ask the athiest
- Thread starter dont argue with this guy
- Start date
rickey said:
Put some oil in a bucket of water and shake it up. It's called micelle formation. The electrical current in the atmosphere would have served to form bonds between atoms to create primitive forms of genetic makeup. It's far-fetched, but no more so than a mystical being creating everything in existence on a whim. Again, I'm not supporting either point of view. Just playing Devil's Advocate for a bit.
NetAtom said:
Sorry dude. I'm not trying to take sides here, but this statement just isn't true. Actually, most of what you've written about science isn't true. In fact, the scientific community is very tentative about accepting theories as plausible explanations to problems. It takes not just a significant amount of evidence, but several replicable incidents to "reprove" the theory. There have been several theories about brain physiology that were originally presented around 50 years ago but were never accepted until some modern day scientists risked their careers to replicate the experiments. And guess what? After 50 years the theory became a plausible explanation for a phenomenon of biology that's even accepted by the most skeptical of neuroscientists.
You see, the whole idea of science is that we are presented with the most up-to-date explanation of an event and consider that to be a null hypothesis. From the begining, science favors the status-quo until a significant amount of evidence proves otherwise. Data is collected by analyzing the problem and determining a possible solution. If the statistics show that the null hypothesis is true, then it remains until someone else challenges it. If they demonstrate that it may not be true, it's reported and other people try the same experiment to see if it works.
NetAtom said:
Don't take that evidence and presume a causal relationship. Most of those kinds of studies are correlational. Levels of neurotransmitters in the brain can indicate certain types of emotions, but scientists are far from understanding enough about them to say "love is dopamine".
NetAtom said:
Yes, I agree. But in order to practice what you preach, maybe you should reconsider calling other religions "misled." It just might be that what you believe to be true isn't actually truth.
I love knowledge, but I am not knowledgable enough to have a debate on what goes into or out of a theory, now or then. Please do not, however, say "thats not true" and not even show me how. My point was we as humans are fallable to the tenth power. I do not need sources to say with complete truth that what is true today is often false tomorrow, regarding what science yields to us. I brought up the Big Bang Theory, tought in school today, and gave a book where the man crediited with creating it said it was impossible and his research was flawed. Of course, who knows, maybe now he feels differently. A theory by definition is no better than faith. The scientist gathers all the data in his power to give evidence to his peers that what he believes is almost certainly true. I behave the same way. I do not limit my data to what I can see in a microscope, though the hard facts are the foundation that my faith is built upon.
If there was proof the God did not exist or did, this thread would not exist. As long as everyone keeps looking for data either way... well, I guess that's life.:eusa_shhh
Cyborg:
Don't be an ****.
^ Does not mean "I am too intelligent." - I was inferring it as a downside being too intellectual. If I had a balance, I would have a reason to be on a high horse. Now here it is again, simply: too intellectual = bad.
I did a lot of reading on evolution as a teenager. I remember reading some interesting counterpoints that led me to conclude evolution as a explanation of man's existance was horseshit. But I'm not to pull a Kent without references in front of me, so I'll just instead waste a few seconds of your life if you read this paragraph.
Now, to Big Bang. I would like you to check this out more. I did read most of your links and finally your entire post, so maybe you will do me a good turn. Overnight is a figure of speech, but thanks for missing that, but latching on just the same. The paragraph above this one I hope will also waste your time. At any rate, I gave you a nice source, and I am sure there's lots more. I honestly am interested in hearing what you think about it, either way.
Scientifically, a great flood is confirmed. It's everywhere. I've seen two programs, one on the history channel, one on discovery talking about it. No one, of course, said it was Noah's flood and I am fine with that. Also, you will also find that a wooden thing matching the dimensions of the Arc in the Bible is on Mount Sinai as we speak. No one can prove its the Arc. Yeah, it's probably just an ancient ski house.
I know you never will, but if you would pick up "Evidence that demands a verdict" or "the Case for faith", originally written by an atheist and entirely objective, I'll be glad to read a book or two that you can suggest for me.
Lastly, it really is about Pink Unicorns. Science is the same way, for many theories. It's amazing out how many things, like the Big Bang, replacing the word "creationism" is this article: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html put in perspective. For me, faith is EXACTLY like the Pink Unicorn thing, but also seeing hoove tracks and, say, a patch of pink horse hair. Not enough to come close to proving the Pink Unicorn, but enough to keep looking for it.
Don't be an ****.
^ Does not mean "I am too intelligent." - I was inferring it as a downside being too intellectual. If I had a balance, I would have a reason to be on a high horse. Now here it is again, simply: too intellectual = bad.
I did a lot of reading on evolution as a teenager. I remember reading some interesting counterpoints that led me to conclude evolution as a explanation of man's existance was horseshit. But I'm not to pull a Kent without references in front of me, so I'll just instead waste a few seconds of your life if you read this paragraph.
Now, to Big Bang. I would like you to check this out more. I did read most of your links and finally your entire post, so maybe you will do me a good turn. Overnight is a figure of speech, but thanks for missing that, but latching on just the same. The paragraph above this one I hope will also waste your time. At any rate, I gave you a nice source, and I am sure there's lots more. I honestly am interested in hearing what you think about it, either way.
Scientifically, a great flood is confirmed. It's everywhere. I've seen two programs, one on the history channel, one on discovery talking about it. No one, of course, said it was Noah's flood and I am fine with that. Also, you will also find that a wooden thing matching the dimensions of the Arc in the Bible is on Mount Sinai as we speak. No one can prove its the Arc. Yeah, it's probably just an ancient ski house.
I know you never will, but if you would pick up "Evidence that demands a verdict" or "the Case for faith", originally written by an atheist and entirely objective, I'll be glad to read a book or two that you can suggest for me.
Lastly, it really is about Pink Unicorns. Science is the same way, for many theories. It's amazing out how many things, like the Big Bang, replacing the word "creationism" is this article: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/crenotscience.html put in perspective. For me, faith is EXACTLY like the Pink Unicorn thing, but also seeing hoove tracks and, say, a patch of pink horse hair. Not enough to come close to proving the Pink Unicorn, but enough to keep looking for it.
Rickey could you please change your default font size.
Go to User CP
Edit Profile
then to Default Font Size.
Sorry it's really hurting my eyes trying to read what your posting.
Go to User CP
Edit Profile
then to Default Font Size.
Sorry it's really hurting my eyes trying to read what your posting.
On the contrary, it's an organic mechanism you use to digest your food every day. The small intestine create micelles to help separate and digest small food particles. It's quite possible to use the same mechanism to create a lipid bilayer.rickey said:
As for the previous comments on science, I was just stating that before you say science has such little merit, questioning the mass amounts of evidence that support modern scientific theories, you should take much more into consideration. The evidence that they work is all around us. Just the fact that your computer works and allows you to access the internet provides tangible evidence to support theories of physics and chemistry. So just by posting on this website you're proving that science has much more merit than you've granted it.
ski2bfree said:
Well, if that is aimed at me, it's like this: the fact that man made the airplane gives me a fear of flying, but it won't stop me from going to France. Its in our nature to be scientific and we have discovered so many laws and theories that we can make fruit smoothies in 30 seconds and blow up small countries. That's fantastic. Also, there's air conditioning and coffee makers, which without science I would not have. Sure, I don't have a shrine with Einstein's head that I pray to every morning, and I am one of many who take for granted every single day the advances we have made, but I do admit science has more merit than most things on this planet.
Though,ever since I found out the crap in my Diet Dr. Pepper was a neurotoxin, I stopped trusting science completely. **** you science *twitch*!
lol fun...but yes science is both a good and bad thing...
Yeah, there's a lot of bad stuff out there. I heard some weird statistic that it takes about 2 weeks longer for the human body to decompose now because of all the preservatives in our food. Then there's strange stuff out on the market like Botox, which is actually an EXTREMELY dangerous neurotoxin. Well, people aren't perfect, so they can't make perfect products. But the scientific theories behind most of these products are pretty tight. Usually mechanical and electrical errors come about when people build or operate devices incorrectly.NetAtom said:
Responding to GoingNova…
We do have a right to believe in whatever we want to but that doesn’t make the belief itself “right†and that’s why I argue against beliefs that I think are wrong. Just because the USA government respects your beliefs, doesn’t mean I should. What I will do is discuss in a mannerful way when I am disagreeing with another person. I refuse to respect a Muslim’s belief for an example that 9/11 is what we richly deserved and how they must kill all the infidels, I can not respect that.
Responding to rickey…
Oh yes, it just takes so much more faith. It’s just so easy to believe that the Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant, then gave birth to a man-god that got himself killed by his own choice, who came back to life and then ascended into the sky! Tell me, how does observing evidence and then making a conclusion based on facts make it so that you have to place MORE faith into it? All you’re doing is just blabbing unsupported assertions.
Yes, the majority of the links did not discredit his so called “evidence†but a significant amount did and the so called “evidence†of his you posted I placed the links of carbon dating that refuted such notions of his. I don’t need to listen to a preach session of his that’s audible when I can simply just read his thoughts on his own website. I already told you, the pink unicorn did it! Or maybe it was Abraham Lincoln! How about the giant dust bunny in the corner of my room?! You don’t know!! Unsupported assertions are just that… unsupported assertions and thus since you’re saying an assumption that can’t be backed up it doesn’t hold any water what so ever. You do not have a better argument than me when you say statements that have yet to be proven true.
If you’re willing to accept that animals change form in an environment over time, why won’t you believe in the whole thing? Tell me, what evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism and what evidence would you accept as provisional proof of Evolution?
Responding to NetAtom…
Oh boo hoo, let us all pity someone that thinks he has more of a superior intellect than everyone else… it must be such a burden really to be smarter than everyone else. Get off your high horse already and stop praising yourself as well as trying to draw SYMPATHY at the same time.
Tell me, what evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism and what evidence would you accept as provisional proof of Evolution?
That’s nice; I don’t care about the Big Bang. No, I actually didn’t miss that as a figure of speech as it was completely wrong altogether. Go ahead, name ten theories that were once accepted by the scientific community that have been disproved and are no longer accepted within this year.
Oh yes, if it’s not the ark it MUST be something illogical and thus it must be the ark!
No book reading, I don’t want to read hundreds of pages just to talk to you about it.
Yeah, placing the “Big Bang†in there would make the entire editorial wrong.
We do have a right to believe in whatever we want to but that doesn’t make the belief itself “right†and that’s why I argue against beliefs that I think are wrong. Just because the USA government respects your beliefs, doesn’t mean I should. What I will do is discuss in a mannerful way when I am disagreeing with another person. I refuse to respect a Muslim’s belief for an example that 9/11 is what we richly deserved and how they must kill all the infidels, I can not respect that.
Responding to rickey…
Oh yes, it just takes so much more faith. It’s just so easy to believe that the Holy Spirit made Mary pregnant, then gave birth to a man-god that got himself killed by his own choice, who came back to life and then ascended into the sky! Tell me, how does observing evidence and then making a conclusion based on facts make it so that you have to place MORE faith into it? All you’re doing is just blabbing unsupported assertions.
Yes, the majority of the links did not discredit his so called “evidence†but a significant amount did and the so called “evidence†of his you posted I placed the links of carbon dating that refuted such notions of his. I don’t need to listen to a preach session of his that’s audible when I can simply just read his thoughts on his own website. I already told you, the pink unicorn did it! Or maybe it was Abraham Lincoln! How about the giant dust bunny in the corner of my room?! You don’t know!! Unsupported assertions are just that… unsupported assertions and thus since you’re saying an assumption that can’t be backed up it doesn’t hold any water what so ever. You do not have a better argument than me when you say statements that have yet to be proven true.
If you’re willing to accept that animals change form in an environment over time, why won’t you believe in the whole thing? Tell me, what evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism and what evidence would you accept as provisional proof of Evolution?
Responding to NetAtom…
Oh boo hoo, let us all pity someone that thinks he has more of a superior intellect than everyone else… it must be such a burden really to be smarter than everyone else. Get off your high horse already and stop praising yourself as well as trying to draw SYMPATHY at the same time.
Tell me, what evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism and what evidence would you accept as provisional proof of Evolution?
That’s nice; I don’t care about the Big Bang. No, I actually didn’t miss that as a figure of speech as it was completely wrong altogether. Go ahead, name ten theories that were once accepted by the scientific community that have been disproved and are no longer accepted within this year.
Oh yes, if it’s not the ark it MUST be something illogical and thus it must be the ark!
No book reading, I don’t want to read hundreds of pages just to talk to you about it.
Yeah, placing the “Big Bang†in there would make the entire editorial wrong.
Wow, guys try and keep it above the belt your getting close. I dont wanna see any thread on this site turn into flaming and I dont think anyone else does. I like this site becasue of how civil it is, please dot give me a reason to not like this site.
Oh we are, are we? That’s exactly why I like this site too because of how civil this place is as well as how kind a lot of people are here. There is currently no hitting below the belt activities or anything like that, but hey I guess when you make unsupported assertions why bother to put examples? Maybe you would prefer everyone here to drink tea and have crumpets and to never have a slight rise in tone? Let’s not get to the point of ridiculousness.
Insane you really need to cool down, this is only a site for some bashing not bashing at everyone on the site.... I mean come on let's not get too serious....
all right this is it all of you dance around this question without ever answering it. you do a good job of bashing my errors but and poor debate skills but you cant answer my question. it is only logical to believe in god. what than something supernatural could have put anything into existence. nothing . really think about it. nothing. there had to be something in the beginning.
