The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(20-10-2016 10:35 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(20-10-2016 10:25 PM)Banjo Wrote:  .................
If I am so finely tuned, why do I have a cancer that exists through no fault of my own???

ORIGINAL SIN. See the article in Wikipedia.

Which your storybook, omniscient god knew in advance would befall humans but he goes ahead and creates people anyway. He puts them in a garden with a all kinds of tripwires everywhere and then blames them for snagging their legs on one of the wires. This deity is one of the biggest assholes ever written about.

Furthermore, this particular deity not only blames humans for their imperfections, he can't even do what ordinary people around the world do every day of the year....... they forgive others......UNCONDITIONALLY.

I have forgiven many people over my lifetime for crap they've done to me but your god doesn't have this ability. He tortures them for eternity instead. Well buddy, I'm 1000 times more moral than this shithead of a god and you're an idiot for not only believing in this god but also for believing this god is moral.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
21-10-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
He appears not to know about this.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
21-10-2016, 01:59 PM
The fine-tuning argument is very stupid.
Once upon a time, there was a teacher in a classroom with high school students. One day the teacher makes an offhand comment about Santa Claus not being real, most of the students laugh, but there is one student that doesn't laugh.

After class is over, the student approaches the teacher and says that he knows that Santa is real, because he receives presents from him.

The teacher finds this rather discomforting because this student is 18 years old, a student of this age should know better. So the teacher takes it upon himself to show the naive student how ridiculous it is for a man in a sleigh to fit a billion presents going to children on a sleigh. He shows how ridiculous it is to think that these presents could be delivered in a single night. The speed that Santa would move would create sonic booms of such severity he would literally flatten the houses of every kid that got a present.

After the teacher gets through showing just how ridiculous the idea of Santa is, the student says to the teacher- "You musn't question Santa or you will be on his naughty list!"

The teacher calls the school psychiatrist.....

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
21-10-2016, 02:41 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(21-10-2016 07:28 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(21-10-2016 07:05 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  ........... you believe the Earth is a few thousand years old despite the evidence.
...........

Rejection of the True Science is sin. I am not sinning. Look:

Quote:..... researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.

Peer-reviewed, the famous top journal: Science

Cherry picking again. You are really dishonest.

"Because few studies have been done, the discrepancy in rates could simply be a statistical artifact, in which case it should vanish as sample sizes grow larger, notes Eric Shoubridge, a molecular geneticist at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Another possibility is that the rate is higher in some sites of the DNA than others—so-called “hot spots.” Indeed, almost all the mutations detected in Parsons and Howell's studies occur at known hot spots, says University of Munich molecular geneticist Svante Pääbo."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-10-2016, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2016 07:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
No atheists were defeated. It's a REALLY REALLY stupid, uniformed argument.
The life of a black hole is 10^80 years. That means, as far as we know ,for virtually the entire life-time of the universe, there was and will be no life, (as we know it).
So no. The universe may be tuned for black holes, or something else, but it's certainly not tuned for life.
Tell your Jebus to go fuck himself.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-10-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
.
.
.
theborg,


Can you come out of hiding for a moment and tell me which "division" of the primitive faith of Christianity that you've swallowed?

Are you an admirer of the pedophile priest crowd of Catholicism? Maybe you're a believer in the comical division of Moronism and Joseph Smith's "Golden Plates?"

If you have the nerve, please enlighten me upon your specific division, okay? Thanks.
.
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
Sorry, I've been away all day.

Borgo, let a biologist carefully explain what you're misunderstanding.

The 6000 year number you (and every other Creationist on the planet) jumped on in that article from 20 years ago is not an indicator that the woman called "Mitochondrial Eve" lived 6000 years ago.

They found times/places of rapid mutation, which he called "hot spots", under which population genetics pressures (usually very small populations moving into a new environment, such as the settlement of Europe or similar migrations of small units that then rapidly expanded) could accelerate the normal mutation rate by several times. That means that if all of humanity was permanently experiencing that accelerated mutation rate (which they can't, and that's why those instances are called "hot spots", because they're rare, specific events), and then we assumed that faster rate for the entire calculation-set for all of humanity at all times, then and only then would it result in a 6000 year figure for the mitochondrial ancestor.

You simply failed to understand what the scientists in the paper you're citing were saying.

But more importantly, you clearly seem to not understand what "Mitochondrial Eve" actually is.

The DNA in your mitochondria, called mtDNA, are not passed down from the father to children. Sperm eject their mitochondria when forming. Eggs do not, so the mother passes down all the mtDNA that the children will receive. That means if you and your wife have only sons, her mtDNA lineage "dies out", because they cannot pass your wife's mtDNA on to her grandchildren, and so on. My wife and I have only boys, and my sister never had children, which means that both my parents and my in-laws have failed to pass on their mtDNA lineages. They are both wiped out, as of now.

If we trace back through all the "wiped out" lineages of families that had only boys, AND we calculate the rate of mutation that has happened since the surviving set of mtDNA was passed down to all of us (because it mutates again and varies as populations spread out and move away from one another) then we can figure out when the farthest back woman in our lineage is from whom we all get our mtDNA.

There were thousands of other lines that simply did not make it, because of the process I mentioned above. The reason we even have a Mitochondrial Eve is because her mtDNA mutated to differentiate itself from that of her mother, whose version belonged to a line that later died out, except for her daughter "Eve". There were many generations before them, as well, all of whose mtDNA was "covered up" by the selection process of "did you fail to have daughters?"

So get this through your thick skull: None of what you have cited has anything to do with the Eve of the Bible. None.

Here's a full critique, by several reputable scientists, showing why the Creationists' interpretation of Parson's finding not only gets it wrong, but must ignore several other findings (some of which slow the mutation rate, and thus push the figure back!) in order to leap to their hoped-for conclusions.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-10-2016, 05:28 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
From the article I just cited, the conclusion is particularly on point. (Bold emphasis my own.)

Conclusion

No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.

Subsequent studies have shown the following:

RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate
There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop
Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes
Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations
The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool
The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies
The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock'
A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted.

It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:

They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor
They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.

It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now. They will be as wrong then as they are now.


Remember, Borgo... lying for Jesus is still lying.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-10-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(21-10-2016 01:13 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Dear friends, there are many variants of YEC...

...all of which are pseudoscience.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
21-10-2016, 10:43 PM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2016 10:47 PM by theBorg.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(21-10-2016 01:54 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(20-10-2016 10:35 PM)theBorg Wrote:  ORIGINAL SIN. See the article in Wikipedia.
.... omniscient god knew in advance would befall humans but he goes ahead and creates people anyway. ..... kinds of tripwires everywhere and then blames them for snagging their legs on one of the wires. ****
....... they forgive others......
........ He tortures them for eternity instead. ......

1) Let us see it from the Scientific point. The only way the Holy Trinity knows the future, is because the Universe is 4 dimensional: (t,x,y,z). The Holy Trinity is omnipresent, so, He exists in all times: future, present, past. That is why He knows the freewill decisions of the people: He just witnesses them. Now, before the creation of Universe there was no time. Therefore, He hardly could know the outcome. And such horrible thing as sin, is the one, what never will come into the sane mind as one of the possibilities. Because the most horrible sin is the suicide.

2) the "tripwires" are for our learning to love, for our spiritual evolution.

3) I think, some criminals can not be forgiven: too much innocent blood on their hands!

4) Eternal Punishment is eternal, because there is no time after the Judgment Day.
You see: the Universe is not future-complete, because the actual infinity can not be linked to the nature: there is no moment on the clock, which would show the infinite number.

And remember: we are not the gods to judge the True God. Thus, all His opinions and decisions is the Absolute Truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: