Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 358 359 [360] 361 362 ... 370

Author Topic: Atheists  (Read 391591 times)

KaminaSquirtle

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5385 on: October 30, 2010, 11:31:01 am »

Quote
, Evolutionism (how often do mutations make sapient? Failing sapient, how often do they improve the species at all?)
Maybe you should know what you're talking about before you make outlandish claims.  Read the origin of species if you really want to know.  While it's not perfect, I would say it remains the most convincing argument in favor of evolution.  And if you do read it, please read the first edition, imo it's the best one.
Edit:  First paragraph is most relevant.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 11:43:57 am by KaminaSquirtle »
Logged

FuzzyZergling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Zergin' erry day.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5386 on: October 30, 2010, 11:36:31 am »

I recommend The Panda's Thumb, by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
Logged

Omegastick

  • Bay Watcher
  • Crazy musician man
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5387 on: October 30, 2010, 12:14:17 pm »

@Bauglir: It doesn't occur to you that these things (universal expansion, etc.) go hand in hand with creationism? Isaiah 40:22 “[God] stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." God has expanded the universe and it is likely still expanding. I simply don't have the time to research each answer as much as I did the first one, but microwave radiation can likely be explained by the heat of stars lighting up in the sky or something similar. If you want to know the answer then go and search it on Google or something.

'Really unlikely' is a perfectly viable method of disproving evolution: 'One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona".' That is an extract from Wikipedia, and it took them much, much longer than 4.5 billion years to get 19 letters of one of a long list of plays.

Number one in my example is fairly obvious, I assumed that you knew it. Look at something near you, did it create itself? If yes then you are doing something wrong, if no: what created it? Repeat. You will eventually end up at the beginning of the universe.

Whew, that took a while. I'll answer one more person's questions and then, hopefully, that will leave some sort of an indentation upon you people. I regret not having time to answer every question thrown at me, maybe I'll get around to it tomorrow.

@MSH: Does infinitely small mean anything to you? It does to me, it means so small that, essentially, it doesn't exist. And there's no way that you could even fit one person into an infinitely small point, never mind the entire universe. Fitting anything more than an equally small amount of matter into such a space would break the law of conservation of mass.

A + B: Not questions.

C: Okay, disregard sapience. Let's say something more simple like the eye; it doesn't work if you change it very much at all, therefore taking natural selection out of the picture and it is much less likely that you will mutate a whole, fully working eye than it is for a monkey to type nineteen letters of a play.

"Oh! But clever scientists have come up with tests and experiments showing that complex things like the eye can be made through natural selection and some randomness!" firstly, refer to my earlier example of the monkey and the typewriter. Secondly, anything that started to evolve a squishy, easily injured, bright white thingy sticking out of their head would immediately be killed or at least made to bleed out of the squishy thingy.

Maybe I'll answer more questions later. Until then, my friends, goodbye!
Logged
I make music under the name Flag Red, check me out:
Soundcloud
Youtube
Facebook

KaminaSquirtle

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5388 on: October 30, 2010, 12:25:01 pm »

Do you people never think up new arguments?
Omegastick, pretty every counterargument you have was brought to the plate by the end of the 19th century.  Funny thing is, evolution is still the dominant theory.
"Oh! But clever scientists hae come up with tests and experiments showing that complex things like the eye can be made through natural selection and some randomness!" firstly, refer to my earlier example of the monkey and the typewriter. Secondly, anything that started to evolve a squishy, easily injured, bright white thingy sticking out of their head would immediately be killed or at least made to bleed out of the squishy thingy.
Ok, this seals the deal.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If you're going to argue against evolution, at least know what evolution is.  Read the origin of species, read other books on the subject, and then come back and we can talk.
Logged

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5389 on: October 30, 2010, 01:31:58 pm »

I thought the eye arugment was a straw man?
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5390 on: October 30, 2010, 01:43:09 pm »

Omegastick seems to have one massive misconception that's fuelling his argument, though, and that's that "Evolution is random".  It isn't - natural selection explains the non random process by which life came about.  Random mutations happen, and then the ones that do well survive non randomly.

Let's go through...

Massive "Did it create itself?" fallacy.  What created God?  God would be much more complicated than any animal, so he must've had a creator, right?  But then his creator would be more complicated still... so he'd need a creator too!  And so on.

Then an insistence that primary school level physics can be used to disprove cutting edge astrophysics.  Uhuh.

The thing is, there ARE creatures with half an eye - they have, say, a few light sensitive cell, or one like ours but with no lense (thus meaning it's more blurry).  There are also creatures with better eyes than us (like eagles).  And what's more, eye evolution is actually a very well known area - there's a detailed explanation here and an awesome little flash animation here.  Basically, saying "You need to have a squishy, useless thing hanging out of your head before you have an eye" is like saying "You need to have a disembodied head before you have an adult human".
Logged

Bauglir

  • Bay Watcher
  • Let us make Good
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5391 on: October 30, 2010, 02:01:26 pm »

No, microwave radiation isn't explained by stars heating up the sky, because it originates in all directions and isn't of the wavelengths associated with heating of very thinly-dispersed gas to temperatures only slightly above absolute 0. Monkeys writing Shakespeare has nothing to do with evolution, and evolution isn't purely random. What selection acted on the monkeys? How MANY monkeys were there? A mere million? That's tiny on an evolutionary scale. You really need to learn what evolution IS, and also how the proposed evolution of the eye works.

Also, this.
Logged
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky. “I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied. “Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky. “I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5392 on: October 30, 2010, 02:19:29 pm »

Yes, even some bacteria have somthing that can qualify as an "eye" in the sense that it is a photoreceptive spot on them that can tell if there's light around or not, and absolutetly nothing else. Sight is a powerful trait to have, just like inteligence, so the bacteria that mutated more advanced eye-like organs would survive better. Earth's large assortment of eye-bearing creatures is the end result of that.

@Bauglir: It doesn't occur to you that these things (universal expansion, etc.) go hand in hand with creationism? Isaiah 40:22 “[God] stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." God has expanded the universe and it is likely still expanding. I simply don't have the time to research each answer as much as I did the first one, but microwave radiation can likely be explained by the heat of stars lighting up in the sky or something similar. If you want to know the answer then go and search it on Google or something.
The bible says a lot of things, and just because one or two quotes can be kind-of-sort-of seen as almost like a current scientific theory means next to nothing, even more so considering all the things that it says that are outright wrong.
Quote
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Deuteronomy 28:23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
2 Samuel  22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Job 9:6-7 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.
Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.
...And so many, many more.

Quote
Number one in my example is fairly obvious, I assumed that you knew it. Look at something near you, did it create itself? If yes then you are doing something wrong, if no: what created it? Repeat. You will eventually end up at the beginning of the universe.
And so exists the problem that makes you wrong: What created your deity? You could ask what created the matter and energy that made up our universe, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know that yet and don't need to turn to the supernatural because we don't know.
Quote
@MSH: Does infinitely small mean anything to you? It does to me, it means so small that, essentially, it doesn't exist. And there's no way that you could even fit one person into an infinitely small point, never mind the entire universe. Fitting anything more than an equally small amount of matter into such a space would break the law of conservation of mass.
"Infinitely small" is another laymen's term for describing the absurdly complex process that is the Big Bang Theory. You and I only understand it on the surface really, as neither of us are cosmologists who have the training to understand half of the things the Big Bang Theory refers to. I will try to explain more in depth. The current state of the Big Bang Theory suggests that the original singularity did not contain matter as we know it. The density of it was far too great for atoms to form, far too great for even protons, neutrons, and electrons to exist. It may have even been beyond quarks and gluons in simplicity. These things could only come to exist as the Universe expanded, and would have began to on some level before even the first nanosecond of the Big Bang had passed. The current consensus is that 379,000 Earth-years after the begining of the Big Bang, the first hydrogen atoms would have been able to form. More atoms could form as the universe expanded over those billions of years, leaving us with the (assumibly, not all have been confirmed but likely could exist under the right circumstances) 118 elements we have today, only some of which exist naturally.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Fayrik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5393 on: October 30, 2010, 02:59:10 pm »

I tried to avoid this thread, simply because it's the age old science-religion squabble.. That will blatently never end.

But, after seeing there's three hundred pages of this stuff, I feel a need to try and add my thoughts here, while trying to be as impartial as I can.

Firstly, on the headline subject. It's true, sometimes Atheism can be considered a religion in it's own right. I feel this is wrong, as Atheism should be treated as a non-applicable, and it really could do without the weight of religious zelotry behind.

Secondly, I wish to outline just how futile, in my eyes, it is to try and argue creationism against science in general.
I don't wish to sit here and make claims over what I believe, and how it is right against what other say.
Honestly, I don't care what others believe, except when they believe something over an established fact.. But again, this detracts from the point.
Back to that in question.. Just to make the vital part of all this long winded nonsens clearer, I shall bulletmark this, so no one misses it.

  • Creationism: An interpretation of religous texts.
  • Evolutionism: Scientifically tested knowledge.
Here, you'd be thinking "Yeah, but other than the testing, what's the difference?"
And, here's where I get to my point.

Religous texts are written, and, if you would, set in stone.
Science, on the other hand, is.. By definition, not set in stone.

If religion gets it wrong, then there's a large hoohar and things are argued to no avail.
If science gets it wrong, it changes, until it is correct.
!!But, do remember, science changes to the truth, not to what you want it to be. And, at this point, a certain Dwarvenly quote comes to my mind!!

Loosing is fun!

Logged
So THIS is how migrations start.
"Hey, dude, there's this crazy bastard digging in the ground for stuff. Let's go watch."

Makbeth

  • Bay Watcher
  • His lower body is melted.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5394 on: October 30, 2010, 03:00:11 pm »

Atheism may be the first thing that people would think of when studying physics, but further research into it shows that it, in fact, almost all theories that don't in some way involve a supernatural power creating the universe are incredibly flawed. Examples include: Big bang ('nothing' exploded to make the universe, this breaks every physics law imaginable), Evolutionism (how often do mutations make sapient? Failing sapient, how often do they improve the species at all?), the universe spontaneously existing for no reason whatsoever (if you believe this then there are obvious problems with you).

That's a strawman and you know it.  No physicist worth the name believes the big bang came out of nowhere.  The only people who say the big bang came out of nowhere - or that evolution means complex life and intelligence are the result of random mutations - are the people who are trying to convince others that the big bang and evolution are not real.  Sadly, one of the most effective ways to get the uneducated to dismiss a theory is to tell them it's something that it's not, and make it sound absurd in doing so.  It works depressingly well, but it is also lying through your teeth in the name of a God who supposedly frowns on such things. 

The hypocrisy of the antiscience religious mind is profound.  They tell us that we cannot be moral beings without God, but to defend the idea that their God exists, they lie about the alternatives to belief in their God.

If you're going to try to discredit the big bang or evolution, then be honest about what they are.  And if you honestly don't even know what they are, and are saying they're wrong, then I say that there are obvious problems with you.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 03:02:02 pm by Makbeth »
Logged
Diso Faintpuzzles was born in 120.  Although accounts vary it is universally agreed that Diso was chosen by fate as the vanguard of destiny.

In the early spring of 143 Diso began wandering the wilds.

In the early spring of 143 Diso starved to death in the Horn of Striking.

Makbeth

  • Bay Watcher
  • His lower body is melted.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5395 on: October 30, 2010, 03:27:17 pm »

1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
2. Something exists now.
3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.

It is obvious that nothing inside this universe can have always existed, that breaks every physics law ever imagined. No, instead it would have to be something outside physics, outside time and space if you will. This being that has always been there, that is the only thing we know of that can have always existed, is what we call God.

@Il Palazzo: I enjoy the pursuit of knowledge very much, and probably dwell on philosophical matters more than is good for me, but every time I manage to come to the conclusion that all knowledge is flawed if it doesn't, at some point or another, involve God.

Now, saying "I don't know" simply isn't a good enough an answer for me, and I intend on choosing an explanation of how the universe was created that already has all the answers than one that is so incomplete. For you, not knowing may be acceptable, but until someone proves creationism and all it's answers wrong with an incomplete set of answers such as atheism then I won't even bother considering the incomplete answer. Doesn't it seem at all foolish? There is an explanation that in [however long the universe has existed, I personally believe in an old earth] hasn't been shaken and that I reckon will never be disproved and you go about trying to make up answers in an attempt to make your theories canon.

You believe in an old earth.  I'm assuming you're Christian from your mention of Jesus.  The Christian account of creation states that humans appeared at the end of the first week of existence.  We know that to be untrue.  Therefore, the Bible is not a complete answer.  In the camp that says "days" can mean millions of years?  Alright, here's another one.  The Bible says that adultery or working on the Sabbath day are punishable by death.  Is this currently an acceptable punishment for those actions?  I think most would say no.  The Bible is therefore an incomplete answer in terms of morals (also makes one wonder why people say morals must come from the Bible when clearly everyone chooses their own based on what they feel is right or wrong, regardless of some of the things the Bible says). 

I'm not sure if the Bible explicitly states that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun, planets, and stars revolve around it, but the Church felt strongly enough about it that they were willing to burn or excommunicate those who said otherwise back in the day.  Now we know that the Church was wrong about that.  If the Church was going of the Bible, then again the Bible is an incomplete answer. 

Also, the Bible didn't tell us how to cure the sick with antibiotics, identify criminals with DNA evidence, or build machines and refine chemicals that vastly increase our ability to feed ourselves.  Incomplete.

So your statement that you have a complete answer doesn't really hold up very well.  If the Bible were a complete answer, it probably would have told us a lot more about the universe and allowed us to skip several hundred years of technological development.  Science has been busy finding and filling in the gaps in your answer.  It's why you are able to so easily sit at your computer and broadcast your ideas to a wide audience (assuming you post on other forums than Bay12).  Hell, science has even helped your ideology reach the masses longer than that, through the printing press, the radio, and the television.  True, the knowledge science gives us is incomplete, and likely always will be, but it's getting less so as time goes on.  Your answer stays as incomplete as it ever was, and has provided far less useful advice than science did ever since a few decades after it was written.
Logged
Diso Faintpuzzles was born in 120.  Although accounts vary it is universally agreed that Diso was chosen by fate as the vanguard of destiny.

In the early spring of 143 Diso began wandering the wilds.

In the early spring of 143 Diso starved to death in the Horn of Striking.

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5396 on: October 30, 2010, 03:38:58 pm »

I think I could say that there was always something in existence. Why CAN'T there be something as eternity?
Logged

Areyar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ecstatic about recieving his own E:4 mug recently
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5397 on: October 30, 2010, 03:57:30 pm »

Most physicists just don't want to see these findings as they seem to suggest a major rethink of cosmology is required.
What?


If this whole thing was true, then they would just jump on it. If they managed to think of and test a theory that explains it, they'd be set for life.
Yeah I'd think so too, still
According to the article I read on it, most just say something like "Don't wanna believe it, must be an error in their equipment/measurements", but are unable to point out where that error is.
a current controversial paper on a yet unexplained phenomenton that seems to fit the current issues in this thread.
I bet a great number of un-tennuered physisists are jumping on this stuff, just not those that already have made their reputatioin ion the çonventional physics that would not allow this apparently shifting alpha.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 04:02:56 pm by Areyar »
Logged
My images bucket for WIPs and such: link

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5398 on: October 30, 2010, 04:00:51 pm »

If that is the case, and they reject it because the evidence is inconclusive, they'll most likely set up a bigger and more reliable experiment.

These people make money based on changing theories, man :P.
Logged

Areyar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ecstatic about recieving his own E:4 mug recently
    • View Profile
Re: Atheists
« Reply #5399 on: October 30, 2010, 04:10:48 pm »

yeah. Interesting times. :)

Follow up experiment using telescopes on southern hemisphere found similar discrepancy in alpha, but as extra that alpha tends to be higher instead of smaller in the southern hemisphere.
My source is NewScientist, by the way, they also publish online but you need to register to view the articles.
This link is on the same topic.
Logged
My images bucket for WIPs and such: link
Pages: 1 ... 358 359 [360] 361 362 ... 370