Unanswered questions by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2013, 04:30 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 04:25 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which is why it is A) appropriate to say "I don't know" and not "god done it" and B) our understanding breaks down. This means that causation may not apply. Which means the universe may not have a cause. Which means that yet again, the answer of "I don't know" applies while "god done it" means absolutely nothing and contributes 0 rationality to the discussion in any way.

Evolutionkills didn't say he didn't know. Evolutionkills said he accepted Krauss' explaination.

Do you think it is more appropriate to say "I don't know" as opposed to "Krauss' explaination done it"? Do you agree that Krauss' explaination means absolutely nothing and contributes 0 rationality to the discussion in any way?

Evolutionkills faith my not be as fixed as say a fundamentalists, but he has faith in something nevertheless. Even God if He exists has to have faith in something, its just not something you can get away from.


No. EK said:
Quote:I currently find his explanation compelling because it is backed by reason and evidence, which is the exact opposite of having 'faith' in it.


He didn't say he had faith in it, he didn't say he accepted it, he didn't say he believed it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-03-2013, 10:12 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 09:52 AM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  And can one of youguys explain to all of us ignorant people how natural selection used the math of PHY, in every creature on the earth?
The same way it used the gravitational constant. It is a universal constant that is inherent in the universe. Why should life not be susceptible to it?

So your saying that this natural selection is not random anymore but actually makes patterns? so you just personified natural selection... Or are you saying that random sequences create patterns?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 10:12 PM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The same way it used the gravitational constant. It is a universal constant that is inherent in the universe. Why should life not be susceptible to it?

So your saying that this natural selection is not random anymore but actually makes patterns? so you just personified natural selection... Or are you saying that random sequences create patterns?

Yup. You know, if you flip a coin one hundred times, there's a one in three chance of getting seven heads in a row. Stochasticity. Look it up, kiddo.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 05:05 AM by Humakt.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 06:03 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Humakt, we dislike the word because every meaning except the religious one has an alternate word that can be used instead. Why use the word "faith" which has religious connotations when one can use the word trust, accept, loyal, etc.

Definitions 1, 3, and 4, as provided, are all religious (or at least unreasonable) in nature, and dishonest or naive theists like to conflate those meanings of the word with the meanings that actually apply to science, atheism, or philosophy. They also falsely refer to tentative trust or acceptance of an argument as faith, when this does not fit the definition. It's an equivocation fallacy, plain and simple, and it can unfortunately be convincing to those with little experience in arguing with theists. It's better to nip it in the bud by restricting the word to its religious meaning and using words without religious connotations when referring to things which do not have religious basis.
You dislike the word, fine. You find there are better words that are less ambiguious or loaded thats also fine. But my point was not that the word cant be used in a religious context, but that saying having faith in something is the opposite of something being supported by a good arguement and evidence which it is not.

As to the fact that it has religious overtones and theists can use this dishonestly to win points, I say good let em try if they do expose the lie and move on. Just because they insist on using the word incorrectly is no reason to concede to them. You might as well also not argue morality with them as they'll claim morality is christian sourced. Where exactly do you draw the line here?

And on a similar note, maybe you should look at changing your .sig, last I checked mass had (if you'll excuse the pun) some pretty heavy religious overtones.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 01:27 AM by blasphemilius_VI.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 11:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 10:12 PM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  So your saying that this natural selection is not random anymore but actually makes patterns? so you just personified natural selection... Or are you saying that random sequences create patterns?

Yup. You know, if you flip a coin one hundred times, there's a one in three chance of getting seven heads in a row. Stochasticity. Look it up, kiddo.

A coin only has two sides giving it a 50% chance every flip... however dr. harold morowitz, professor of biophysics at yale university says that the just the simple probability of life starting on this planet is 1 out of 10^340,000,000... Unfortunately for youguys borels LAW of probability says that if its higher than 1 out of 10^50 then it never happened... or didnt you know
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 01:22 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 01:32 AM by blasphemilius_VI.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
So now other question arises: why does the Univers exist? I don't wanna know what, or a definition from Wikipedia on with the universe is, or how... I want to know why the Univers exist. you can give me a reason as to why a tree exists or why anything else in this Earth or Galaxy exist because there is a purpose for everything that exists... so then tell me what is the purpose of the universe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Wouldn't social eugenics be an axiom of evolution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 03:22 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Wouldn't social eugenics be an axiom of evolution?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 05:16 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(05-03-2013 01:17 AM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Yup. You know, if you flip a coin one hundred times, there's a one in three chance of getting seven heads in a row. Stochasticity. Look it up, kiddo.

A coin only has two sides giving it a 50% chance every flip... however dr. harold morowitz, professor of biophysics at yale university says that the just the simple probability of life starting on this planet is 1 out of 10^340,000,000... Unfortunately for youguys borels LAW of probability says that if its higher than 1 out of 10^50 then it never happened... or didnt you know

You may be misquoting Morowitz. He is a vigorous proponent of the view that life on earth emerged deterministically from the laws of chemistry and physics, and therefore believes it highly probable that life exists widely in the universe.

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
05-03-2013, 05:27 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(05-03-2013 01:17 AM)blasphemilius_VI Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Yup. You know, if you flip a coin one hundred times, there's a one in three chance of getting seven heads in a row. Stochasticity. Look it up, kiddo.

A coin only has two sides giving it a 50% chance every flip... however dr. harold morowitz, professor of biophysics at yale university says that the just the simple probability of life starting on this planet is 1 out of 10^340,000,000... Unfortunately for youguys borels LAW of probability says that if its higher than 1 out of 10^50 then it never happened... or didnt you know

Morowitz was wrong.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...r/ten.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: