The Atheist Test
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2014, 01:13 PM
The Atheist Test
https://atheonomy.wordpress.com/tag/banana-spiders/

The "Hand Banana" argument is really a tired one. Humans selectively bred bananas into their modern form.

Has anyone here ever witnessed a totally new thing come into existence? Not talking about combinations of existing matter, but a totally new thing, i.e. never before existing in this universe?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:04 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  I'm not sure whether I got brain damage or simply horny because of the banana description.

You're fun! Big Grin

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
10-02-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:13 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  https://atheonomy.wordpress.com/tag/banana-spiders/

The "Hand Banana" argument is really a tired one. Humans selectively bred bananas into their modern form.

Has anyone here ever witnessed a totally new thing come into existence? Not talking about combinations of existing matter, but a totally new thing, i.e. never before existing in this universe?

Huh, learn something new everyday.
Though, don't those spiders give you boners? I feel like I saw that on a thousand ways to die... I could be mistaken, but if I'm correct, you'll definitely die with a smile on your face Laugh out load

Edit: Yep, I'm right.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...ew-viagra/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:13 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Has anyone here ever witnessed a totally new thing come into existence? Not talking about combinations of existing matter, but a totally new thing, i.e. never before existing in this universe?

Virtual Particles

The Wikipedia entry is obviously not a scientific paper. If you are interested in the science of it, read some Krauss.

She turned me into a NEWT. I got better, though.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 01:22 PM
The Atheist Test
"Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:16 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Though, don't those spiders give you boners? I feel like I saw that on a thousand ways to die... I could be mistaken, but if I'm correct, you'll definitely die with a smile on your face Laugh out load

Edit: Yep, I'm right.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...ew-viagra/

Great news for me then, we got a ton load of those spiders here, and they're HUGE Ohmy , I may have to play with one.... Blush

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
HA! RAY COMFORT! MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BANANAS! SOME PEOPLE ARE EVEN ALLERGIC! I GUESS THAT MEANS THAT THE BANANA WASN'T "DESIGNED" FOR THEM.
Proving theists wrong with your taste buds.
Quote:Note that the banana is: 9. Is pleasing to taste buds

Insulting me will convert me real fast!
MSBB:
Don't let anyone define who you are.
Me:
Can we define him as he defines himself? Or will he define himself as we define how he defines himself? But, if we do that, will we define him as he defines himself based on our definition of how we see him define himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Alex_Leonardo's post
10-02-2014, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 01:57 PM by Alex_Leonardo.)
RE: The Atheist Test
Quote:The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.
That could naturally happen, like how people thought there was a face on mars.
But:
If the paint was easily found/naturally created minerals/rust/metals/etc. (Plausible)
Aluminum being molded by natural forces, collisions, magnetic material, etc. (Plausible)
Metal itself. (Plausible)
Anyways, according to quantum physics, it's only a matter of time before we find a coke can in space that wasn't artificial.
The coke can could be a creature, even, and not a metal, that evolved, (Even the flying spaghetti monster is plausible to occur naturally.) and was a coke bottle for adaptation-nal benefits.
And since space is almost infinite and random we'll eventually find it.
Also ray comfort, look at this [Image: wGl13.jpg]
And a comeback to your crappy analogy (Man looking at building.) you, ray comfort, are a man who looks at a tree, and says, there must be a creator to this tree. It didn't create itself, it had to be fully created by a designer.
That analogy makes sense, but it isn't obvious that this "Building is created" Because it's very similar a pile of untouched unartificial rocks, in every way. You could look at a mountain, and say it doesn't have a creator, when the mountain is completely artificial. Your analogy basically says that atheists have all of the evidence but we won't say that the building was made by a maker. BUT WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A CREATOR!

Insulting me will convert me real fast!
MSBB:
Don't let anyone define who you are.
Me:
Can we define him as he defines himself? Or will he define himself as we define how he defines himself? But, if we do that, will we define him as he defines himself based on our definition of how we see him define himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
10-02-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:22 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."

Wrong.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...icles-rea/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-02-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: The Atheist Test
(10-02-2014 01:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-02-2014 01:22 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  "Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their "reality" or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science."

Wrong.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...icles-rea/

Thanks, Bucky. I was just about to look up something more scientific than the Wikipedia article I posted.

She turned me into a NEWT. I got better, though.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: