rook, or whoever, had the amount of knowledge they claimed to have, they wouldn't be here on this site posting responses to idle chat! You, of anyone, should know as much. That's what reason and logic would tell me.
I know enough that for you [Todangst] to even respond to my latent post indicats that the computer lab on your dorm floor must have been closed.
Equating evolution to chance was the topic of our first debate and to clarify..my initial comments on this site were of a general nature. Equating evolution to chance is exacltly what I propose. No matter what mutagenical, morphological, genetical, or phylogenical change an organism exhibits, it still depends on the external environmental stimuli to prmote it. Either the 'environment' provokes the change (read external factor ----->God) or it just all happened by chance (read not likely).
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline I also posted the actual Darwin "eye" quote for him... how much do you want to bet that he continues to use the argument anyway?
Forgive me for posting here, but I must:
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural'
plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Reminds me of what Winston Churchill said when told about a possible Nazi invasion across the English Channel: "England awaits, and so do the fishes"
Reminds me of what Hitler once said"
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline MarthaSplatterhead wrote:As for MattShizzle's bitchslappin' I don't really care........
I saw your website - Very interesting! Sometimes we must all round up our courage and leave the college campus once in a while. I especially love your empathy for the disenfranchised. I mean - What more could we possibly do to get people to vote. Were the busses not runnnig that day. Perhaps that was a conspiracy agianst the poor. You know, sometimes my response is that 'you folks live in trees', but then I stop and think, wait, you actually believed that once.
Martha, come to your senses, look around you and quit looking for answers on a website founded by mouthpieces for a guy who gave up. (RD)
I have no goddam idea what you are talking about. What website are you talking about? I am a full time mother of two that hasn't been to college in 4 years. What about busses not running? 
Anyway, thanks for your concern but I have come to my senses and don't need you to patronize me.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have no goddam idea what you are talking about. What website are you talking about?{/quote]
This one here, the one that is associated with your profile on the RRS:
http://www.myspace.com/liesforthekids
MarthatSplatterHead wrote:I am a full time mother of two that hasn't been to college in 4 years. What about busses not running?Precisely what I mean Martha, why would you - a full time mother of two be in the business of spending time on this site? Time on this site is time away from your kids. You know what is right. You know what is truth.
Listen, don't believe me, believe the Word! Get the Word of God, Read it, and come back and prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marthat wrote:Anyway, thanks for your concern but I havecome to my senses and don't need you to patronize me.Martha, I'm not patronizing you in any way. Just asking for you to step back and look around you! You got two great kids. You got a roof over your head, your belly is full, there is much to be thakful for!
Has Sapient convinced you to tell your kids Santa doesn't exist?
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline I also want to add, dmiclock, that I don't appreciate your condescending remarks.
I especially love your empathy for the disenfranchised. I mean - What more could we possibly do to get people to vote.
Let's say I buy your story. The universe was created by god. Well, who created god then? Did the very first people on earth 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, have belly buttons? Are dinosaurs really behemoths and dragons as mentioned in the bible? Can Jesus fly like Superman? Do donkeys talk? Do rabbits chew their cud? Are bats really birds? Is god good or worth worshipping even though he kills good people (refer to RRS home page)? If Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are three different entities than why the only "one god" concept? If Adam was created in god's image did he have a regular size penis or a gigantic one? Did god have a penis? If so, why? Why is god so worried about us worshipping other gods if he is the only god? Why would you want to be in a group that "eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood?" I can go on (because it's kinda fun) but I need to go work on my handmade solstice gifts I'm making to put under my solstice tree. 
- Login to post comments
Offline MarthaSplatterhead wrote:I have no goddam idea what you are talking about. What website are you talking about?{/quote]
This one here, the one that is associated with your profile on the RRS:
http://www.myspace.com/liesforthekids
MarthatSplatterHead wrote:I am a full time mother of two that hasn't been to college in 4 years. What about busses not running?Precisely what I mean Martha, why would you - a full time mother of two be in the business of spending time on this site? Time on this site is time away from your kids. You know what is right. You know what is truth.
Listen, don't believe me, believe the Word! Get the Word of God, Read it, and come back and prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marthat wrote:Anyway, thanks for your concern but I havecome to my senses and don't need you to patronize me.Martha, I'm not patronizing you in any way. Just asking for you to step back and look around you! You got two great kids. You got a roof over your head, your belly is full, there is much to be thakful for!
Has Sapient convinced you to tell your kids Santa doesn't exist?
Heysoos Kreest! I have been a non-theist long before finding this site. I have also always told my kids the truth. I don't believe in setting up the future of our society with betraying them at such an early age. We are the only ones our children trust only to feed them lies and 10 years later they find out from some older kids at the playground (referring to Santa). Not a very good way to start an honest relationship with our children, eh? I think you've come here with the intention of a soul to save? Barking up the wrong tree (because that's where I live, remember?)
As for what I do with my time, fuck you. I take care of my kids. They get plenty attention. I don't have to tell you this but I will. When I get a chance to take a break, I come and read the things here on this site in particular because it's the first time I felt like there are other people out there that I relate to that have come together. I haven't had this feeling of a common ground with this many people in a very long time.
As for my website, I don't know where you got the idea that my life has always been so great. Yeah, I got great kids and a full belly but it wasn't always this way. I could get into my life story but you wouldn't want to hear that since you would just find a way to be condescending or twist it however you see fit. Well, that's it for this reponse. Hopefully I won't feel the need to defend my personal life in the future.
- Login to post comments
Offline I also want to add, dmiclock, that I don't appreciate your condescending remarks.
I especially love your empathy for the disenfranchised. I mean - What more could we possibly do to get people to vote.
Let's say I buy your story. The universe was created by god. Well, who created god then? Did the very first people on earth 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, have belly buttons? Are dinosaurs really behemoths and dragons as mentioned in the bible? Can Jesus fly like Superman? Do donkeys talk? Do rabbits chew their cud? Are bats really birds? Is god good or worth worshipping even though he kills good people (refer to RRS home page)? If Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are three different entities than why the only "one god" concept? If Adam was created in god's image did he have a regular size penis or a gigantic one? Did god have a penis? If so, why? Why is god so worried about us worshipping other gods if he is the only god? Why would you want to be in a group that "eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood?" I can go on (because it's kinda fun) but I need to go work on my handmade solstice gifts I'm making to put under my solstice tree.
Martha,
I can explain all that you ask about. Give me a chance. [email protected]
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Martha
I would very much like to hear your story. email me and you can call me. I'm not a fundy like you've read about, but I am someone who knows the truth. Believe that.
You will NOT be disappointed..
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Martha,
I can explain all that you ask about. Give me a chance. [email protected]
Oh, no, do go on, please, I'd like to hear these answers too.
*settles herself down to listen*
I'm sure everyone else wants to hear as well. 
- Login to post comments
Offline dmiclock wrote:Martha,
I can explain all that you ask about. Give me a chance. [email protected]
Oh, no, do go on, please, I'd like to hear these answers too.
*settles herself down to listen*
I'm sure everyone else wants to hear as well.
Don't you see GlamourKat that dmiclock is trying tosingle me out and save my soul? That's why he can't address these questions here.
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't you see GlamourKat that dmiclock is trying tosingle me out and save my soul? That's why he can't address these questions here.
Martha,
My email will always be open to you despite the mockery you, or others make of it, I would never even for one instance divulge our conversation. Email me. You won't regret it.
DPM
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh, no, do go on, please, I'd like to hear these answers too. *settles herself down to listen*I'm sure everyone else wants to hear as well.
You have an open invitation as well. There are no coincidences.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline That's why he can't address these questions here.
No, I would prefer no to throw my pearls to swine.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline You have an open invitation as well. There are no coincidences.
So, if everyone on this forum, said, "hey dude, tell us the answers to marthsplatterhead's questions too!"
Then you'd email us all seperately explaining why your god/s is/are real? Why not do it here?
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:Yellow pastes a good deal, but he doesn't 'copy'... he pastes arguments that he's written and given before. More importantly, he pastes arguments that he understands.I doubt this tremendously!
Who cares what you claim to doubt? I know that he's not cutting and pasting.
I know enough that for you [Todangst] to even respond to my latent post indicats that the computer lab on your dorm floor must have been closed.
Wouldn't matter, my student ID expiried in 1983.
Equating evolution to chance was the topic of our first debate and to clarify..my initial comments on this site were of a general nature.
You were wrong, and I demonstrated it. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:I also posted the actual Darwin "eye" quote for him... how much do you want to bet that he continues to use the argument anyway?
Forgive me for posting here, but I must:
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
Without having to even bother to check the context within which these statements were made, I can tell you that all they are are confessions of ignorance and arguments from wonder.
The fact that a smart person doesn't know doesn't give him the epistemological grounds for saying "goddidit'
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
Too bad you're too intellectually dishonest to read the rest of the story about Flew. He concedes that this statement was an argument from ignorance.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline MarthaSplatterhead wrote:That's why he can't address these questions here.
No, I would prefer no to throw my pearls to swine.
We know why you can't respond; you're fundamentally ignorant of the topics you debate.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Let's say I buy your story. The universe was created by god. Well, who created god then? Did the very first people on earth 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, have belly buttons? Are dinosaurs really behemoths and dragons as mentioned in the bible? Can Jesus fly like Superman? Do donkeys talk? Do rabbits chew their cud? Are bats really birds? Is god good or worth worshipping even though he kills good people (refer to RRS home page)? If Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are three different entities than why the only "one god" concept? If Adam was created in god's image did he have a regular size penis or a gigantic one? Did god have a penis? If so, why? Why is god so worried about us worshipping other gods if he is the only god? Why would you want to be in a group that "eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood?" I can go on (because it's kinda fun) but I need to go work on my handmade solstice gifts I'm making to put under my solstice tree.
The above reference tells me that you have absolutely no idea what Chrisianity is, none! FYI - If you spout that in public as your evidence that Chriistianity is false, you'll be a laughing stock.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline MarthaSplatterhead wrote:Let's say I buy your story. The universe was created by god. Well, who created god then? Did the very first people on earth 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve, have belly buttons? Are dinosaurs really behemoths and dragons as mentioned in the bible? Can Jesus fly like Superman? Do donkeys talk? Do rabbits chew their cud? Are bats really birds? Is god good or worth worshipping even though he kills good people (refer to RRS home page)? If Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are three different entities than why the only "one god" concept? If Adam was created in god's image did he have a regular size penis or a gigantic one? Did god have a penis? If so, why? Why is god so worried about us worshipping other gods if he is the only god? Why would you want to be in a group that "eats the body of Christ and drinks his blood?" I can go on (because it's kinda fun) but I need to go work on my handmade solstice gifts I'm making to put under my solstice tree.
The above reference tells me that you have absolutely no idea what Chrisianity is, none!
You didn't bother to actually give an argument to back up your claim.
FYI - If you spout that in public as your evidence that Chriistianity is false, you'll be a laughing stock.
Actually, what's posted above represents a fundamental view of christianity held to be millions of americans. Look up 'fundamentalism' and 'bible literalism", you nimrod.
As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
You're a pisser!
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline We know why you can't respond; you're fundamentally ignorant of the topics you debate.
Todangst: I can respond to anything you have to say. I find interesting that you negelected to respond to my earlier post regarding your referrence to a certain party I would be privy to. Fact of the matter is, that desppite how many fromulas you can recite, or how many theories can extrapolate on, you're still a putz for the mouthpieces of Richard Dawkinns. I don't mean to sound mean, but look around. From March of this year til now you have become the Psychology expert for the site. Wow - you're in such good company with renowned experts as Rook Hawkins and Matt Shizzle that I almost can't believe it, and foundational supporting members as Noor and MarthaSplatterHead.
Wake Up.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You're a pisser!
Do you want to have a conversation about what Christianity is?
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You're a pisser!
Do you want to have a conversation about what Christianity is?
LetAll the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline .....you nimrod.
now, now!
You're a pisser!
I still respect your intellect!
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline As Boris Badenov said "Hooo Boy!" And no me quoting him doesn't make me evil. I've been out of college myself 10 years now.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:We know why you can't respond; you're fundamentally ignorant of the topics you debate.
Todangst: I can respond to anything you have to say.
Well then, respond to him. Thoth dammit, all you do is say "I can respond" then you change the subject and leave. Put up or shut up.
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You're a pisser!
Do you want to have a conversation about what Christianity is?
Let
I'm sure todangst would find that fascinating. I would to. I'm waiting to observe the no-true-Scottsman fallacy emerge.
See. for every true image of Christianity you cite, another Christian could pop up and claim that your opinion is heresy (or whatever). Then it turns into which doctrines are the true version, which will only illustrate the fallacy of the Scotch variety.
Talking about what is truly Christian or not misses the point of this discussion, which has been largely the merits of god-belief. talking about which ideas ar the ones that truly represent Christian doctrine is irrelevant if all of the ideas are equally unsupported. The question is whether any of the interpretations of what Christianity truly is make sense or are supportable.
Your extensive quoting from scientists above does not show anything but the opinions of many people. many of them seem like they might be taken out of context. And if not, then so what? opinions of smart men are not the same as evidence. It would be like me saying something like the following;
the universe, in it's beauty, diversity, and inter-woven complexity seem to imply design. The nature of our intellectual and perceptive faculties naturally draw a creative force from these observations.
and implying I mean that I believe that a god must be responsible for the universe. But I could say the above and yet completely deny I believe in a creator at all. If you notice that I use "seem" and "draw" which implies that the apparancy and inclination to think this way may have nothing to do with reality.
I recognize that our minds easily draw conclusions of design and intent in patterns. But we know that patterns can occur without intent or intelligent design. Patterns occur when there are processes which happen over and over, creating the things in which we observe patterns; snowflakes are an example.
The fact that we perceive patterns--in fact it seems much of our brain operates to identify patterns (like Jesus in the grilled cheese)--has nothing to do with there being a necessary designer. The fact is that intent and intelligence is responsible for much of the pattern in the world. Natural processes and randomness are responsible for other patterns. We can identify the origin of certain designed patterns (things like watches), learn about how nature "designs" others (like snowflakes), and other patterns are unlikely curiosities (such as if we were to find that I dropped 5 playing cards and they all fell lined up nicely--not impoosible, but highly unlikely).
So your contention is that the attributes to the universe are too unlikely to have happened by chance, and that the universe is full of too many unlikely things to have come without design? The problem is that, especially concerning things like the cosmological constant, we don't know if these contants could have been any different. And as was mentioned earlier, it may be that all possible universes of all possible constants (and other factors) also exist, but we are here because of the constants of the universe made it possible.
It's a little like saying that you winning the lottery is astronomically unlikely, so since you did it must have been designed. Look at it from the perspective of the other millions of people whom are left prizeless. Now look at it from the point of view of the universe with one (or more) of the factors you listed before being different and realize that there may be something completely unlike us there. It would be something that could survive given those conditions. And perhaps somethin gthere is asking the same question. They might be saying that a universe like the one that you and I, here in this universe, live couldn't support life like theirs. And they might be right. It's kind of like a being that breathes pure methane gas not seeing how anything could survive on a planet that had so much oxygen, which is poisonous to them.
Another question is whether the patterns you observe in the universe are the kind like the watch or like the Jesus in the grilled cheese. That is, are they actually patterns or are you projecting them?
The simple fact is that no matter what we are shown, our brain will eventually find patterns; it's one of our brain's best tricks. You find the pattern and say goddidit. I see the pattern and, being fascinated by the pattern, try to figure out what causes it. I realize that proposing a bigger, badder, and more complex pattern to act as te cause only pushes back the problem; what created taht bigger, badder pattern?
And if you respond that either that God is necessary or God is actually simple, then your missing something again. If God is necessary, why can't the universe itself be necessary? Why the unsupported and (biased?) special pleading fallacy? That is, why allow the regress to go back one step and cut it off but not the next step; why arbitrarily cut it off at "God" and not the God of God, or the God-of-god-of-god?
And if God is simple, then you understand how something simple can create complex patterns. If you understand that, you should be able to understand natural selection. If you understand natural selection, you should be able to understand how the immense patterns and "precisely tuned" universe do not necessarily imply a designer.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Shaun,
Very interesting thoughts! Thanks.
The simple fact is that no matter what we are shown, our brain will eventually find patterns;
Do you think we [humans] can be doing this in the area of evolution as well? Emphasis on eventually!
DMI
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
- Login to post comments
Offline Shaun,
Very interesting thoughts! Thanks.
Shaun wrote:The simple fact is that no matter what we are shown, our brain will eventually find patterns;
Do you think we [humans] can be doing this in the area of evolution as well? Emphasis on eventually!
DMI
No. The difference lies in the fact that evolution is supported by patterns of empirical data. The patterns of apparent design are not supported by patterns of empirical data.
when you see the eye, for example, as evidence of a designer, you are ignoring the empiral and testable data that shows how it evolved naturally. The pattern you see, while understandable, does not hold up to further scrutiny. That is, prior to the understanding of the process of natural selection, one could see this design pattern as a significant challenge to naturalism.
But this is no longer the case. Evolution is indeed a pattern we see in the world. But the fact that the pattern is testable and falsifiable makes it not illusory.
With God, the "proof" is the pattern. With evolution, the proof is the data that supports the pattern. A pattern without evidence is just an interesting idea. back that idea up with research and mounds of empirical data and you have a scientific theory. Ideally, the idea comes after the research, and not before; but it's not like the occasional scientific breakthrough doesn't come from a predicted pattern which was then verified. It just seems that most theists and design apologists try to fit the data to the pattern they like, rather than the pattern to the data they have.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Care to take say a question like this on? How have I forgot about this thread? Sapient mentioned you'd be on the show? I cannot wait. This is only going to turn out very badly for you though, I think. Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well. Are you prepared for a show of questions like that? Are you going to counter with lame tripe like "how is information added to the genome" or "irreducible complexity" and exuses about "microevolution"? Should be fun, for me, at least.Yellow:
It took me 32 seconds to find this infomation on the web too regarding retrogene insertions. Cut and paste is a great innovation for us monkeys. First of all don't cuss at me!
Are you accusing me of plagiarism. If you're not, then the question remains why are you so ignorant of information that is readily available to you?
I also notice that you chose to question my credentials and honesty rather than simply resond to the argument.
2nd. I never refutted or disagreed with Big Bang, or science for that matter. The pursuit of truth is of the utmost importance.
Fair enough.
3. I am capable of discussing these issues with you, and I don't necessarily disagree with the process of natural selection, as an adaptational process for organisms. I just don't see it as a viable process to create seperate species. Here's why: Todangst and I discussed evolution and chance in previous posts. Heritable mutations in population dynamics are one thing, but to also have the environmental stimuli co-correspond to the mutation for the benefit of the speicies is quite another. The probablities are too high, for concurrent, mutual benefit.
And this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection. The genome, or more accurately the phenotype*, responds to the environment and changes within the environment. This is done via random mutation (the raw material) and selection, and the environment is the selector, the screen if you will for these changes. The environment is the selector - it does not "co-evolve" or "co-correspond" to mutational changes.
*-before our friend accuses me of confusing genotype and phenotype, let me assure you I'm not. I'm saying mutational changes work through and are expressed through phenotypical expression and that the environment selects which of these phenotypes are advantageous. It's a feedback loop with a built in randomization function.
3. This is an FYI - Because many of you don't have the credentials to be experts in your field, I would stray away from anything that takes credibility away from your claim. For instance, and I think Richard Dawkins leads by example here, using profanity in your posts greatly reduces other people's impression of the validity of your post.
I could give a fuck what you think using the word fuck on the internet does to my credibilty. The arguments don't rise or fall via the use of the word fuck.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline todangst wrote:Yellow pastes a good deal, but he doesn't 'copy'... he pastes arguments that he's written and given before. More importantly, he pastes arguments that he understands.I doubt this tremendously! First of all, if Yellow or Rook, or whoever, had the amount of knowledge they claimed to have, they wouldn't be here on this site posting responses to idle chat!
Ah, I see, because I enjoy this community and talking about such things, I clearly cut and paste my arguments and don't actually understand them. Indeed, you "logic" is impeccable.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline dmiclock,
Perhaps this video will help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13NPZ5Nv_fc
Richard Dawkins - The Big Question: Why Are We Here?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
- Login to post comments
Offline [Todangst: I can respond to anything you have to say. I find interesting that you negelected to respond to my earlier post regarding your referrence to a certain party I would be privy to. Fact of the matter is, that desppite how many fromulas you can recite, or how many theories can extrapolate on, you're still a putz for the mouthpieces of Richard Dawkinns. I don't mean to sound mean, but look around. From March of this year til now you have become the Psychology expert for the site. Wow - you're in such good company with renowned experts as Rook Hawkins and Matt Shizzle that I almost can't believe it, and foundational supporting members as Noor and MarthaSplatterHead.Wake Up.
Todangst has owned you in every discussion you've had with him here. No one is fooled by your bravado, so you might as well settle down and admit that you have no rational response for any of our arguments.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Good, since you never even began to respond to ANY of the rebuttals to your attacks on Big Bang theory and evolution. Your goal on this site was clearly to proselytize then act offended when your ridiculous statements were ridiculed. Any attempt to actually engage in dialogue would have avoided all the mockery - instead you just repeated "fine tuning" over and over like it was a mantra.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Now well never get to see the spectacular evidence of how God created the universe that you were saving for the live radio show.
I guess that if your right, we are now all condemed to hell for not knowing your special informaion. Are you joining us in hell for not sharing it with us?
We don't tell our members what they can think, write or say. I'll agree with you though, they were a bit crass but so what. If you want to argue with people online this will occasionally happen. Grow up man. I wonder if made-dieties like Jesus appreciate the behavior of some of his followers:
Jim and Tammy Faye Baker
Jimmy Swaggart
Ted Hagard
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Provide empical counter then.
No, he did not, this is a notoriously quote mined point. Educate yourself.
Provide an empirical point, or STFU.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Care to take say a question like this on? How have I forgot about this thread?
Sapient mentioned you'd be on the show? I cannot wait. This is only going to turn out very badly for you though, I think.
Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.
Are you prepared for a show of questions like that? Are you going to counter with lame tripe like "how is information added to the genome" or "irreducible complexity" and exuses about "microevolution"? Should be fun, for me, at least.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Never mind then. Fuck, I'm salivating over here.
I'm not sorry we hurt your feelings, because as a creationist and a denier of basic science, you DESERVE ridicule - you are the greatest danger to progress I can imagine. You're the guy who would burn people for saying the earth wasn't the center of your universe. You make me sick and fear for the future of humanity, you really do.
I tend to pull punches with those who believe out of emotion, but I've NO sympathy for the willfully ignorant and dishonest - and all creationists fit that bill.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Hi Matt, Just writing to say that I have a great sense of humor. Probably more so than you think. Since nobody bothered to repsond to your question, let me me take the liberty.
The answer is Yes, yes you did do something wrong, but you probably don't even realize it. Your website, as innocuous as it is, promotes a lifestyle that victimizes women for the immoral desires of men. It basically perpetuates the evil in this world, the same evil that perplexes you and other members of the RRS. It's the same evil that has driven most of you to atheism. I don't mean that 'evil' per se is the driving factor which has caused you specifically to be an atheist, I mean your inablity to understand the nature of evil is the cause. Atheists are usually fundamentally ignorant of what evil really is.
Hope that helps. You asked, and that's the real answer. Like it or not.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
You, dmiclock, are an atheist. I really wish people would get the definition right. You are an atheist in regards to Pan, Shiva, Allah, etc.
And you speak of evil as if my children are evil because they have never been indoctrinated. And you do so with a self-righteous attitude. I think that's why people here are getting rude.
As for MattShizzle's bitchslappin' I don't really care. Doesn't bother me even though, I am a strong supporter of women's rights. One of my favorite jokes goes like this: Q.Why do women wear make-up and perfume? A. Because they're ugly and they stink. Oh here's another one: Q. What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? A. Nothing, I already told her twice.
I just want to point out a joke is meant to be funny. That's all Matt was trying to do.
Yellow:
It took me 32 seconds to find this infomation on the web too regarding retrogene insertions. Cut and paste is a great innovation for us monkeys. First of all don't cuss at me!
2nd. I never refutted or disagreed with Big Bang, or science for that matter. The pursuit of truth is of the utmost importance.
3. I am capable of discussing these issues with you, and I don't necessarily disagree with the process of natural selection, as an adaptational process for organisms. I just don't see it as a viable process to create seperate species. Here's why: Todangst and I discussed evolution and chance in previous posts. Heritable mutations in population dynamics are one thing, but to also have the environmental stimuli co-correspond to the mutation for the benefit of the speicies is quite another. The probablities are too high, for concurrent, mutual benefit.
3. This is an FYI - Because many of you don't have the credentials to be experts in your field, I would stray away from anything that takes credibility away from your claim. For instance, and I think Richard Dawkins leads by example here, using profanity in your posts greatly reduces other people's impression of the validity of your post.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
Hello Martha,
Don't think so! Matt has expressed some pretty harsh opinions regarding faith and people's expression of it. He currently has a forum for amusing Christian bumper stickers. Interesting thing you bring up...indoctrination. As a matter of fact, I gave up on the faith that I was brought up in as a child - well into my 30's. Through reason and logic I absoluterly made up my mind that God could not possibly exist. I studied Bhuddism, the art of Zazen, and many other eastern religions in my pursuit of the truth. My curiosity lead me back to the Bible, that's right, the Bible. The book that many claim to have read, but very few can truthfully say. There are many truths in the Bible, more so than any other book.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
Martha,
Also, don't let these guys fool you. What you have on this site is adolescents who claim to have a higher level of intelligence that anyone else, but can't understand the basic precepts of evil. They'll say it's societal, but remember that individuals make up society, and individuals make decisions everyday. We all exercise free will.
Also, notice how many of them are self proclaimed experts in their fields. This is attested to by the fact that they claim it freely (See Rooks Profile and Blog). Although they don't understand that to really be the best, or to be an expert, is not because you say so, but because your peers tell you so!
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
Yeah, I get the idea! That's about as unfair as me posting pictures of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. just some of the more famous 20th Century Atheists. But as Susan alluded to in an earlier post, we can't use them as examples. I guess for liberal atheists, these monsters are off limits.
We all exercise free will. We all will be judged.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
I think you just showed your true colors right there...
I saw your website - Very interesting! Sometimes we must all round up our courage and leave the college campus once in a while. I especially love your empathy for the disenfranchised. I mean - What more could we possibly do to get people to vote. Were the busses not runnnig that day. Perhaps that was a conspiracy agianst the poor. You know, sometimes my response is that 'you folks live in trees', but then I stop and think, wait, you actually believed that once.
Martha, come to your senses, look around you and quit looking for answers on a website founded by mouthpieces for a guy who gave up. (RD)
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
Did I Voidrest? I hope so! I hope I made it air apparent that the realization that pure and unadulterated evil exists in our world and it goes un-noticed by most atheists. It is very easily explained and understood.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.
First of all, I did respond to the rebuttals. I don't buy them! I absolutely accept Hot Big Bang Model as a explanation for how our universe id expanding. I don't however agree with the fact that our Universe is the result of some other, unexplained incident. When we start discussing that we enter the realm of infinite regression where we have 5th dimension ribbons colliding with one another, or quantum vacuums, etc..
I tend to think that the proof lies within the fine tuning. For example, there are many attributes of this universe that cannot be explained by random occurrence or physical law. (cosmological constant 10^-120, etc.. Not withstanding the fact that the fact that the physical laws are so perfect...how could they have occurred by chance?
I'm gonna copy and paste now, like my buddy Yellow, but you'll get the point.
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Your goal on this site was clearly to proselytize then act offended when your ridiculous statements were ridiculed. Any attempt to actually engage in dialogue would have avoided all the mockery - instead you just repeated "fine tuning" over and over like it was a mantra.
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.