A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2012, 02:39 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Okay, so I made a mistake.

Your misspelling of "thing" is not what I was referring to.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I understood it, you didn't.

No, you didn't. If you did, you would be able to answer the objections that I've raised rather than saying "oh, you just don't understand". That is the weakest possible defense and only serves to make you look like even more of a babbling idiot than you already do.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Again, I am not joking either

I didn't think you were.

Which just makes it all the more sad.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I simply rely on logic and common sense.

Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  You, on the other hand, seem to cast those two aside in order to accommodate the theory of evolution into your thought system.

Then you haven't actually understood anything I've said.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I'm going to explain to you what I mean by that.

Oh, please do. You haven't made nearly enough of a fool of yourself yet.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  The Big Bang theory claims that the universe was "born" 13.7 billion years ago from an infinitely tiny "ball" of matter called "singularity." You claim to be an intelligent human being who relies on logic and common sense (even does his research!), and yet you voluntarily subscribe to that? Oh, my god!

Yes, I do. Because I am a logical human being who does his research.

You, despite all your claims to the contrary, are not.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  So, a simple calculation tells me the mass of the known universe is approximately 1.5x10 to the power of 54 kg. The order there is actually not that important. 54 or 53 or even 50 is a huge number of zeros. And you're telling me that, according to the theory of the Big Bang, all that mass was "condensed" in an infinitely small primordial ball of what now? What the hell do you call that in physics? Hocus-pocus?

No. We call it a "singularity".

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  And that's how your whole "proven" theory begins. Very nice!

Argumentum ad ignorantum, again, is a fallacy.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Also reliable and hard to disprove.

Entirely possible to disprove. The problem for you is that every piece of evidence found so far supports it.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  For any decent person who is presented with this abomination, the theory should actually disprove itself. It is too stupid to even suggest. Yet, somehow, there are people who not only believe it, but call me stupid for not believing such a thing could have happened.

Appeal to incredulity is also a fallacy, for the record.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Do you even know how they got to the theory of the Big Bang?

Yes. Better than you do.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  They couldn't explain why there is so much Helium inside the Sun.

Aaaaand wrong again.

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Yet, along with this amazing complexity I see something else, something you either can't see or simply misinterpret: ORDER! You probably only see CHAOS, because if you saw order too, you would put one (COMPLEXITY) and one (ORDER) together and draw the right conclusion.

We have.

It just so happens that you drew the wrong one.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 04:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2012 04:24 AM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 02:39 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  So, a simple calculation tells me the mass of the known universe is approximately 1.5x10 to the power of 54 kg. The order there is actually not that important. 54 or 53 or even 50 is a huge number of zeros. And you're telling me that, according to the theory of the Big Bang, all that mass was "condensed" in an infinitely small primordial ball of what now? What the hell do you call that in physics? Hocus-pocus?

No. We call it a "singularity".

Oh, so isn't that another word for Hocus-pocus? By definition, Hocus-pocus is used when you create something out of nothing. Your singularity does the exact same thing.

(01-04-2012 02:39 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Appeal to incredulity is also a fallacy, for the record.


Oh, please, give me the right to doubt that 1.5x10 to the power of 50 tons of matter can be squeezed into an infinitely small point of nothing! Or that an infinitely small point of nothing, no matter what fancy name you find for it, cannot generate that amount of matter. Give me the right to doubt that and question your theory. Pretty please!

(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Yet, along with this amazing complexity I see something else, something you either can't see or simply misinterpret: ORDER! You probably only see CHAOS, because if you saw order too, you would put one (COMPLEXITY) and one (ORDER) together and draw the right conclusion.

(01-04-2012 02:39 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We have.

It just so happens that you drew the wrong one.

So let me get this straight, and then I promise I won't bother you again. I'll go back to my cave and stay there.

You see infinitely great COMPLEXITY and amazing ORDER in the universe. I do too. From that you draw the conclusion that everything happened by chance. I don't. You must then believe in some kind of "intelligent hazard" and I do too, except that you only call it hazard and I only call it intelligent. That simple. Let's see who's right and who's wrong. You'll say I'm wrong and you're right, of course, because that's your default answer, but for the sake or argument, let's use an illustration.

Imagine you and I are going to a huge library together. We don't have to hold hands as we're going there, okay? Just imagine. The library contains thousands of books, but we've never been there before, so we don't know what to expect. I know the library was created by an intelligent being and expect to find all the books on shelves, arranged in a certain order so that I can find the one I want. You, on the other hand know the library created itself (I don't know how) and therefore you expect all the books to be in a big pile in the middle of the library. Because you rely on hazard to explain the complexity and order in the universe, you cannot possibly expect the books to be on shelves and in order. If you did, you would be contradicting yourself.

I suppose that the infinitely great complexity of the universe cannot be questioned by anybody. The only problem left is: what is the amount of "order" that needs to be justified? Because if we find just "a little" order (like twenty books in the whole library), we can argue about intelligent design or not, but if we find great order (thousands of books), then you my friend have a serious problem. You have to explain how those books arranged themselves in order on the shelves. This is where the concept of mathematical probabilities steps in to prove me "wrong" again!

If you have two books, the number of possibilities in which you can arrange them is 2. For three books, it's 6, for four books 24, and so on. It's called n! (n!=1x2x3x...xn) Let's see in how many ways we can arrange 20 books. That's hardly one shelf in our library, but it's worth doing it. 20! = 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. Oh my god! What the hell is that? Two point four quintillion combinations for only twenty books? So even if we find just "a little" order in the universe, the probability for that to have just "happened" is still mind-numbingly small. The chance that your measly twenty-book library has the books on the shelves in order (from 1 to 20) is one in 2.4 quintillion!

My friend, can you blame me now for not believing hazard can create order? Say, "Yes, I blame you!" and you will never hear from me again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 05:28 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  If you have two books, the number of possibilities in which you can arrange them is 2. For three books, it's 6, for four books 24, and so on. It's called n! (n!=1x2x3x...xn) Let's see in how many ways we can arrange 20 books. That's hardly one shelf in our library, but it's worth doing it. 20! = 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. Oh my god! What the hell is that? Two point four quintillion combinations for only twenty books? So even if we find just "a little" order in the universe, the probability for that to have just "happened" is still mind-numbingly small. The chance that your measly twenty-book library has the books on the shelves in order (from 1 to 20) is one in 2.4 quintillion!

In the case of the physical universe, there is only time enough for 5.13 x 10^61 iterations. Obviously, there is something else going on. With abiogenesis, that "something else" is geometry. If the bookshelf has twenty spaces of varying sizes and the books are equally variant, then the number of permutations drops accordingly.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2012 09:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 01:56 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  infinitely tiny "ball" of matter called "singularity."

Wrong again zoom brain. A singularity is NOT a "tiny ball of matter". You really have never taken a Physics class, have you.
BTW, didn't you tell us last week there were no infinities, except in mathematics ?

As for all your other crap, everything you say has been refuted by Laurence Krauss in his "A Universe from Nothing", (book and video). Can you read ? Complexity, and order are self-initiating, and self-sustaining, which you would know if you ever took a course in Chaos Theory.

If you were a human in 1888, and saw a jet plane fly overhead, (which obviously hadn't been invented yet), you would assume it was a (complex) god. You would be wrong. If I looked inside my dad's Piaget watch, and saw it's complexity, should I assume a god made it ? It's complex, and self sustaining.

And as I said early last week. it's all nonsense, because you don't have a god to plug into the theory, (to function as a creator). Good luck. Your week as the creationist "du jour" is up. Next.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 07:20 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 07:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And as I said early last week. it's all nonsense, because you don't have a god to plug into the theory, (to function as a creator). Good luck. Your week as the creationist "du jour" is up. Next.

I'm wondering if they're all the same creationist with different accounts. Tongue

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 09:01 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Oh, so isn't that another word for Hocus-pocus?

No.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  By definition, Hocus-pocus is used when you create something out of nothing.

Now you're just making stuff up.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Your singularity does the exact same thing.

No, it doesn't. Everything that became our universe was present and accounted for in the singularity. It did not come from nothing.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Oh, please, give me the right to doubt that 1.5x10 to the power of 50 tons of matter can be squeezed into an infinitely small point of nothing!

Doubt, yes (particularly since a singularity is, by definition, pretty much the opposite of nothing). But when all the evidence points that way, your personal incredulity fails to trump it. And, when posting here, that same incredulity does not constitute anything even approaching an argument.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  So let me get this straight, and then I promise I won't bother you again. I'll go back to my cave and stay there.

Somehow I doubt this will actually be the case.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  You must then believe in some kind of "intelligent hazard"

No.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  Imagine you and I are going to a huge library together. We don't have to hold hands as we're going there, okay? Just imagine. The library contains thousands of books, but we've never been there before, so we don't know what to expect. I know the library was created by an intelligent being and expect to find all the books on shelves, arranged in a certain order so that I can find the one I want. You, on the other hand know the library created itself (I don't know how) and therefore you expect all the books to be in a big pile in the middle of the library. Because you rely on hazard to explain the complexity and order in the universe, you cannot possibly expect the books to be on shelves and in order. If you did, you would be contradicting yourself.

Entirely incorrect. There are still the laws of physics, chemistry, and the like. The universe is not entirely dictated by a roll of the dice.

Try again.

(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  My friend, can you blame me now for not believing hazard can create order? Say, "Yes, I blame you!" and you will never hear from me again.

Yes, I blame you. Because it shows that you haven't actually thought through this at all.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 09:25 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 09:01 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it doesn't. Everything that became our universe was present and accounted for in the singularity. It did not come from nothing.

In terms of naive philosophy, Love (0) and Truth (1). It's a digital universe.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 09:32 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(01-04-2012 04:16 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  My friend, can you blame me now for not believing hazard can create order? Say, "Yes, I blame you!" and you will never hear from me again.


(01-04-2012 09:01 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, I blame you. Because it shows that you haven't actually thought through this at all.


That's what I wanted to hear. See you in the next universe, then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 11:02 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Oh, just one more thing before I leave you guys alone to think about whatever you think as atheists. You might find this documentary interesting. It's about biology and it might help you understand Darwin's theory better. Enjoy watching it! And don't worry, you won't learn anything!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOS-8BQMKg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2012, 01:54 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
A common claim made by Atheists is that there is no God. Since this statement is without basis, merit, or evidence of any persuasion, is it safe to assume that Jordan's OP claim as such is rooted in assumption, speculation, and conjecture? God is not falsifiable, so it takes an equal amount of faith to believe, or to disbelieve.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: