Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 07:33 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:11 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure if you're suggesting here the existence of more than one universe. Or if you're suggesting there's only one, the one we currently find ourselves in, if so than I don't see how the odds of any other universe are the same. If we're suggesting there's only one universe the odds of any alternative universe wouldn't apply. Because here we would be suggesting that certain factors, are just present, those qualities just exist, and there is no possibility of it be any different.

Whether or not a multiverse exists (I never could make myself care about the answer to that question, though it does seem important to me), I'm saying that our universe could have been any one of the other roll sets on the "chart", and saying that because we got this result which had conditions for our type of life to form (and, likely, others) doesn't mean it had to be or was intended to be this way. It's not an inference that can be drawn simply from "a result on the chart was reached, and we like that result". Talking about what the odds are of getting one particular result on the chart--since all the odds of each of the possible results is exactly the same--is irrelevant.

(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I'm implying "it must have been this way", i'm would be implying in the sense that given enough time and space, the likelihood of sentient creatures, appearing somewhere in any one universe, approaches 1. That seems to be the basic underlying assumption, of assuming life could possibly exist on some other planet.

Yes, given the conditions we have (the aforementioned results on the chart) in this universe, I think life is everywhere. Whether it's "complex" life like us anywhere nearby enough to be detectable by our current technology is a whole other question. Remember, life on this planet was nothing but bacteria for 3/4ths of its history, and we've had radio for only 100 years out of 4 billion; we could be looking at dozens of planets covered with mats of bacteria-type life, and it wouldn't show up with what we're currently using to look at those planets.


(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There doesn't seem to be any relationship between finding the arrowhead, and the conclusion that it was a long-dead Native American who put it there. It could just have been unintentionally dropped there by someone. But suppose you found the arrowhead deep in the ground, perhaps in a chest. There's reason to assume that someone intentionally placed it there. It might not have been for the sake of you finding it. But there's reason to assume it was placed there intentionally. If we can agree on it being intentional in this case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to conclude that the person who did this is a long-dead person, or a Native American.

Yes, if we found a "time capsule" box. But that's exactly what we don't find in the universe. The universe, as far as we can see, shows exactly what we'd expect to find if it was the result of random laws at work. That's why I say that the evidence not only doesn't allow us to backwards-infer a designer, it seems to imply the opposite, that the Creator is non-existent or doesn't want to be found.

That's also why, when I'm talking to people who think that DNA is a "language" because it can encode information, I ask them why God blew that opportunity to leave a clear message of that sort. It's the ideal place for such a revelation, other than carving "El Shaddai loves you" on the moon in Hebrew in letters big enough to see from earth... "inspiring" human writers thousands of years ago (or in the Mormons' case, 180 years ago) seems like a poor method.

Earth is approximately 4.56 Billion years old

Life (some chemosynthetic life with photosynthetic following shortly after) appears to have come around a little over 3.0 billion years ago based on carbon isotopes.

Eukaryotic life probably somewhere around 2.0 billion years ago.

Multicellular life appears somewhere around 600 million years ago (but it was weird and doesn't appear to still be around. Ediacaran fauna).

All of the major phyla appear roughly 540 million years ago.

Plants first creep onto land probably during the Cambrian, but don't really do much of anything until the Devonian around 400 million years ago as the first forest ecosystems evolve.

During the same period, our ancestors are fish (lobe-finned fish like a coelacanth. Our ancestor, or something like it, was Eusthenopteron) that slowly begin the transition to land as Tiktaalik evolves the ancestral limbs of the tetrapods lineage.

By the Carboniferous, our ancestors have made it past amphibians to reptiles like Icthyostega. But it won't be for another ~300 million years at the end of the Cretaceous that our mammal ancestors get a chance to occupy the niches held by dinosaurs and marine reptiles.

And it wasn't until roughly 200,000 years ago that modern humans came on the scene.

An awful lot of wasted time if the earth was made for humans. Especially considering all of the periods the earth was inhospitable. Early earth had no oxygen, kind of hard to breathe. 700 million years ago the earth was a giant ball of ice during the Snowball Earth glaciations. Then you have the big extinction events at the end of the Ordovician (glacial), end of the Devonian (anoxia and glacial), end-Permian (massive volcano and CO2 release led to global warming), end-Triassic (anoxia), and the end-Cretaceous (bolide impact).

And during the Cenozoic, our ancestors had to survive the rapid glacial cycles that became more frequent and severe after glaciations of Antarctica roughly 40 million years ago and the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

Earth made for us? Bullshit Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-08-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Unfogged,
1) It wasn't a joke. It was a stab. There is a difference.

2) my posts are, at times few and far between. What is your point. I am not bitter at all. You seem to describe yourself.

3)what does my personal belief system have to do with defending someone who is free thinking as the others ridicule them for being such?

4)Granted, my posts may seem all over the map on your opinion. That doesn't mean they are garbage that lacks thought just because your own thought processes are flawed to the point that you can't keep up.

5)We have been over this. Say what you want about and to me. I really couldn't care less. The offence was taken when someone voiced an opinion and got abused over said opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 07:34 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Matt Dillahunty made an excellent serie of video exposing the problems in Tomasia, and others like him arguments. Has someone directed her to them? He makes a pretty good job at explaining their issues from a logical and philosophical standpoint. The first one is one the various form of Pascal Wager the to other are directed to other arguments from design.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
16-08-2015, 07:35 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unfogged,
1) It wasn't a joke. It was a stab. There is a difference.

2) my posts are, at times few and far between. What is your point. I am not bitter at all. You seem to describe yourself.

3)what does my personal belief system have to do with defending someone who is free thinking as the others ridicule them for being such?

4)Granted, my posts may seem all over the map on your opinion. That doesn't mean they are garbage that lacks thought just because your own thought processes are flawed to the point that you can't keep up.

5)We have been over this. Say what you want about and to me. I really couldn't care less. The offence was taken when someone voiced an opinion and got abused over said opinion.

[Image: ded4f90e47bc0cb436fd426d5dab7465.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
16-08-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:11 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure if you're suggesting here the existence of more than one universe. Or if you're suggesting there's only one, the one we currently find ourselves in, if so than I don't see how the odds of any other universe are the same. If we're suggesting there's only one universe the odds of any alternative universe wouldn't apply. Because here we would be suggesting that certain factors, are just present, those qualities just exist, and there is no possibility of it be any different.

Whether or not a multiverse exists (I never could make myself care about the answer to that question, though it does seem important to me), I'm saying that our universe could have been any one of the other roll sets on the "chart", and saying that because we got this result which had conditions for our type of life to form (and, likely, others) doesn't mean it had to be or was intended to be this way. It's not an inference that can be drawn simply from "a result on the chart was reached, and we like that result". Talking about what the odds are of getting one particular result on the chart--since all the odds of each of the possible results is exactly the same--is irrelevant.

(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I'm implying "it must have been this way", i'm would be implying in the sense that given enough time and space, the likelihood of sentient creatures, appearing somewhere in any one universe, approaches 1. That seems to be the basic underlying assumption, of assuming life could possibly exist on some other planet.

Yes, given the conditions we have (the aforementioned results on the chart) in this universe, I think life is everywhere. Whether it's "complex" life like us anywhere nearby enough to be detectable by our current technology is a whole other question. Remember, life on this planet was nothing but bacteria for 3/4ths of its history, and we've had radio for only 100 years out of 4 billion; we could be looking at dozens of planets covered with mats of bacteria-type life, and it wouldn't show up with what we're currently using to look at those planets.


(16-08-2015 06:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There doesn't seem to be any relationship between finding the arrowhead, and the conclusion that it was a long-dead Native American who put it there. It could just have been unintentionally dropped there by someone. But suppose you found the arrowhead deep in the ground, perhaps in a chest. There's reason to assume that someone intentionally placed it there. It might not have been for the sake of you finding it. But there's reason to assume it was placed there intentionally. If we can agree on it being intentional in this case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to conclude that the person who did this is a long-dead person, or a Native American.

Yes, if we found a "time capsule" box. But that's exactly what we don't find in the universe. The universe, as far as we can see, shows exactly what we'd expect to find if it was the result of random laws at work. That's why I say that the evidence not only doesn't allow us to backwards-infer a designer, it seems to imply the opposite, that the Creator is non-existent or doesn't want to be found.

That's also why, when I'm talking to people who think that DNA is a "language" because it can encode information, I ask them why God blew that opportunity to leave a clear message of that sort. It's the ideal place for such a revelation, other than carving "El Shaddai loves you" on the moon in Hebrew in letters big enough to see from earth... "inspiring" human writers thousands of years ago (or in the Mormons' case, 180 years ago) seems like a poor method.
All good points. To me it seems as if faith and free will are both based on personal experience he did not want us to just merely follow him like all the other creatures in living things he gave us an opportunity to decide our own future and the future of our world why he did that is beyond me but it is a gift. Thanks.
(16-08-2015 06:34 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 06:09 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I am NOT on nor do I need any medication. It just really bothers me when people that are supposed to be free thinkers ridicule an agnostic or an atheist for thinking. Thank you.

First, it was a joke son.
Second, your posts are interspersed with ones that are totally incoherent and ones that are highly vitriolic. It appears that you deal with some pretty extreme personality changes. I really do think you need some help.
Third, you are not agnostic or atheist, you are either deist or theist (admittedly it is very hard to pin it down because the arguments have been so irrational).
Fourth, I would never ridicule anyone for thinking but you have not demonstrated the ability to do that. All you do is spout whatever random garbage comes into your head.
Fifth, go fuck yourself
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes popsthebuilder's post
16-08-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 07:11 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Whether or not a multiverse exists (I never could make myself care about the answer to that question, though it does seem important to me), I'm saying that our universe could have been any one of the other roll sets on the "chart", and saying that because we got this result which had conditions for our type of life to form (and, likely, others) doesn't mean it had to be or was intended to be this way. It's not an inference that can be drawn simply from "a result on the chart was reached, and we like that result". Talking about what the odds are of getting one particular result on the chart--since all the odds of each of the possible results is exactly the same--is irrelevant.


Yes, given the conditions we have (the aforementioned results on the chart) in this universe, I think life is everywhere. Whether it's "complex" life like us anywhere nearby enough to be detectable by our current technology is a whole other question. Remember, life on this planet was nothing but bacteria for 3/4ths of its history, and we've had radio for only 100 years out of 4 billion; we could be looking at dozens of planets covered with mats of bacteria-type life, and it wouldn't show up with what we're currently using to look at those planets.



Yes, if we found a "time capsule" box. But that's exactly what we don't find in the universe. The universe, as far as we can see, shows exactly what we'd expect to find if it was the result of random laws at work. That's why I say that the evidence not only doesn't allow us to backwards-infer a designer, it seems to imply the opposite, that the Creator is non-existent or doesn't want to be found.

That's also why, when I'm talking to people who think that DNA is a "language" because it can encode information, I ask them why God blew that opportunity to leave a clear message of that sort. It's the ideal place for such a revelation, other than carving "El Shaddai loves you" on the moon in Hebrew in letters big enough to see from earth... "inspiring" human writers thousands of years ago (or in the Mormons' case, 180 years ago) seems like a poor method.

Earth is approximately 4.56 Billion years old

Life (some chemosynthetic life with photosynthetic following shortly after) appears to have come around a little over 3.0 billion years ago based on carbon isotopes.

Eukaryotic life probably somewhere around 2.0 billion years ago.

Multicellular life appears somewhere around 600 million years ago (but it was weird and doesn't appear to still be around. Ediacaran fauna).

All of the major phyla appear roughly 540 million years ago.

Plants first creep onto land probably during the Cambrian, but don't really do much of anything until the Devonian around 400 million years ago as the first forest ecosystems evolve.

During the same period, our ancestors are fish (lobe-finned fish like a coelacanth. Our ancestor, or something like it, was Eusthenopteron) that slowly begin the transition to land as Tiktaalik evolves the ancestral limbs of the tetrapods lineage.

By the Carboniferous, our ancestors have made it past amphibians to reptiles like Icthyostega. But it won't be for another ~300 million years at the end of the Cretaceous that our mammal ancestors get a chance to occupy the niches held by dinosaurs and marine reptiles.

And it wasn't until roughly 200,000 years ago that modern humans came on the scene.

An awful lot of wasted time if the earth was made for humans. Especially considering all of the periods the earth was inhospitable. Early earth had no oxygen, kind of hard to breathe. 700 million years ago the earth was a giant ball of ice during the Snowball Earth glaciations. Then you have the big extinction events at the end of the Ordovician (glacial), end of the Devonian (anoxia and glacial), end-Permian (massive volcano and CO2 release led to global warming), end-Triassic (anoxia), and the end-Cretaceous (bolide impact).

And during the Cenozoic, our ancestors had to survive the rapid glacial cycles that became more frequent and severe after glaciations of Antarctica roughly 40 million years ago and the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

Earth made for us? Bullshit Drinking Beverage
Time itself is temporal in comparison to infinity the amount of time it is taking for us to be created is miniscule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 07:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unfogged,
1) It wasn't a joke. It was a stab. There is a difference.

2) my posts are, at times few and far between. What is your point. I am not bitter at all. You seem to describe yourself.

3)what does my personal belief system have to do with defending someone who is free thinking as the others ridicule them for being such?

4)Granted, my posts may seem all over the map on your opinion. That doesn't mean they are garbage that lacks thought just because your own thought processes are flawed to the point that you can't keep up.

5)We have been over this. Say what you want about and to me. I really couldn't care less. The offence was taken when someone voiced an opinion and got abused over said opinion.

[Image: ded4f90e47bc0cb436fd426d5dab7465.jpg]
Is that the best you got?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 07:41 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 07:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: ded4f90e47bc0cb436fd426d5dab7465.jpg]
Is that the best you got?

[Image: 39407a4963960d6ef1671a9f0224dfb5.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
16-08-2015, 07:48 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:33 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Unfogged,
1) It wasn't a joke. It was a stab. There is a difference.

It was a joke. You do not know my intentions when I wrote it. That you took it so personally seems to imply that you saw truth in it that you did not like. That's your problem, not mine.

Quote:2) my posts are, at times few and far between. What is your point. I am not bitter at all. You seem to describe yourself.

That is entirely unrelated to what I said. I know you have severe reading comprehension issues but I mentioned the wild swings in the tone of your posts and not their frequency. I also said nothing about you being bitter.

Quote:3)what does my personal belief system have to do with defending someone who is free thinking as the others ridicule them for being such?

I may have misunderstood tat part of your post; I thought you were calling yourself agnostic or atheist. It is often very difficult to parse your meaning.

Quote:4)Granted, my posts may seem all over the map on your opinion. That doesn't mean they are garbage that lacks thought just because your own thought processes are flawed to the point that you can't keep up.

Laughat That's just too funny for words. You have made many grandiose claims and provided exactly zero support for any of them beyond your own delusions. You come across as an uneducated, irrational fool.

Quote:5)We have been over this. Say what you want about and to me. I really couldn't care less. The offence was taken when someone voiced an opinion and got abused over said opinion.

Opinions often deserve ridicule and abuse. Take your opinions for example.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
16-08-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:48 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
Quote:3)what does my personal belief system have to do with defending someone who is free thinking as the others ridicule them for being such?

I may have misunderstood tat part of your post; I thought you were calling yourself agnostic or atheist. It is often very difficult to parse your meaning.

I went back to look at exactly what you were defending and see that it was Tomasia. For what it is worth, Tomasia is a believer and not agnostic or atheist. That doesn't change the fact that I misread your post but it does mean that RS was ridiculing an opinion based on superstition and not evidence. Any mockery involved was warranted and your vitriolic rant was based on a bad assumption on your part. Not that that is surprising.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: