PDA

View Full Version : how can we best explain our existence ?


Pages : 1 [2]

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 11:19 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/legacy.html

On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.That I can agree on, given the Theory of Relativity: E=MC^2

basically, this does not change anything about the point i made before. The universe is a isolated thermal system. Since energy/matter , space and time, did be created at the Big Bang, the first law of thermodynamics got in place at the moment of the Big Bang.And the theory holds that there was trapped light which eventually became matter. This scattered particulate matter clustered up due to gravitational forces, and eventually became celestial bodies.

I do not know a great deal of that theory so I cannot explain it much further than this.

So this is in my view evidence of a metaphysical ( external ) source or origin of all matter. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a absolute beginning, therefore a cause ;)As above, it has been theorized that it was originally trapped light energy. But I presume this argument is fundamentally the same when applicable to that trapped light.

The answer is that it may have had an absolute beginning, but who knows what the beginning is. We cannot just assume God did it. There is no where in science where you will find "God did it" in the equation.

Assuming there was a god for arguments sake, since everything had to have a beginning, and therefore a cause, where did God come from and who created him?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 11:50 PM
. There is no where in science where you will find "God did it" in the equation.

Of course not. Science is commited to naturalism, and atheism are roughly equivalent terms in this context to express the conviction that nature is all there is-that there exists no transcendent or spiritual realm.


Assuming there was a god for arguments sake, since everything had to have a beginning, and therefore a cause, where did God come from and who created him?

This questions has been answered already.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 11:57 PM
Of course not. Science is commited to naturalism, and atheism are roughly equivalent terms in this context to express the conviction that nature is all there is-that there exists no transcendent or spiritual realm.So likewise, saying "the Martians did it" is also valid, by that very statement.

This questions has been answered already.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?This god is not very self-sufficient if he requires us (a VERY small portion of the universe to start with!) to "serve" him. Likewise, I can say that the Giant Space Bees are different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, and they have always existed.

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?Just because we do not have an explanation does not mean we fill it up with "goddidit"

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on.So in that case, it is an infinite loop. God is still creating himself. This is illogical as it is, given that one cannot create oneself.

As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.The same Aristotle coined the "ether" theory, which has been disproven a century later. As for the infinite regression of causes, that is exactly what you were suggesting before when you were talking about God created God^2 which created God^3 etcetera.

owheelj
31st May 2010, 12:05 AM
there is no reason to interconnect the two quests. I was asked what would make me renounce to my christian faith. I answered this question, without regard of the quest of the beginning of the universe. So dont mix up things, please.

I'm sorry, you've misunderstood my question, let me quote it for you and maybe you could read it a little more carefully and try to answer it.

Imagine that we live in a world where scientists don't actually think that the Big Bang was the actual creation of the universe out of nothing. If we lived in this world, what evidence would it take to convince you of this point. Please be as specific as possible in your answer.

Sorry, you've somehow misunderstood my question, let me rephrase it.

If in reality we are right, and you are wrong, what hypothetical evidence could we present to convince you of this?

My second question is obviously in reference to the first.

If you are wrong, and the big bang wasn't created out of literally absolutely nothing, hypothetically, what would it take to convince you of this?

davo
31st May 2010, 12:06 AM
Of course not. Science is commited to naturalism, and atheism are roughly equivalent terms in this context to express the conviction that nature is all there is-that there exists no transcendent or spiritual realm.



This questions has been answered already.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

You have not approached any of the points raised about the argument you are presenting i have already raised.
You are using the fallacy of special pleading by claiming something with no evidence created everything.
I showed quite a few problems with the argument to are sticking too, let alone the fact you posit am intelligent cause, and that cause is your god, again with no evidence at all.
Please approach the refutations of your claims already stated.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 12:16 AM
If you are wrong, and the big bang wasn't created out of literally absolutely nothing, hypothetically, what would it take to convince you of this?

It might be the result of a big crunch, of a oscillating universe. In the end, it would not change anything,since even if that hypotheses would be true, there would be always the necessity of a absolute beginning, and therefore a cause.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 12:19 AM
You have not approached any of the points raised about the argument you are presenting i have already raised.
You are using the fallacy of special pleading by claiming something with no evidence created everything.
I showed quite a few problems with the argument to are sticking too, let alone the fact you posit am intelligent cause, and that cause is your god, again with no evidence at all.
Please approach the refutations of your claims already stated.

You are asked to bring a BETTER explanation of the existence of our universe, if you can. All evidence hints to a absolute beginning of our universe. A causation ex nihilo, out of absolutely nothing, without a cause, is not reasoable. If you however think it is, you should be able to present examples of other things, that pop up into being out of nothing, all the time. Are you able to do so ?

davo
31st May 2010, 12:21 AM
It might be the result of a big crunch, of a oscillating universe. In the end, it would not change anything,since even if that hypotheses would be true, there would be always the necessity of a absolute beginning, and therefore a cause.

No, read what i wrote about the kalam.
Let alone you are not just claiming a cause, you are claiming an intelligent one, that is your particular version of a god.
I posted about the kalam and you have ignored the issues raised.

owheelj
31st May 2010, 12:34 AM
It might be the result of a big crunch, of a oscillating universe. In the end, it would not change anything,since even if that hypotheses would be true, there would be always the necessity of a absolute beginning, and therefore a cause.

Sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. I don't really understand why it's so difficult for you.

The premise of this topic is that the nature of the Big Bang, as you see it, means that you've reached the conclusion that God exists. Now the main point I take issue with is your premise that there was an absolute beginning. I concede that there may have been, but I think the position taking by all scientists, despite what I think are quote mining and misquotes that you've put forward, is that we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang or what caused the singularity to expand. Our space-time certainly existed as part of the Big Bang, but there's no reason to suppose there aren't dimensions outside of ours, that resulted in a kind of pre-existing meta-verse, which the Big Bang was just a part of. Indeed most modern physics points to a number of extra dimensions and this position is a serious and legitimate one. Stephen Hawking has famously stated that it would be silly to think of space-time as anything other than round. Round things don't have a beginning.

Now I'm not asking you to agree with my position, I'm asking you what evidence I could hypothetically present to convince you that my position is correct. Do I need to just quote famous physicists? Do I need to present some actual mathematical proofs? Do I need to get God to come down and directly tell you that I'm wrong and you're right? Or is there something else?

GodwinGrey
31st May 2010, 12:34 AM
What does the 502 represent tsid?

GenericBox
31st May 2010, 12:39 AM
The exact amount of days I've been a member on these forums for?

Now thats a creepy coincidence. Maybe God sent you here to convert me today.

Logic please
31st May 2010, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by Tsid502 http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=89867#post89867)
Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

Just because we do not have an explanation does not mean we fill it up with "goddidit"

Tsid, as Croc alluded to, that is classic "god of the gaps" (gotg) reasoning. Even if a "gap" in our understanding has been established (and has it?), that doesn't mean that your god fills it by default, unless this can be demonstrated by evidence. I think that the evidence needs to be more substantial than a random internet link. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be evidenced by internet link!

Just because you (or anyone else) can't think of a better explanation, doesn't mean that there isn't one...

davo
31st May 2010, 12:46 AM
You are asked to bring a BETTER explanation of the existence of our universe, if you can. All evidence hints to a absolute beginning of our universe. A causation ex nihilo, out of absolutely nothing, without a cause, is not reasoable. If you however think it is, you should be able to present examples of other things, that pop up into being out of nothing, all the time. Are you able to do so ?

Yep quantum particles do this, hence the concept of quantum 'foam'.
My sig has a formulae of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Also check out http://www.physlink.com/Education/askexperts/ae332.cfm

davo
31st May 2010, 12:58 AM
Look up the Casimir Effect
This has been observed, there is evidence. There is none for the claims of your god doing it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

davo
31st May 2010, 01:02 AM
I also explained previously that scientists do not use 'nothing' the way you are.
There is no more need for a cause for quantum foam than for your god, except there is no evidence for your god of the gaps.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 01:08 AM
Sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. I don't really understand why it's so difficult for you.

The premise of this topic is that the nature of the Big Bang, as you see it, means that you've reached the conclusion that God exists. Now the main point I take issue with is your premise that there was an absolute beginning. I concede that there may have been, but I think the position taking by all scientists, despite what I think are quote mining and misquotes that you've put forward, is that we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang or what caused the singularity to expand

We have actually ideas, but these are not on the ground of science, because these cannot be tested, but they rely on filosophical, and religious ground.


Our space-time certainly existed as part of the Big Bang, but there's no reason to suppose there aren't dimensions outside of ours, that resulted in a kind of pre-existing meta-verse, which the Big Bang was just a part of.

Sure, that is the standard answer of the ones, that want to evitate God as the best explanation. Multiverses are cited quit commonly.

The Multiverse proposal - a valid hypotheses ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.

All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.


Now I'm not asking you to agree with my position, I'm asking you what evidence I could hypothetically present to convince you that my position is correct. Do I need to just quote famous physicists? Do I need to present some actual mathematical proofs? Do I need to get God to come down and directly tell you that I'm wrong and you're right? Or is there something else?

It should be more reasonable in any sense, not only the cosmological argument, but all natural phenomenas we observe in our world, and universe, would need to have a better, and more convincing argumentation. What you have basically left, is pure Chance. And Chance is as far as i see it, a very BAD explanation.

owheelj
31st May 2010, 01:19 AM
So your answer to my question; what evidence would it require to convince you that the premise of this topic is wrong is to put forward a "more convincing argument." Wow, that really narrows it down.

This really is a pointless argument isn't it? And the reason why it's pointless is because you are incapable of understanding what people are saying and responding to them. Why has it taken me so many attempts at getting a an answer to a straight forward question, and you still can't give an answer? The reason is, of course, that nothing will convince you. You don't hold a position based on science, you hold a position and then you've cherry picked "science" to try to justify that position, but you've failed completely, however due to accepting the position regardless of the evidence, you can't and won't see that. Your position is entirely based on "faith," and isn't supported by science at all. In fact you don't even understand the quotes that you've used in your arguments. You have no education in physics and you don't know what you're talking about, but even worse than that, you're not prepared to learn, you're just going to keep on repeating your misunderstandings and keep believing in your zombie lord, regardless of what people say. Posting in this topic is clearly a waste of time because nothing could possibly convince you that you're wrong, even though you very obviously are.

davo
31st May 2010, 01:44 AM
Penrose is using big numbers to confuse.
Odds don't mean much when time has no measure.
Improbable is not impossible when you have such huge numbers, that are not taking into account iterations.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 01:44 AM
What does the 502 represent tsid?

nothing.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 01:49 AM
Tsid, as Croc alluded to, that is classic "god of the gaps" (gotg) reasoning. Even if a "gap" in our understanding has been established (and has it?), that doesn't mean that your god fills it by default, unless this can be demonstrated by evidence. I think that the evidence needs to be more substantial than a random internet link. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be evidenced by internet link!

Just because you (or anyone else) can't think of a better explanation, doesn't mean that there isn't one...

I don't agree. The God of the gap argument follows, when science does not know yet the mechanisms of a certain phenomena. The big bang theory is however 80 years old, and solid as ever since, and backed up with solid scientific evidence. Therefore, it is quit reasonable to believe, the universe had a absolute beginning. This being a correct pressuposition, we can deducde, based on logic, that the universe had a cause of its existence.
That cause had to be timeless, spaceless, changeless, uncaused, eternal, unimaginably powerful. All these atributes do fit surprisingly well to the God of the bible.

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 01:56 AM
So your answer to my question; what evidence would it require to convince you that the premise of this topic is wrong is to put forward a "more convincing argument." Wow, that really narrows it down.

This really is a pointless argument isn't it? And the reason why it's pointless is because you are incapable of understanding what people are saying and responding to them.

If that would be the case, we would not be here, anymore, discussing. What you mean, is, that i have not embraced your world view and philosophy, of a origin of the universe without God. In fact, i have not. If you however be capable of demonstrating a more convincing world view, it might happen. So far, all presented arguments leave me VERY cold...



You don't hold a position based on science, you hold a position and then you've cherry picked "science" to try to justify that position, but you've failed completely, however due to accepting the position regardless of the evidence, you can't and won't see that.

Why do you not admit, that YOUR arguments in reality fail, since THEY are not convincing at all, and i am exposing here ?



Your position is entirely based on "faith," and isn't supported by science at all.

then what have we discussed until now at this thread ? its not a bibleclass, so far, is it ?


In fact you don't even understand the quotes that you've used in your arguments.

Prove that assertion, please.


You have no education in physics and you don't know what you're talking about, but even worse than that, you're not prepared to learn, you're just going to keep on repeating your misunderstandings and keep believing in your zombie lord, regardless of what people say. Posting in this topic is clearly a waste of time because nothing could possibly convince you that you're wrong, even though you very obviously are.

So what could convince you, that YOU are wrong ? I think , your real problem is, that you are not willing to give up your atheist world view, since it fits well your wish no God to be above you, and to judge your life one day.

davo
31st May 2010, 02:31 AM
Mate, if you can show evidence not only that the universe needs a cause, which i have put forward exactly the holes in the claims of the kalam which just begs the question, and can show why that cause is intelligent, then that it is also the god you define, i would change my position.
At the moment, you have failed to confront the issues i raised over the kalam argument you are putting forward, let alone the other 2 steps.
I am not making a leap to conclusion based on no evidence, you are.
I put forward quantum foam and virtual particles as observed evidence. Studies have proved things pop in and out of existence all the time.
This is a lot stronger position than you claiming your god holds properties you state are impossible for the universe as a set, based on elements IN the universe.
There can be no causality with no time, yet you state this is fact.
Your argument has a number of critical flaws i raised, and you have not approached them.
Science is not making any claims without evidence, yet you are. You are pointing at what is not confirmed and saying therefor your claims are right, but i pointed out the problems with your claims too, you are just ignoring that tho.

Worldslaziestbusker
31st May 2010, 08:54 AM
Penrose is using big numbers to confuse.
Odds don't mean much when time has no measure.
Improbable is not impossible when you have such huge numbers, that are not taking into account iterations.

Davo makes a good point. Improbable events are not impossible, but people keen to misuse probabilities often treat them as though they are.
A square cirlce is impossible and the likelihood of you encountering one somewhere in the universe is zero.
Winning the lottery is very improbable, but not impossible. So long as there is a one in the probability ratio, it doesn't matter how large the odds against it get, it has been conceded as a possibility.
I don't discount gods as impossible, but I want to see some evidence before I worship one. You haven't provided any. My atheism doesn't hinge on being able to explain anything. It arose because the explanations and evidence provided by religion were incoherent. Calling on atheists to provide answers isn't a defence of your position, though you've been given far better explanations and more than fair hearing on this forum than your questions, evasions and manners warrant.
If you can't concede that your ideas aren't getting traction because they aren't good, continuing to post them isn't going to improve the situation. You could perhaps do some more reading and come back for another try, with new evidence and perspectives, but this thread is getting massive for no real reason.
WLB

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 10:15 AM
Davo makes a good point. Improbable events are not impossible, but people keen to misuse probabilities often treat them as though they are.
A square cirlce is impossible and the likelihood of you encountering one somewhere in the universe is zero.
Winning the lottery is very improbable, but not impossible. So long as there is a one in the probability ratio, it doesn't matter how large the odds against it get, it has been conceded as a possibility.
I don't discount gods as impossible, but I want to see some evidence before I worship one. You haven't provided any. My atheism doesn't hinge on being able to explain anything. It arose because the explanations and evidence provided by religion were incoherent. Calling on atheists to provide answers isn't a defence of your position, though you've been given far better explanations and more than fair hearing on this forum than your questions, evasions and manners warrant.
If you can't concede that your ideas aren't getting traction because they aren't good, continuing to post them isn't going to improve the situation. You could perhaps do some more reading and come back for another try, with new evidence and perspectives, but this thread is getting massive for no real reason.
WLB

When someone is not open , and does not wish God in its life, then the best argument will not change the mind of that person.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
31st May 2010, 10:17 AM
When someone is not open , and does not wish God in its life, then the best argument will not change the mind of that person.When someone is not open, and does not wish Santa Claus in its life, then the best argument will not change the mind of that person.

Tsid502
31st May 2010, 10:17 AM
The Condemnation of the Unrighteous

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39 who suppress the truth by their 40 unrighteousness, 41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45 to be wise, they became fools.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
31st May 2010, 10:18 AM
What an angry bastard this god is, don't ya reckon?

Xeno
31st May 2010, 10:23 AM
Reading over this since I last looked a page or so ago is practically depressing but not at all unexpected. Tsid502 firmly imagines he is making arguments, and says "where have I mentioned faith" whilst quoting from religious sites and telling us there is no evidence to convince him of anything while he is subject to a belief in a resurrection. I won't go into all the failures to address other people's arguments because that would simply reiterate the entire thread.

It's a funny thing, but it appears to me that Tsid502 imagines gotg to be a positive thing for him, that it is right and proper to insert god into what he personally perceives as a gap, rather than this being emblematic of his failure. His cosmological (kalam) argument, the way he is expressing it, can perhaps be shortened into this example:

Proposition: Absolutely everything necessarily has property X.
Conclusion: Therefore, Y must exist which does not have property X.

That is about it. So logical. Yet in his case even his version of the proposition is untenable, let alone there being zero evidence for the conclusion.

Edited typo to make plurals agree.

stewiegriffin81
31st May 2010, 10:25 AM
I don't agree. The God of the gap argument follows, when science does not know yet the mechanisms of a certain phenomena. The big bang theory is however 80 years old, and solid as ever since, and backed up with solid scientific evidence. Therefore, it is quit reasonable to believe, the universe had a absolute beginning. This being a correct pressuposition, we can deducde, based on logic, that the universe had a cause of its existence.
That cause had to be timeless, spaceless, changeless, uncaused, eternal, unimaginably powerful. All these atributes do fit surprisingly well to the God of the bible.

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

Again and again, you continue to prattle on about a 'cause'.

Yet, again and again, you have utterly failed to provide any reason whatsoever to assume that causality actually exists both prior and external to the universe.

Until you can provide such a reason, your claim to a first cause is null until evidence suggests otherwise.

GodwinGrey
31st May 2010, 10:31 AM
The Condemnation of the Unrighteous


Hee hee :D

Worldslaziestbusker
31st May 2010, 11:25 AM
When someone is not open , and does not wish God in its life, then the best argument will not change the mind of that person.

The best argument we've heard from you is the Kalam cosmological one. If that's the best you can do, not-changing my mind is the logical flow on.

I am open minded enough that when I noticed incoherence in religious dogma, I gave up on it. If you show me credible evidence my current perspectives are flawed I will adjust again.
Can you claim similar flexibility? Your argument has been thoroughly dissected and shown wanting, yet you continue to assert it is correct, so I don't think you can.
WLB

davo
31st May 2010, 11:26 AM
When someone is not open , and does not wish God in its life, then the best argument will not change the mind of that person.

How arrogant.

I went to extensive levels to point out why I do not accept your claims, and it has NOTHING to do with 'not wanting god in my life' it's that your claims have absolutely no evidence for them.

I raised the issues with your argument that you refuse to approach, I have pointed out exactly how things come about from what physicists refer to when they say 'nothing', and you just ignore it.

Here is observed evidence of the Casimir Effect, quantum fluctution in which virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/1/R04

Where is your evidence for your god? zilch, nada, nothing.

Seamus
31st May 2010, 11:36 AM
Ok. Participants are starting to insult me, and calling me a idiot, and ignorant. The level of discussion is becoming lower. I see a soon end of my participation coming at this board.....

Who called you an idiot? Personal insults are not allowed and may earn the person a 24 hour ban


I DID see someone make to the objective observation that your understanding of science is limited; IE Ignorant. (as is mine;Catholic education)

An offer was made to teach you some basic science,which you have petulantly declined. It's not a crime or shameful to be ignorant. Willful ignorance is not a crime either,but is IS shameful.

davo
31st May 2010, 11:45 AM
Who called you an idiot? Personal insults are not allowed and may earn the person a 24 hour ban

It was me, as the fellow rather than listening or investigating what people are saying, is sticking to points that have already been refuted.

GodwinGrey
31st May 2010, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by GodwinGrey http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=89891#post89891)
What does the 502 represent tsid?


tsid502 - nothing


you see? If you keep it simple he gets it right. ;)

Loki
31st May 2010, 01:05 PM
I'm a bit confused now, and not because your arguments are simply teleological wibble. You seem to be mixing up two entirely diferent god concepts here.

Concept 1

Some vague and unknowable scentient thing caused the universe to exist about 14 billion years ago, and it's been doing it's universe thing ever since. The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, life arose about 3.85 billion years ago and eventually became us. This is an impersonal god which exists totally outside of reality and which could only ever lead to some sort of fuzzy deism.

Concept 2

A personal and interventionist god who created the universe and earth specifically to put the men he specifically and deliberately created on and who periodically appears on earth to torment us. This is a totally different animal which can appear within reality and cause real things to happen.

While your arguments fail to support concept 1 (it is a pretty fuzzy concept after all), they aren't even in the same ballpark as arguments which would support concept 2.

Given you have declared for concept 2 have you any argument which supports the existence of a personal and interventionist god?

wearestardust
31st May 2010, 02:06 PM
Ferfucksakes, will somebody declare the circus parade over, so I can get in with the shovel?

I'm imagining something more like a tickertape parade, where every falling piece of paper is a post.

Xeno
31st May 2010, 06:57 PM
What does the 502 represent tsid?
nothing
you see? If you keep it simple he gets it right. ;) :):):):):):):):):):)

Sir Patrick Crocodile
31st May 2010, 08:33 PM
We have actually ideas, but these are not on the ground of science, because these cannot be tested, but they rely on filosophical, and religious ground.In other words: woo



Sure, that is the standard answer of the ones, that want to evitate God as the best explanation. Multiverses are cited quit commonly.But God of Gaps does not work.

The Multiverse proposal - a valid hypotheses ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.Explain all that to me.

All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.But remember it has been around for billions of years. And in what way is the universe "fine tuned" too?

It should be more reasonable in any sense, not only the cosmological argument, but all natural phenomenas we observe in our world, and universe, would need to have a better, and more convincing argumentation. What you have basically left, is pure Chance. And Chance is as far as i see it, a very BAD explanation.If pure chance is a bad explanation, then your god is too. This is because your god is pure chance.

mayor of simpleton
31st May 2010, 09:44 PM
Why don't we all just save a bit of time here.

A collegue of mine has written a great book. My position with regard to the Cosomological Argument and her's are almost identical. (What a suprise... we discussed this at length once.)

Her work is well lucid. It has been paintakingly researched and I fine that this could be of aid with regard to the endless repeating of previous argumentation supporting the soundness of gods existing. She presents a very understandable and direct logic that can shed light on where the flaws in logic are to be found without the need to 'call names' and speak out in frustration.

This is not intended to 'convert' the theist, but a guild line to let them know where the errors in logic are to be found. If they choose to continue with their faith, I am not going to stand in their way. You have the right to believe in what you choose.


By Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

"The Ontological Argument"
1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of "God").
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.
This argument, first articulated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury, is unlike any other, proceeding purely on the conceptual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept; after all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of God, when defined correctly, entails that there is something that satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is something wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out what it is.
FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a property, like "being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies on a bit of wordplay, assuming that "existence" is just another property, but logically it is completely different. If you really could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand, define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its head, and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore trunicorns exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to prove that any figment of our imagination exists.
COMMENT: Once again, Sydney Morgenbesser had a pertinent remark, this one offered as an Ontological Argument for God's Non-Existence: Existence is such a lousy thing, how could God go and do it?

mayor of simpleton
31st May 2010, 09:45 PM
3. The Argument from Design
A. The Classical Teleological Argument
1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for example, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who designed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have arisen by random physical processes. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)
2. Organs of living things, such as the eye and the heart, cohere only because they have a function (for example, the eye has a cornea, lens, retina, iris, eyelids, and so on, which are found in the same organ only because together they make it possible for the animal to see.)
3. These organs must have a designer who designed them with their function in mind: just as a watch implies a watchmaker, an eye implies an eyemaker (from 1 & 2).
4. These things have not had a human designer.
5. Therefore, these things must have had a non-human designer (from 3 & 4).
6. God is the non-human designer (from 5).
7. God exists.
FLAW: Darwin showed how the process of replication could give rise to the illusion of design without the foresight of an actual designer. Replicators make copies of themselves, which make copies of themselves, and so on, giving rise to an exponential number of descendants. In any finite environment the replicators must compete for the energy and materials necessary for replication. Since no copying process is perfect, errors will eventually crop up, and any error that causes a replicator to reproduce more efficiently than its competitors will result in that line of replicators predominating in the population. After many generations, the dominant replicators will appear to have been designed for effective replication, whereas all they have done is accumulate the copying errors which in the past did lead to effective replication. The fallacy in the argument, then is Premise 1 (and as a consequence, Premise 3, which depends on it): parts of a complex object serving a complex function do not, in fact, require a designer.
In the twenty-first century, creationists have tried to revive the Teleological Argument in three forms:
B. The Argument from Irreducible Complexity
1. Evolution has no foresight, and every incremental step must be an improvement over the preceding one, allowing the organism to survive and reproduce better than its competitors.
2. In many complex organs, the removal or modification of any part would destroy the functional whole. Examples are, the lens and retina of the eye, the molecular components of blood clotting, and the molecular motor powering the cell's flagellum. Call these organs "irreducibly complex."
3. These organs could not have been useful to the organisms that possessed them in any simpler forms (from 2).
4. The Theory of Natural Selection cannot explain these irreducibly complex systems (from 1 & 3).
5. Natural selection is the only way out of the conclusions of the Classical Teleological Argument.
6. God exists (from 4 & 5 and the Classical Teleological Argument).
This argument has been around since the time of Charles Darwin, and his replies to it still hold.
FLAW 1: For many organs, Premise 2 is false. An eye without a lens can still see, just not as well as an eye with a lens.
FLAW 2: For many other organs, removal of a part, or other alterations, may render it useless for its current function, but the organ could have been useful to the organism for some other function. Insect wings, before they were large enough to be effective for flight, were used as heat-exchange panels. This is also true for most of the molecular mechanisms, such as the flagellum motor, invoked in the modern version of the Argument from Irreducible Complexity.
FLAW 3: (The Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance): There may be biological systems for which we don't yet know how they may have been useful in simpler versions. But there are obviously many things we don't yet understand in molecular biology, and given the huge success that biologists have achieved in explaining so many examples of incremental evolution in other biological systems, it is more reasonable to infer that these gaps will eventually be filled by the day-to-day progress of biology than to invoke a supernatural designer just to explain these temporary puzzles.
COMMENT: This last flaw can be seen as one particular instance of the more general and fallacious Argument from Ignorance:
1.There are things that we cannot explain yet.

2. Those things must be caused by God.
FLAW: Premise 1 is obviously true. If there weren't things that we could not explain yet, then science would be complete, laboratories and observatories would unplug their computers and convert to condominiums, and all departments of science would be converted to departments in the History of Science. Science is only in business because there are things we have not explained yet. So we cannot infer from the existence of genuine, ongoing science that there must be a God.
C. The Argument from the Paucity of Benign Mutations

1. Evolution is powered by random mutations and natural selection.
2. Organisms are complex, improbable systems, and by the laws of probability any change is astronomically more likely to be for the worse than for the better.
3. The majority of mutations would be deadly for the organism (from 2).
4. The amount of time it would take for all the benign mutations needed for the assembly of an organ to appear by chance is preposterously long (from 3).
5. In order for evolution to work, something outside of evolution had to bias the process of mutation, increasing the number of benign ones (from 4).
6. Something outside of the mechanism of biological change — the Prime Mutator — must bias the process of mutations for evolution to work (from 5).
7. The only entity that is both powerful enough and purposeful enough to be the Prime Mutator is God.
8 .God exists.
FLAW: Evolution does not require infinitesimally improbable mutations, such as a fully formed eye appearing out of the blue in a single generation, because (a) mutations can have small effects (tissue that is slightly more transparent, or cells that are slightly more sensitive to light), and mutations contributing to these effects can accumulate over time; (b) for any sexually reproducing organism, the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after the other in a single line of descendants, but could have appeared independently in thousands of separate organisms, each mutating at random, and the necessary combinations could come together as the organisms mate and exchange genes; (c) life on earth has had a vast amount of time to accumulate the necessary mutations (almost four billion years).

mayor of simpleton
31st May 2010, 09:46 PM
D. The New Argument from The Original Replicator

1. Evolution is the process by which an organism evolves from simpler ancestors.
2. Evolution by itself cannot explain how the original ancestor — the first living thing — came into existence (from 1).
3. The theory of natural selection can deal with this problem only by saying the first living thing evolved out of non-living matter (from 2).
4. That non-living matter (call it the Original Replicator) must be capable of (i) self-replication (ii) generating a functioning mechanism out of surrounding matter to protect itself against falling apart, and (iii) surviving slight mutations to itself that will then result in slightly different replicators.
5. The Original Replicator is complex (from 4).
6. The Original Replicator is too complex to have arisen from purely physical processes (from 5 & the Classical Teleological Argument). For example, DNA, which currently carries the replicated design of organisms, cannot be the Original Replicator, because DNA molecules requires a complex system of proteins to remain stable and to replicate, and could not have arisen from natural processes before complex life existed.
7. Natural selection cannot explain the complexity of the Original Replicator (from 3 & 6).
8. The Original Replicator must have been created rather than have evolved (from 7 and the Classical Teleological Argument).
9. Anything that was created requires a Creator.
10. God exists.
FLAW 1: Premise 6 states that a replicator, because of its complexity, cannot have arisen from natural processes, i.e. by way of natural selection. But the mathematician John von Neumann showed in the 1950s that it is theoretically possible for a simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then, biologists and chemists have identified a number of naturally occurring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural selection can kick in, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication system used by living organisms today.
FLAW 2: Even without von Neumann's work (which not everyone accepts as conclusive), to conclude the existence of God from our not yet knowing how to explain the Original Replicator is to rely on The Argument from Ignorance."

"The Argument from The Big Bang"
1. The Big Bang, according to the best scientific opinion of our day, was the beginning of the physical universe, including not only matter and energy, but space and time and the laws of physics.

2. The universe came to be ex nihilo (from 1).
3. Something outside the universe, including outside its physical laws, must have brought the universe into existence (from 2).
4. Only God could exist outside the universe.
5. God must have been caused the universe to exist (from 3 & 4).
6. God exists.
The Big Bang is based on the observed expansion of the universe, with galaxies rushing away from each other. The implication is that if we run the film of the universe backward from the present, the universe must continuously contract, all the way back to a single point. The theory of the Big Bang is that the universe exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago.
FLAW 1: Cosmologists themselves do not all agree that the Big Bang is a "singularity" — the sudden appearance of space, time, and physical laws from inexplicable nothingness. The Big Bang may represent the lawful emergence of a new universe from a previously existing one. In that case, it would be superfluous to invoke God to explain the emergence of something from nothing.
FLAW 2: The Argument From the Big Bang has all the flaws of The Cosmological Argument — it passes the buck from the mystery of the origin of the universe to the mystery of the origin of God, and it extends the notion of "cause" outside the domain of events covered by natural laws (also known as the universe) where it no longer makes sense.

"5. The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants "
1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.

2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions: Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 & 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine-Tuner.
8. God exists.
Philosophers and physicists often speak of "The Anthropic Principle," which comes in several versions, labeled "weak," "strong" and "very strong." All three versions argue that any explanation of the universe must account for the fact that we humans ( or any complex organism that could observe its condition) exist in it. The Argument from Fine-Tuning corresponds to the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. Its upshot is that the upshot of the universe is . . . us. The universe must have been designed with us in mind.
FLAW 1: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified "theory of everything," which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe,# 35, below).
FLAW 2: Even were we to accept the first premise, the transition from 4 to 5 is invalid. Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants, all of them composing one reality. We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned. Or perhaps we are living in an "oscillatory universe," a succession of universes with differing physical constants, each one collapsing into a point and then exploding with a new big bang into a new universe with different physical constants, one succeeding the other over an infinite time span. Again, we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one of those time-slices in which the universe does have physical constants that support stable matter and complex life. These hypotheses, which are receiving much attention from contemporary cosmologists, are sufficient to invalidate the leap from 4 to 5.

Thank you for your time.

Meow!

GREG

wolty
31st May 2010, 10:25 PM
Vote 1 - The Mayor!

Thank you.

Not that Tsid will read it and understand it. :confused:

mayor of simpleton
31st May 2010, 10:50 PM
Vote 1 - The Mayor!

Thank you.

I'm not an angry atheist. I like to keep hope alive through reason.

Let's face it... the suppression and persecution over the past few centuries that has silenced any doubt, let alone rejection, of theistic gods can fire the frustration and anger in many non-believers. It is increasingly difficult for many to hold this rage within them. I doubt that anyone here in this or any other Forum where non-belief in gods is the centerpoint for mutual bonding has not wanted to shout out 'I am mad as hell and I cannot take this any more', BUT to step down to the level of hate that is evident and exercised within the history of many a popular religions is indeed a mistake. A stand and strong position is very important, but this does not necessarily justify the use of the same methods as our 'opponents'.

Let's face it... the people who take issue with us on this 'Island' are for all intensive purposes 'a lost cause'. What is perhaps more important to note are those who are simply reading this and seeking answers. They are still open on many issues. Not everyone has the degree of certainty on this issue as those who are debating it.

Too each his own and if you need to 'vent frustration' here, good so! We should not hold our tongues. What DO have the language in our lungs to express what is in our reason. Do it as you deem it to be appropriate, but do realize...

... we understand who we are by what we think, but others understand who we are by what we do.

I have a 6 week old kitten chewing my t-shirt now. How can I be angry? :D

Sorry the rant... please continue. :o

Meow!

GREG

Jaar-Gilon
1st June 2010, 03:40 AM
The Condemnation of the Unrighteous

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39 who suppress the truth by their 40 unrighteousness, 41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45 to be wise, they became fools.

AHHHHHHHHHH After all that and not being allowed to berate us with bible rubbish, was that full release for you or what!

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 04:24 AM
FLAW: [/B]Darwin showed how the process of replication could give rise to the illusion of design without the foresight of an actual designer.

Behe, amongst others, have already shown the flaws of this argument.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm

The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve.

Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose. Logically, it would be impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create 40 separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development and interrelation.


http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 04:56 AM
AHHHHHHHHHH After all that and not being allowed to berate us with bible rubbish, was that full release for you or what!

your bias has been noted ;)

atheist_angel
1st June 2010, 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Tsid502 http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=89912#post89912)
We have actually ideas, but these are not on the ground of science, because these cannot be tested, but they rely on filosophical, and religious ground.pheeling filosophical?Behe, amongst others, have already shown the flaws of this argument.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm

The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve.

Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose. Logically, it would be impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create 40 separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development and interrelation. Are you serious? Did you know that what you're implying has been debunked by science already? Who says the 'subsystems' (:rolleyes:) provided no advantage at the time they came about? (see videos) Add: Also, why are you now arguing against evolution through natural selection? How can you believe in the 'big bang' and all that, and argue against evolution? {please treat these questions as if they were bolded red.}

2ybWucMx4W8 CZkPAanGXsc

mayor of simpleton
1st June 2010, 06:14 AM
Behe, amongst others, have already shown the flaws of this argument.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm

The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve.

Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose. Logically, it would be impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create 40 separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development and interrelation.

Yes... atheist angel has this one correct. This 'design of the eye' is a scienfitic assumption that has been overturned. No big deal. One cannot be aware of every event that occurs in science.



it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

Tsid502... to infer design in this context is doing exactly what you said we should not do... infer from what we do not know. In making the claim for a 'designer' closes the box. Accumulation/adaptation gives a case for infinite potential with a finite energy. This is an 'open box'. The universe has no fixed points. The universe is in flux. This is infinite potential and what is metaphorically said to be an 'open box'.

We know that that over the accumulation of time, adaptation of species occurs. This is fact. I can provide evidence in just one word... FOSSIL.

As for primitive man, this observation is very speculative. One could just as well say that upon opening the hood of the car and seeing the engine, they would assume that it is 'magical' and would begin to worship the 'holy engine'. (There are enough men in the world who do view and automobile as if it were a deity. If you don't believe me, go to an autoshow. :D )

Before the 'mystery of beauty' enters the scene:

The Argument from the Beauty of Physical Laws
1. Scientists use aesthetic principles (simplicity, symmetry, elegance) to discover the laws of nature.
2. Scientist s could only use aesthetic principles successfully if the laws of nature were intrinsically and objectively beautiful.
3. The laws of nature are intrinsically and objectively beautiful (from 1 & 2).
4. Only a mind-like being with an appreciation of beauty could have designed the laws of nature.
5 . God is the only being with the power and purpose to design beautiful laws of nature.
6. God exists.
FLAW 1: Do we decide an explanation is good because it's beautiful, or do we find an explanation beautiful because it provides a good explanation? When we say that the laws of nature are beautiful, what we are really saying is that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, and thus unify into elegant explanation a vast host of seemingly unrelated and random phenomena. We would find the laws of nature of any lawful universe beautiful. So what this argument boils down to is the observation that we live in a lawful universe. And of course any universe that could support the likes of us would have to be lawful. So this argument is another version of the The Anthropic Principle — we live in the kind of universe which is the only kind of universe in which observers like us could live — and thus is subject to the flaws of The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants.
FLAW 2: If the laws of the universe are intrinsically beautiful, then positing a God who loves beauty, and who is mysteriously capable of creating an elegant universe (and presumably a messy one as well, though his aesthetic tastes led him not to), makes the universe complex and incomprehensible all over again. This negates the intuition behind Premise 3, that the universe is intrinsically elegant and intelligible.


Meow!

GREG

atheist_angel
1st June 2010, 06:21 AM
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.How about I give you a link back. :p

Did you know that we have DNA (genetic information) in our bodies that we don't even use ... left over from earlier states of our evolutionary journey? (Yes, the other animals have it too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
In genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics), noncoding DNA describes components of an organism's DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) sequences that do not encode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code) for protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) sequences. In many eukaryotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote), a large percentage of an organism's total genome size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_size) is noncoding DNA,Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA".

Jaar-Gilon
1st June 2010, 06:34 AM
your bias has been noted ;)
Shit Tsid! That took you a long time, your bias was obvious from your first post.

Still it must've been nice for you to be able to at least put in some bibledegook?

Speaking of which how did Jesus overcome the second law? You are allowed to answer that he and his dad are magic.

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 07:01 AM
How about I give you a link back. :p

Did you know that we have DNA (genetic information) in our bodies that we don't even use ... left over from earlier states of our evolutionary journey? (Yes, the other animals have it too.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

So what ? the coding part is enough to evidence a mind as origin.:)

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 07:03 AM
pheeling filosophical? Are you serious? Did you know that what you're implying has been debunked by science already? Who says the 'subsystems' (:rolleyes:) provided no advantage at the time they came about? (see videos) Add: Also, why are you now arguing against evolution through natural selection? How can you believe in the 'big bang' and all that, and argue against evolution? {please treat these questions as if they were bolded red.}



i believe in micro-evolution, which is a fact. I do not believe in macro-evolution. The scientific discoveries do not support that theory , in my opinion.

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 07:09 AM
FLAW 1: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified "theory of everything," which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe,# 35, below).


I am amused to read such a nonsense. What physical law should prohibit the cosomological constant for example to be sligthly different than it is ?

The solar earth system is finely tuned to life. Since there are literally billions of stars in our cosmos, non of them with planets finely tuned to life, we can deduce logically, that there is no physical need , a finely tuned solar/earth system to exist. The tuning to life is actually awesome, to say the least. Only who is blineded by its bias, is not able to recognize this fact. It seems that atheism is like a drug, that does not permit to think clearly, and logically,to make reasonable deductions, and arguments. There is in my opinion really no argument to deny this fact.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were ‘blown away’ early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2

THE MOON: Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001

Jaar-Gilon
1st June 2010, 07:22 AM
Since there are literally billions of stars in our cosmos, non(e) of them with planets finely tuned to life

And this you know how?

Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

To start with it's estimated that Europa is believed to have almost twice as much water as Earth.

Jaar-Gilon
1st June 2010, 07:23 AM
Please tell me how you think water came to be on Earth Tsid?

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 07:24 AM
Premise 6 states that a replicator, because of its complexity, cannot have arisen from natural processes, i.e. by way of natural selection. But the mathematician John von Neumann showed in the 1950s that it is theoretically possible for a simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then, biologists and chemists have identified a number of naturally occurring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural selection can kick in, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication system used by living organisms today.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life.

Scientists have yet to discover a single molecule that has “learned to make copies of itself” (Simpson, 1999, p. 26). Many scientists seem to be oblivious of this fact because

Articles appearing regularly in scientific journals claim to have generated self-replicating peptides or RNA strands, but they fail to provide a natural source for their compounds or an explanation for what fuels them... this top-down approach... [is like] a caveman coming across a modern car and trying to figure out how to make it. “It would be like taking the engine out of the car, starting it up, and trying to see how that engine works” (Simpson, 1999, p.26).

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 07:37 AM
Please tell me how you think water came to be on Earth Tsid?

http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/cosmic-design/planet-formation-problems-too-much-water-too-much-carbon-and-too-much-air

For a planet as large as it is and as far away from its star, Earth is miraculously water- and carbon-poor. Water makes up just 0.02 percent of Earth’s mass; carbon just 0.003 percent. While water and carbon are essential for life, too little or too much proves deadly, especially in the case of advanced life. Earth possesses the just-right amount of each.

Furthermore, the report demonstrates that Earth, like all planets its size and distance from its star, started off with a huge amount of water and carbon. Thanks to an exquisitely designed collision event early in the planet’s history, Earth lost just the right amounts of water and carbon. This event also led to the formation of the Moon.2

The MIT team’s research study illustrates a Christian apologetics principle. It shows that the more we learn about the physics of extrasolar planetary systems, the more evidence we accumulate for the supernatural, super-intelligent design of the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, and Earth for the benefit of all life on Earth, both simple and complex.

mayor of simpleton
1st June 2010, 07:59 AM
I am amused to read such a nonsense. What physical law should prohibit the cosomological constant for example to be sligthly different than it is ?

The solar earth system is finely tuned to life. Since there are literally billions of stars in our cosmos, non of them with planets finely tuned to life, we can deduce logically, that there is no physical need , a finely tuned solar/earth system to exist. The tuning to life is actually awesome, to say the least. Only who is blineded by its bias, is not able to recognize this fact. It seems that atheism is like a drug, that does not permit to think clearly, and logically,to make reasonable deductions, and arguments. There is in my opinion really no argument to deny this fact.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were ‘blown away’ early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2

THE MOON: Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001

You do know that low probability is not evidence of a miracle. It simply means that the odds of this occurance is highly unlikely. The universe has had quite a long time to be as it is, at this moment in time/space. In the light of how many options are possible, every event that can occur is of low probability. Does this mean that everything is a miracle?

Thank you for the comfirmation of how accumulation/adaptation with time/space functions. The only thing you have brought to the table is a 'necessity' of a god figure (deity); which in truth is redundant. (Sorry, there is not other word that fits here.)

All of these things of low probablity can through determining factor be explained. We cannot explain them all at this moment, but just because we cannot yet is no compelling argument that gods exist. This would only make 'gods' to be the 'idolatry of what we are too ill informed to understand'. Crudely put, god is the direct result of our ignorance. Do we wish to worship a deity born of our own personal ignorance?

Not once is there any indication of 'divine design' or anything 'supernatural'. I don't like this term, but it does fit... you are using god to fill in the gaps resulting from your lack of understanding of complexity. Why are you so impatient? You seem to have an interest in searching for answers. Why are you so quickly satisfied?

I find it amazing how so many so-called 'scientific indications of a divine hand' are nullified by emperical investigation. Where fact are few, faith abounds. A quick 'fix', better said, a 'hasty generalization' is fallacy and cannot be used in a sound argument. Thank you for all the your effort to make the point of low probability, but it was simply in vain. You cannot prove god by a probability table. You might as well decide god exists on the toss of a coin. Do you really wish to do this?

Since when is existence of god a simply mathematical equasion? :confused:

If you accept that gods exist on the foundation of faith, I'll give you that. Faith is your centerpoint of your being and that what holds your center together is your god.

If you insist on making your god the centerpoint of everyones being and the centerpoint of the universe by claiming faith is fact, I do not think that the universe will adapt to fit your demand.

You seem to be in need of purpose, morals, centerpoints of being, faith and other such dualistic concepts. This is fine. There are others who are not in need of these fixed points of idea (dualisms/dogmas). They are ones who simply except the universe as it is.

I find that the universe functions quite well without deities and gods. You do not think so. So what?

I have accululation/adaptation within time/space. You have 'divine hand of design' and 'supernatural' acts.

I have evidence that what I see is real. You have evidence that is pure assumption and speculation built upon more assumption and speculation. If you feel it is enough, that is your life. For me, I need evidence that is not assumption and speculation. I think that explains it all.

Again... thank for the effort and attempt. Keep going. You might actually suprise yourself in the end. ;)


Meow!

GREG

mayor of simpleton
1st June 2010, 08:03 AM
http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/cosmic-design/planet-formation-problems-too-much-water-too-much-carbon-and-too-much-air

For a planet as large as it is and as far away from its star, Earth is miraculously water- and carbon-poor. Water makes up just 0.02 percent of Earth’s mass; carbon just 0.003 percent. While water and carbon are essential for life, too little or too much proves deadly, especially in the case of advanced life. Earth possesses the just-right amount of each.

Furthermore, the report demonstrates that Earth, like all planets its size and distance from its star, started off with a huge amount of water and carbon. Thanks to an exquisitely designed collision event early in the planet’s history, Earth lost just the right amounts of water and carbon. This event also led to the formation of the Moon.2

The MIT team’s research study illustrates a Christian apologetics principle. It shows that the more we learn about the physics of extrasolar planetary systems, the more evidence we accumulate for the supernatural, super-intelligent design of the Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system, and Earth for the benefit of all life on Earth, both simple and complex.

I can answer this one, but I need to find the link first. The reason why we have water on the earth is the result of comets. I need so time to find this one. This evidence just came out recently.

Meow!

GREG

davo
1st June 2010, 09:43 AM
Behe, amongst others, have already shown the flaws of this argument.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/human-eye.htm


What? intelligently designed?

The optic nerve in the human eye is attached to the retina, this creates a blind spot. The octopus has better eyes than we do.

Pretty pictures and sound as you won't read :

Stb9pQc9Kq0


The human eye is enormously complicated - a perfect and interrelated system of about 40 individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens and optic nerve.

And all can be explained by evolution. Mate, when you ask how these things can happen, they happen in the womb in 9 months through natural processes nothing 'magic'. Same with evolution, totally different processes of course, but nothing 'magic'

The illusion of complexity can be explained very well by the processes of evolution.

Standing their saying 'therefore a magic man in the sky that can do anything and listens to our prayers and has a plan for us ..''' etc etc is the WORST explanation.


Obviously, if all the separate subsystems aren't present and performing perfectly at the same instant, the eye won't work and has no purpose.

derr, if you cut the pieces apart yea, but if you understand what evolution IS there is no reasons the eye cannot evolve.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm#lund

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html


Logically, it would be impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, to create 40 separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development and interrelation.

Watch and read and if you did any basic search on the net you would find out your claims are just simply wrong.

And I am starting to hold by my previous post where I said you are an idiot. Either that or deliberately obfuscating evidence as many apologists tend to do.


http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

http://talkorigins.org

this is all cut and paste from discovery institute. All been answered. The discovery institute and what you are doing is called Wedge Strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

You don't care if you are wrong or right, you are just trying to obfuscate what is a very clear argument, claiming these things are not able to be explained when they are.

davo
1st June 2010, 09:49 AM
i believe in micro-evolution, which is a fact. I do not believe in macro-evolution. The scientific discoveries do not support that theory , in my opinion.

Your opinion means shit to be honest.

What is the barrier that stops evolution beyond the species level, that we have looked back and being able to tell the relationship between species based on? What is that barrier you claim exists that stops at micro-evolution, before your 'version' of 'macroevolution' over millions of years as shown by the overwhelming evidence?

Evolution, as described by Darwin in 'The origin of Species' where he discusses speciation as the origin. We have evidence for speciation and have witnessed speciation events.

Creationists claim there is something that stops this, that disproves all the combined evidence from DNA, morphology, fossil records, strata, diversity over the planet, etc etc

I'd like them to show what barrier there is to speciation that defies all this combined evidence.

I can show evidence for the Theory of Evolution not a problem, just I think you need to read up on what you are attacking and show why this evidence is false evidence as per the scientific method.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Speciation, new species, is macroevolution :

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

'The Origin of Species' = speciation

Here's one that is going on at the moment, the report with evidence from 2003 :

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/939

Here's another that was observed in the london underground :

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS?

pin drop.

nada, nothing, zilch.

So you attack evolution stating it is faith with no evidence, then put faith forward as an explanation, with no evidence whatsoever?

hmmm that is called hypocrisy.

I'll also put it to you, that if the current Theory of Evolution was proved false, it would not make your claims with no evidence whatsoever, correct.

You are not a biologist and all the stuff you are posting is straight off discovery institute, which REAL biologists have approached and DECIMATED the arguments for years.

The Discovery Institute, the prime movers of this claim and their paper "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)" started in 2001 and with it's last update in August 2008 it contains 761 names of 'scientists' ... most of which are not even biologists, most dead before 2000 (I think 5 are alive from what I know)

LOL

Check out Project Steve (http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve), named to honor the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist. It was started in October of the same year of the last update to the Discovery Institutes list.

Scientists named Steve that support evolution, currently stands at 1138

When the Discovery institute announced this 'document' at the dover trial a counter-petition, 'A Scientific Support For Darwinism', was organized and gathered 7,733 signatures from scientists in four days.

There IS NO CONTROVERSY, there is people that have faith obfuscating what is a clear cut situation, no wonder people laugh at creationists.

Meanwhile you just cut and paste from the discovery institute, while not showing ANY evidence for your MAGIC MAN

LOL hypocrite.

Seamus
1st June 2010, 09:54 AM
@Davo: Thanks,I have always been under the impression that the debate between Russell and Copleton was only proposed,and did not take place.

It come as no surprise that Russell wiped the floor with the Jesuit.


There IS NO CONTROVERSY, there is people that have faith obfuscating what is a clear cut situation, no wonder people laugh at creationists.


Bravo --and that is another reason I will not argue with new earth creationists any more than I will flat earthers or conspiracy fruitcakes..

My perception is the irreducible complexity argument seems to assume nature is a spiffo engineer. It ain't. Evolution produces systems which work 'well enough to do the job'. They are often inelegant,clumsy,inefficient and often contain redundant parts. EG vestigal organs and limbs. I think of nature as being like Heath Robinson.

BUT, I'm an ignorant man and no scientist. I concede I may be wrong.I welcome any evidence-based corrections.

davo
1st June 2010, 09:58 AM
http://www.reasons.org/rtbs-creation-model/cosmic-design/planet-formation-problems-too-much-water-too-much-carbon-and-too-much-air

For a planet as large as it is and as far away from its star, Earth is miraculously water- and carbon-poor. Water makes up just 0.02 percent of Earth’s mass; carbon just 0.003 percent. While water and carbon are essential for life, too little or too much proves deadly, especially in the case of advanced life. Earth possesses the just-right amount of each.


http://thirdprize.org/4chan/memes/thumbs/facepalm%201.jpg (http://thirdprize.org/4chan/memes/facepalm%201.jpg)

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

-- Douglas Adams

riddlemethis
1st June 2010, 10:27 AM
I am amused to read such a nonsense. What physical law should prohibit the cosomological constant for example to be sligthly different than it is ?

The solar earth system is finely tuned to life. Since there are literally billions of stars in our cosmos, non of them with planets finely tuned to life, we can deduce logically, that there is no physical need , a finely tuned solar/earth system to exist. The tuning to life is actually awesome, to say the least. Only who is blineded by its bias, is not able to recognize this fact. It seems that atheism is like a drug, that does not permit to think clearly, and logically,to make reasonable deductions, and arguments. There is in my opinion really no argument to deny this fact.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were ‘blown away’ early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2

THE MOON: Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001
Sorry but with this shit you are completely neglecting the fact that it has been demonstrated that a) the cosmological "constants" could indeed be twiddled with and support life better than they do now, and b) the climate of the earth was vastly different when life first arose on this planet, indeed life changed the climate of earth and continues to do so, much to it's detriment.

As for your hilarious misunderstandings about evolution, thankfully davo has you well schooled b/c I can't be arsed. Save to say my 8 year old has a better grasp than you. Would appreciate an answer to what you think the barrier is to macroev tho - here's a hint on why you're wrong and all your design arguments don't stack up. . .it's the persistent relgious desire to ignore sex that gets in the way of your full understanding of ToE. Sex is the best & worst designer of all.

riddlemethis
1st June 2010, 10:30 AM
D. The New Argument from The Original Replicator

1. Evolution is the process by which an organism evolves from simpler ancestors.
2. Evolution by itself cannot explain how the original ancestor — the first living thing — came into existence (from 1).
3. The theory of natural selection can deal with this problem only by saying the first living thing evolved out of non-living matter (from 2).
4. That non-living matter (call it the Original Replicator) must be capable of (i) self-replication (ii) generating a functioning mechanism out of surrounding matter to protect itself against falling apart, and (iii) surviving slight mutations to itself that will then result in slightly different replicators.
5. The Original Replicator is complex (from 4).
6. The Original Replicator is too complex to have arisen from purely physical processes (from 5 & the Classical Teleological Argument). For example, DNA, which currently carries the replicated design of organisms, cannot be the Original Replicator, because DNA molecules requires a complex system of proteins to remain stable and to replicate, and could not have arisen from natural processes before complex life existed.
7. Natural selection cannot explain the complexity of the Original Replicator (from 3 & 6).
8. The Original Replicator must have been created rather than have evolved (from 7 and the Classical Teleological Argument).
9. Anything that was created requires a Creator.
10. God exists.
FLAW 1: Premise 6 states that a replicator, because of its complexity, cannot have arisen from natural processes, i.e. by way of natural selection. But the mathematician John von Neumann showed in the 1950s that it is theoretically possible for a simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then, biologists and chemists have identified a number of naturally occurring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural selection can kick in, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication system used by living organisms today.
FLAW 2: Even without von Neumann's work (which not everyone accepts as conclusive), to conclude the existence of God from our not yet knowing how to explain the Original Replicator is to rely on The Argument from Ignorance."

"The Argument from The Big Bang"
1. The Big Bang, according to the best scientific opinion of our day, was the beginning of the physical universe, including not only matter and energy, but space and time and the laws of physics.

2. The universe came to be ex nihilo (from 1).
3. Something outside the universe, including outside its physical laws, must have brought the universe into existence (from 2).
4. Only God could exist outside the universe.
5. God must have been caused the universe to exist (from 3 & 4).
6. God exists.
The Big Bang is based on the observed expansion of the universe, with galaxies rushing away from each other. The implication is that if we run the film of the universe backward from the present, the universe must continuously contract, all the way back to a single point. The theory of the Big Bang is that the universe exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago.
FLAW 1: Cosmologists themselves do not all agree that the Big Bang is a "singularity" — the sudden appearance of space, time, and physical laws from inexplicable nothingness. The Big Bang may represent the lawful emergence of a new universe from a previously existing one. In that case, it would be superfluous to invoke God to explain the emergence of something from nothing.
FLAW 2: The Argument From the Big Bang has all the flaws of The Cosmological Argument — it passes the buck from the mystery of the origin of the universe to the mystery of the origin of God, and it extends the notion of "cause" outside the domain of events covered by natural laws (also known as the universe) where it no longer makes sense.

"5. The Arguments from the Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants "
1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.

2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions: Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 & 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine-Tuner.
8. God exists.
Philosophers and physicists often speak of "The Anthropic Principle," which comes in several versions, labeled "weak," "strong" and "very strong." All three versions argue that any explanation of the universe must account for the fact that we humans ( or any complex organism that could observe its condition) exist in it. The Argument from Fine-Tuning corresponds to the Very Strong Anthropic Principle. Its upshot is that the upshot of the universe is . . . us. The universe must have been designed with us in mind.
FLAW 1: The first premise may be false. Many physicists and cosmologists, following Einstein, hope for a unified "theory of everything," which would deduce from as-yet-unknown physical laws that the physical constants of our universe had to be what they are. In that case, ours would be the only possible universe. (See also The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe,# 35, below).
FLAW 2: Even were we to accept the first premise, the transition from 4 to 5 is invalid. Perhaps we are living in a multiverse (a term coined by William James), a vast plurality (perhaps infinite) of parallel universes with different physical constants, all of them composing one reality. We find ourselves, unsurprisingly (since we are here doing the observing), in one of the rare universe that does support the appearance of stable matter and complex life, but nothing had to have been fine-tuned. Or perhaps we are living in an "oscillatory universe," a succession of universes with differing physical constants, each one collapsing into a point and then exploding with a new big bang into a new universe with different physical constants, one succeeding the other over an infinite time span. Again, we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one of those time-slices in which the universe does have physical constants that support stable matter and complex life. These hypotheses, which are receiving much attention from contemporary cosmologists, are sufficient to invalidate the leap from 4 to 5.

Thank you for your time.

Meow!

GREG
If I wasn't on my phone I'd give you a dunsappy for that! Fucking great.

riddlemethis
1st June 2010, 10:34 AM
Oh, also Tsid, can you please explain this metric of designedness you are so universally able to apply in order to make your assertions?

wearestardust
1st June 2010, 10:42 AM
I note, Tsid, you still haven't answered this question:

...I have a question for the OP. Do you think that, to fly a plane, one ought undertake training as a pilot, or is it sufficient to have been a passenger in one once and to have perused da Vinci's drawings of a 'helicopter'?.

It feels like I asked it a long time ago, but I see it is only four days ago. That said, by my rough count you've managed something like 90 posts (about 22 posts per day) in the meantime. Perhaps the question is rather harder than I had thought and is causing you some difficulties.

Let me put it another, more focused way.

Would you be comfortable being a passanger in a jet airliner piloted by a person who's familiarity with aircraft is limited to also having been a passenger and having seen some da Vinci drawings of flying machines?

There is a point to this and I really would like you to pay me the courtesy of an answer. It's a closed question so minimally can be answered with "yes" or "no".

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 12:30 PM
http://thirdprize.org/4chan/memes/thumbs/facepalm%201.jpg (http://thirdprize.org/4chan/memes/facepalm%201.jpg)

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

-- Douglas Adams

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/puddle-thinking-t241.htm

Puddle Logic Revisited

by chunkdz
The “puddle analogy”, or "the sentient puddle" is an oft quoted parable by the brilliant Douglas Adams. So elegant and powerful is the puddle analogy that it is commonly used as a clear refutation of the Anthropic Principle by some of today’s top figures in popular science. But naturally, when the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins heap praise upon a logical argument, my instinct is to whack it with a stick and see if anything falls off.


The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. It’s as if Adams assumes that something so simple as a puddle should naturally have the intellect of a simpleton. Adams likens this condition to that of an early caveman who upon realizing that he has everything he needs simply figures that the world was made for him.

But this is one really stupid puddle. He thinks the world is made just for himself, even as he is slowly dying. I mean, even the caveman who barely graduated caveman school is smart enough to recognize that he is NOT a perfect fit for the world – that he is on any given day likely to be eaten, or get some horrible disease, or have some awful thing happen to him.

In other words, Doug’s puddle is dumber than the dumbest caveman. It’s also apparently blind since it cannot see that the rim of it’s crater is getting further away every day as it shrinks into oblivion. Adams has cast the blind, stupid puddle as the buffoon in his miniature farce. If the late Mr. Adams wouldn’t mind, my updated puddle analogy will endow the puddle with at least as much intellect as the dumbest caveman, and the potential to allow this intellect to grow.

A puddle with basic intellect sees that he is slowly dying, his hole is eroding, and he is constantly getting stepped in and contaminated. This world does not fit “staggeringly well” at all.

A puddle further examining the universe outwardly sees exploding suns, comets and asteroids colliding, black holes and light years of cold dead vacuum all around. Not a much better fit out there either.

A puddle who examines his world inwardly sees that microorganisms are using the sun’s power to colonize and take over his hole with green slimy goo, and that evaporation is sucking the life out of him. Man, this universe is conspiring against him on all levels great and small. Puddles don’t stand a chance in this happenstance, chaotic existence. “Maybe”, he thinks, “it all is just a big accident. It certainly isn’t designed for puddles, at least not puddles that last more than a blink in time. What purpose could that possibly serve”?

But given a chance, a puddle who thinks may eventually come to one realization: there is an underlying order to the chaos. A thinking puddle will then have reached the point that Einstein reached when he said “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all.” When chided about this view, Einstein replied “A priori, one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”.

A thinking puddle will realize with just a little common sense that a blind, pitiless, and indifferent universe should not be expected, a priori, to produce that which is not blind, not pitiless, and not indifferent. Instead what we see is more akin to Vladimir Arnold’s cat reaching the end of it’s transform and meowing back at it’s creator. Mind, encoded in chaos, unfolding as mind – the only clues being a barely perceptible underlying order. We comprehend that which should not be comprehendable, and this speaks to purposeful order.

A thinking puddle might still see himself as an accidental product of blind pitiless indifference, but he may more easily say that the universe might be exactly what it looks like. As has been evident to many great thinkers (puddles and non-puddles alike) but perhaps put most succinctly by Freeman Dyson – “The universe in some sense must have known we were coming”.

Of course, the thinking puddle could be wrong. Thinking puddles could be nothing more than accidents, the product of happenstance and sheer luck. But while our thinking puddle may be ignorant, and other puddles may see the universe differently, he’s not as stupid and as blind as Doug Adams would like to portray him.

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 12:31 PM
Your opinion means shit to be honest.
.

Then you are wasting your time, debating me.

wolty
1st June 2010, 12:36 PM
Then you are wasting your time, debating me.


This isn't a debate. It is only you sprouting bullshit that has been discounted by real scientists.

You are the only one wasting your time.

You should also go to this poll Tsid502 (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=5891) and have your vote. A comment from you would be appreciiated as well. Thanks

It concerns your longevity here.

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:36 PM
@Tsid502

Total, utter bollocks and mind-pus. read some proper science for a change!

Here are some books and articles that show the process of atmophere formation is entirely natural and needs no masterbatory sky-daddy at the helm twiddling the knobs:-

(2006). Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life, Second Edition. Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life, Second Edition. P. J. Thomas, R. D. Hicks, C. F. Chyba and C. P. McKay.
This 346-page book is part of the series ''Advances in Astrobiology and Biogeophysics'', and this book, which is a second edition, revisits the role comets may have played in the origins and evolution of life. This volume contains 12 individually-authored chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction, and chapter 2 discusses the origin of the atmosphere and of the oceans. Topics covered in chapters 3-8 include, respectively: cometary micrometeorites in planetology, exobiology, and early climatology; macromolecules from star-forming regions to comets to the origins of life; impact delivery of prebiotic organic matter to planetary surfaces; comets and prebiotic organic molecules on early Earth; impacts and the early evolution of life; and extraterrestrial impact episodes and Archean to early Proterozoic habitats of life. Remaining chapters discuss, respectively, the contemporary hazard of comet impacts, the conditions for liquid water in cometary nuclei, spacecraft missions to comets, and interstellar and cometary dust in relation to the origin of life. The text is written in English. Each chapter is internally structured into more specific sections within the chapter scope, and each chapter is independently referenced. The book is illustrated with 65 figures, 13 of which are in color. This book will be of interest to astrobiologists, astronomists, biophysicists, geophysicists, and evolutionary biologists.
----
Bernstein, M. (2006). "Prebiotic materials from on and off the early Earth." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361(1474): 1689-1702.
One of the greatest puzzles of all time is how did life arise? It has been universally presumed that life arose in a soup rich in carbon compounds, but from where did these organic molecules come? In this article, I will review proposed terrestrial sources of prebiotic organic molecules, such as Miller–Urey synthesis (including how they would depend on the oxidation state of the atmosphere) and hydrothermal vents and also input from space. While the former is perhaps better known and more commonly taught in school, we now know that comet and asteroid dust deliver tons of organics to the Earth every day, therefore this flux of reduced carbon from space probably also played a role in making the Earth habitable. We will compare and contrast the types and abundances of organics from on and off the Earth given standard assumptions. Perhaps each process provided specific compounds (amino acids, sugars, amphiphiles) that were directly related to the origin or early evolution of life. In any case, whether planetary, nebular or interstellar, we will consider how one might attempt to distinguish between abiotic organic molecules from actual signs of life as part of a robotic search for life in the Solar System.

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:37 PM
Part 2

Dobretsov, N. L., N. A. Kolchanov, et al. (2006). "On the early stages of the evolution of the geosphere and biosphere." Paleontological Journal 40(4): S407-S424.
The conditions necessary for the existence of nucleic-protein life are as follows: the presence of liquid water, an atmosphere, and a magnetic field (all of which protect from meteorites, abrupt changes in temperature, and a flow of charged particles from space) and the availability of nutrients (macro- and microelements in the form of dissolved compounds). In the evolution of the geosphere, complex interference of irreversible processes (general cooling, gravitational differentiation of the Earth's interior, dissipation of hydrogen, etc.) with cyclic processes of varying natures and periodicities (from the endogenic cycles "from Pangea to Pangea" to Milankovitch cycles), these conditions have repeatedly changed; hence, in the coevolution of the geosphere and biosphere, the vector of irreversible evolution was determined by the geosphere. Only with the appearance of the ocean as a global system of homeostasis, which provided the maintenance and leveling of nutrient concentrations in the hydrosphere, and the conveyor of nutrients from the mantle, "the film of life" could begin its expansion from the source of the nutrients. Life itself is a system of homeostasis, but not due to the global size and a vast buffer capacity, but because of the high rate of reactions and presence of a program (genome) that allowed its development (ontogeny) independent from the outside environment. The early stages of the origin and evolution of the biosphere (from the RNA-world to the development of the prokaryotic ecosystems) were characterized by the domination of chemotrophic ecosystems. The geographical ranges of these ecosystems were directly or indirectly (through the atmosphere and hydrosphere) tied to the sources of nutrients in the geosphere, which were in turn connected to various sources of volcanic and geotectonic activity (geothermal waters, "black smokers" along the rift zones, etc.). This gave the biosphere consisting of chemotrophic ecosystems a mosaic appearance composed of separate local oases of life. The decrease of methane and accumulation of O-2 in the atmosphere in the geological evolution of the Earth caused the extinction of chemotrophic ecosystems and directed evolution of the biosphere toward autotrophy. Autotrophic photosynthesis gave the biosphere an energy source that was not connected to the geosphere, and for the first time allowed its liberation from the geosphere by developing its own vector of evolution. This vector resulted in the biosphere forming a continuous film of life on the planet by capturing the continents and occupying pelagic and abyssal zones, and the appearance of eukaryotes. The geosphere formed biogeochemical cycles in parallel to the geochemical ones, and comparable in the annual balances of participating matter.
----

Flueck, M., K. A. Webster, et al. (2007). "Coping with cyclic oxygen availability: evolutionary aspects." Integrative and Comparative Biology 47(4): 524-531.
Both the gradual rise in atmospheric oxygen over the Proterozoic Eon as well as episodic fluctuations in oxygen over several million-year time spans during the Phanerozoic Era, have arguably exerted strong selective forces on cellular and organismic respiratory specialization and evolution. The rise in atmospheric oxygen, some 2 billion years after the origin of life, dramatically altered cell biology and set the stage for the appearance of multicelluar life forms in the Vendian (Ediacaran) Period of the Neoproterozoic Era. Over much of the Paleozoic, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was near the present atmospheric level (21%). In the Late Paleozoic, however, there were extended times during which the level of atmospheric oxygen was either markedly lower or markedly higher than 21%. That

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 12:37 PM
You do know that low probability is not evidence of a miracle.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1


Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
The laws of science… contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:38 PM
Part 3;
these Paleozoic shifts in atmospheric oxygen affected the biota is suggested by the correlations between: (1) Reduced oxygen and the occurrences of extinctions, a lowered biodiversity and shifts in phyletic succession, and (2) During hyperoxia, the corresponding occurrence of phenomena such as arthropod gigantism, the origin of insect flight, and the evolution of vertebrate terrestriality. Basic similarities in features of adaptation to hyopoxia, manifest in living organisms at levels ranging from genetic and cellular to physiological and behavioral, suggest the common and early origin of a suite of adaptive mechanisms responsive to fluctuations in ambient oxygen. Comparative integrative approaches addressing the molecular bases of phenotypic adjustments to cyclic oxygen fluctuation provide broad insight into the incremental steps leading to the early evolution of homeostatic respiratory mechanisms and to the specialization of organismic respiratory function.
-----
Fraiser, M. L. and D. J. Bottjer (2007). "Elevated atmospheric CO2 and the delayed biotic recovery from the end-Permian mass extinction." Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 252(1-2): 164-175.
Excessive CO2 in the Earth ocean-atmosphere system may have been a significant factor in causing the end-Permian mass extinction. CO2 injected into the atmosphere by the Siberian Traps has been postulated as a major factor leading to the end-Permian mass extinction by facilitating global warming, widespread ocean stratification, and development of anoxic, euxinic and CO2-rich deep waters. A broad incursion of this toxic deep water into the surface ocean may have caused this mass extinction. Although previous studies of the role of excessive CO2 have focused on these "bottom-up" effects emanating from the deep ocean, "top-down" effects of increasing atmosphere CO2 concentrations on ocean-surface waters and biota have not previously been explored. Passive diffusion of atmospheric CO2 into ocean-surface waters decreases the pH and CaCO3 saturation state of seawater, causing a physiological and biocalcification crisis for many marine invertebrates. While both "bottom-up" and "top-down" mechanisms may have contributed to the relatively short-term biotic devastation of the end-Permian mass extinction, such a "top-down" physiological and biocalcification crisis would have had long-term effects and might have contributed to the protracted 5- to 6-million-year-long delay in biotic recovery following this mass extinction. Earth's Modern marine biota may experience similar "top-down" CO2 stresses if anthropogenic input of atmosphere/ocean CO2 continues to rise.
------

Grady, M. M. and I. Wright (2006). "The carbon cycle on early Earth—and on Mars?" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361(1474): 1703-1713.
One of the goals of the present Martian exploration is to search for evidence of extinct (or even extant) life. This could be redefined as a search for carbon. The carbon cycle (or, more properly, cycles) on Earth is a complex interaction among three reservoirs: the atmosphere; the hydrosphere; and the lithosphere. Superimposed on this is the biosphere, and its presence influences the fixing and release of carbon in these reservoirs over different time-scales. The overall carbon balance is kept at equilibrium on the surface by a combination of tectonic processes (which bury carbon), volcanism (which releases it) and biology (which mediates it). In contrast to Earth, Mars presently has no active tectonic system; neither does it possess a significant biosphere. However, these observations might not necessarily have held in the past. By looking at how Earth's carbon cycles have changed with time, as both the Earth's tectonic

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:38 PM
Part 4
structure and a more sophisticated biology have evolved, and also by constructing a carbon cycle for Mars based on the carbon chemistry of Martian meteorites, we investigate whether or not there is evidence for a Martian biosphere.
----
Lunine, J. I. (2006). "Physical conditions on the early Earth." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361(1474): 1721-1731.
The formation of the Earth as a planet was a large stochastic process in which the rapid assembly of asteroidal-to-Mars-sized bodies was followed by a more extended period of growth through collisions of these objects, facilitated by the gravitational perturbations associated with Jupiter. The Earth's inventory of water and organic molecules may have come from diverse sources, not more than 10% roughly from comets, the rest from asteroidal precursors to chondritic bodies and possibly objects near Earth's orbit for which no representative class of meteorites exists today in laboratory collections. The final assembly of the Earth included a catastrophic impact with a Mars-sized body, ejecting mantle and crustal material to form the Moon, and also devolatilizing part of the Earth. A magma ocean and steam atmosphere (possibly with silica vapour) existed briefly in this period, but terrestrial surface waters were below the critical point within 100 million years after Earth's formation, and liquid water existed continuously on the surface within a few hundred million years. Organic material delivered by comets and asteroids would have survived, in part, this violent early period, but frequent impacts of remaining debris probably prevented the continuous habitability of the Earth for one to several hundred million years. Planetary analogues to or records of this early time when life began include Io (heat flow), Titan (organic chemistry) and Venus (remnant early granites).
-----
Raulin, F. (2007). "Why an astrobiological study of Titan will help us understand the origin of life." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 37(4-5): 345-349.
For understanding the origin(s) of life on Earth it is essential to search for and study extraterrestrial environments where some of the processes which participated in the emergence of Life on our planet are still occurring. This is one of the goals of astrobiology. In that frame, the study of extraterrestrial organic matter is essential and is certainly not of limited interest regarding prebiotic molecular evolution. Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn and the only planetary body with an atmosphere similar to that of the Earth is one of the places of prime interest for these astrobiological questions. It presents many analogies with the primitive Earth, and is a prebiotic-like laboratory at the planetary scale, where a complex organic chemistry in is currently going on.
----

Summers, D. P. (2005). "Ammonia formation by the reduction of nitrite/nitrate by FeS: Ammonia formation under acidic conditions." Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 35(4): 299-312.
One issue for the origin of life under a non-reducing atmosphere is the availability of the reduced nitrogen necessary for amino acids, nucleic acids, etc. One possible source of this nitrogen is the formation of ammonia from the reduction of nitrates and nitrites produced by the shock heating of the atmosphere and subsequent chemistry. Ferrous ions will reduce these species to ammonium, but not under acidic conditions. We wish to report results on the reduction of nitrite and nitrate by another source of iron (II), ferrous sulfide, FeS. FeS reduces nitrite to ammonia at lower pHs than the

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:39 PM
Part 5
corresponding reduction by aqueous Fe+2 stop. The reduction follows a first order decay, in nitrite concentration, with a half-life of about 150 min (room temperature, CO2, pH 6.25). The highest product yield of ammonia measured was 53%. Under CO2, the product yield decreases from pH 5.0 to pH 6.9. The increasing concentration of bicarbonate, at higher pH, interferes with the reaction. Comparing experiments under N-2 CO2 shows the interference of bicarbonate. The reaction proceeds well in the presence of such species as chloride, sulfate, and phosphate, though the yield drops significantly with phosphate. FeS also reduces nitrate and, unlike with Fe+2 stop, the reduction shows more reproducibility. Again, the product yield decreases with increasing pH, from 7% at pH 4.7 to 0% at pH 6.9. It appears that nitrate is much more sensitive to the presence of added species, perhaps not competing as well for binding sites on the FeS surface. This may be the cause of the lack of reproducibility of nitrate reduction by Fe+2 stop (which also can be sensitive to binding by certain species).
-----

Taniuchi, T., T. Hosogai, et al. (2009). "Amino Acid Precursors Formed in Upper and Lower Titan Atmosphere and Their Relevance to Origins of Life." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 39(3-4, Sp. Iss. SI): 367-368.
----

Tian, F., O. B. Toon, et al. (2005). "A hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere." Science (Washington D C) 308(5724): 1014-1010.
We show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth's atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen. mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought.
----
Daniel, I., P. Oger, et al. (2006). "Origins of life and biochemistry under high-pressure conditions." Chemical Society Reviews 35(10): 858-875.
Life on Earth can be traced back to as far as 3.8 billion years (Ga) ago. The catastrophic meteoritic bombardment ended between 4.2 and 3.9 Ga ago. Therefore, if life emerged, and we know it did, it must have emerged from nothingness in less than 400 million years. The most recent scenarios of Earth accretion predict some very unstable physico-chemical conditions at the surface of Earth, which, in such a short time period, would impede the emergence of life from a proto-biotic soup. A possible alternative would be that life originated in the depth of the proto-ocean of the Hadean Earth, under high hydrostatic pressure. The large body of water would filter harmful radiation and buffer physico-chemical variations, and therefore would provide a more stable radiation-free environment for pre-biotic chemistry. After a short introduction to Earth history, the current tutorial review presents biological and physico-chemical arguments in support of high-pressure origin for life on Earth.

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:39 PM
Part 6
Koch, A. L. and S. Silver (2005). The First Cell. Advances in Microbial Physiology. R. K. Poole: 227-259.
The First Cell arose in the previously pre-biotic world with the coming together of several entities that gave a single vesicle the unique chance to carry out three essential and quite different life processes. These were: (a) to copy informational macromolecules, (b) to carry out specific catalytic functions, and (c) to couple energy from the environment into usable chemical forms. These would foster subsequent cellular evolution and metabolism. Each of these three essential processes probably originated and was lost many times prior to The First Cell, but only when these three occurred together was life jump-started and Darwinian evolution of organisms began. The replication of informational molecules that made only occasional mistakes allowed evolution to form all the basic components of cellular life. Ribozymes, the first informational molecules, were also catalytic. Energy coupling required the formation of a closed lipid surface to generate and maintain an ion-motive gradient. The closed vesicle partitioned components and avoided dilution within the primordial sea. Closed membranes were essential for the first self-reproducing cell to arise and for its descendants to disperse. Subsequent cellular development after the origin of The First Cell led to the beginnings of intermediary metabolism and membrane transport processes. This long process, subject to strong evolutionary selection, developed the cellular biology that is now shared by all extant organisms.
----
Zhuravlev, Y. N. and V. A. Avetisov (2006). "The definition of life in the context of its origin." Biogeosciences 3(3): 281-291.
Current life is a complex, multi-level phenomenon that is so diverse in its manifestations that a short and exhaustive definition of life is hardly possible. The high complexity of life, as well as a poor understanding of what life is in essence, are the obstacles to the elaboration of such a definition. Important characteristics of life, such as whole system-, ecosystem-, and information-defined characteristics, have been included in the definition of life only recently. Ecosystem-defined characteristics have been absent in models of the pre-biotic state for a long time. However, without an ecosystem context, the concept of the emergence of life cannot be complete. Interconnections between living and non-living components of a primordial evolving system are decisive for the period of transition from chemical to biological evolution.Information-defined characteristics of life are often reduced to storage and the expression of genetic information, yet the operation of such perfect processes in prebiotic and transitional systems is unlikely. Genetic information, as defined in terms of the Shannon theory of communication, represents only a certain "informational channel" specified with respect to the expression of the structural genes. However, recent findings concerning the molecular mechanisms of the differential regulation of gene activity, and in the genomics, postgenomics and proteomics control mechanisms, suppose a richer diversity of informational flows in the organism. Moreover, considering life in a more general context, other types of related, informational channels, in particular, regarding the differentiation of higher taxa, hiatus, and expansion processes, should be kept in mind.In many publications devoted to the origin of life, the terms "living", "life", and "living organism" are freely interchanged which proves the vagueness of insights about the different levels of the living system.
---

These papers are a minute sample of the 6000+ scientific papers I have in my Endnotes database on the origin of life, conditions of the early Earth and atmosphere, and evolution.

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 12:40 PM
Part 7

If you stopped filling your mind with Pseudo-scientific apologetica, and opened your mind to the rich and amazing world of real science then you would forget your childish notions. The world is not what you want it to be, it is what it is. Once you start paying attention to reality things will become much clearer, and will fascinate you far more than some modern update of stone-age mysticism.

Loki
1st June 2010, 12:57 PM
I can't believe you referenced Behe, proven to be a liar and a sham in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District). You do yourself no credit relying on discredited charlatans. None of your ideas are original and all have been thouroughly debunked many times. Perhaps you are done here?


From wikipedia, though the full transcript from the trial is easily accessed on the web.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District), the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts) to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_examination), Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-45) During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-46) Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke had, in fact, shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years. This would happen even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p88-47)[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-Behe_testimony-48)

John E. Jones III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III), the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:


"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God)."[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p28-49)
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p28-49)
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) forces."[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p68-50)
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences) and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science)' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p70-51)
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p79-52)
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p71-53)
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p74-54)
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial) flagellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum); (2) the blood-clotting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood-clotting) cascade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_cascade); and (3) the immune system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system). Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p76-55)
"With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction) movies."[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cite_note-p81-56)

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 01:21 PM
Part 7

If you stopped filling your mind with Pseudo-scientific apologetica, and opened your mind to the rich and amazing world of real science then you would forget your childish notions. The world is not what you want it to be, it is what it is. Once you start paying attention to reality things will become much clearer, and will fascinate you far more than some modern update of stone-age mysticism.

how about starting to give a BETTER explanation for the origin of our universe, than God ? you have only two shots. A eternal universe, and a universe, that had a absolute beginning, and self created itself , by pure chance. So ?

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 01:23 PM
I can't believe you referenced Behe, proven to be a liar and a sham in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District). You do yourself no credit relying on discredited charlatans. None of your ideas are original and all have been thouroughly debunked many times. Perhaps you are done here?



How could i have been debunked, if i do give nothing more than a personal opinion about what seems to me to be the best explanation for the existence of our universe ?

So : what exactly has been debunked about what i presented here ?

atheist_angel
1st June 2010, 01:32 PM
pheeling filosophical? Are you serious? Did you know that what you're implying has been debunked by science already? Who says the 'subsystems' (:rolleyes:) provided no advantage at the time they came about? (see videos) Add: Also, why are you now arguing against evolution through natural selection? How can you believe in the 'big bang' and all that, and argue against evolution? {please treat these questions as if they were bolded red.}

2ybWucMx4W8 CZkPAanGXsci believe in micro-evolution, which is a fact. I do not believe in macro-evolution. The scientific discoveries do not support that theory , in my opinion.I didn't ask about that, I asked you why you were arguing against evolution through natural selection. To Repeat:why are you now arguing against evolution through natural selection? How can you believe in the 'big bang' and all that, and argue against evolution? And To Elaborate on the first question since I should have made my point clearer: What does this topic have to do with Your Opening Post where the issue was 'how did the earliest known moments of the universe come into motion?'

Your opening post stated......how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.Now you seem to be jumping all over the place, topic wise.

MOD NOTICE: You are coming across as being much more interested in 'insisting' that you are 'right' than exploring the issues. This is part of the reason you were placed on the Island.

I know you've put a lot of work into your library, and I know you're itching to use it, but this is not the place for that. Your references are full of christians saying "scientists say this" or "scientists say that" but they are just claims and you are providing nothing that came from the actual scientists themselves.

Look at it this way: If your religious beliefs are fact, then a proper discussion about science won't be a threat to your beliefs. False science is something that people push whenever they feel like scientific discoveries have become a threat to their beliefs. Making an assertion without providing citations, and referencing and repeating the same non-cited debunked claims will keep you on the Island and may get you banned soon as it is considered a form of anti-education. If you're interested in exploring the issues then start exploring them. No more copying and pasting regurgitated nonsense from the same debunked sources. If you are only interested in proselytising, there are other places you can do that. Surely you can talk about science without having to bring bible scholars into it. Bringing up the bible is not the objective way to go about science.

davo
1st June 2010, 01:45 PM
how about starting to give a BETTER explanation for the origin of our universe, than God ? you have only two shots. A eternal universe, and a universe, that had a absolute beginning, and self created itself , by pure chance. So ?

What about leprechauns?

They did it. See they live outside space and time and don't have to follow ANY rules, and they have a PLAN!

Yes for YOU! Just for YOU!

See they built everything just for YOU!

And they love you!!!

Seems like exactly the type of 'explanation' you are giving us.

davo
1st June 2010, 01:51 PM
Photographic evidence!!!

http://xenophilius.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/baby_bigfoot_280_547084a.jpg

This leprechaun is OBVIOUSLY giving us a message, one of peace and love!

He twiddles knobs that define the fact that the universe exists because out of the quantum foam all possibilities occur! We happen to be in the middle of that possibility!

An you are acting like the puddle looking at the world built just for him saying of course it must be designed.

sigh, silly billy *shakeshead*

Xeno
1st June 2010, 02:20 PM
Dear Tsid502,

What piffle you write. Your quoted discussion of the puddle analogy sails so wide of the point we need parsecs to measure the distance.

You offer us your unsupported personal opinion against facts then take umbrage that we do not accept it.

You quote in support of your nonsense a discredited charlatan (Behe) then ask how it is that you yourself are discredited.


If you argue for fine tuning, you are the puddle in the analogy. The first thing I notice about the puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. Quite so.

wearestardust
1st June 2010, 02:29 PM
Well Tsid, another five posts by you since this:


I note, Tsid, you still haven't answered this question:



It feels like I asked it a long time ago, but I see it is only four days ago. That said, by my rough count you've managed something like 90 posts (about 22 posts per day) in the meantime. Perhaps the question is rather harder than I had thought and is causing you some difficulties.

Let me put it another, more focused way.

Would you be comfortable being a passanger in a jet airliner piloted by a person who's familiarity with aircraft is limited to also having been a passenger and having seen some da Vinci drawings of flying machines?

There is a point to this and I really would like you to pay me the courtesy of an answer. It's a closed question so minimally can be answered with "yes" or "no".

and still not response. Is it really that hard? Are you really that rude?

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 02:34 PM
Are you really that rude?

Yes :)

davo
1st June 2010, 02:36 PM
Yes :)

But the leprechauns!!! They LOVE YOU!!!

wearestardust
1st June 2010, 02:41 PM
Yes :)
I thought so but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.;)

I'd still like an answer to my question:cool:

davo
1st June 2010, 03:01 PM
Tsid502

Blatantly being rude and agreeing to that rudeness.

You are on the board due to us being willing to engage. If you do not return that, you will end up being banned. cheers.

24hrs while we work out if it's even worth having you here any longer, just posting gibberish and not replying.

nettybetty
1st June 2010, 03:01 PM
Wow...I don't think I've come across anyone who references Behe, God of the Gaps, the second law of thermodynamics and the 'intelligence' of the DNA code all in one go. If you wish to play in the scientific field, you need to understand what science is and that when you say science supports your opinion, that you can cite the peer-reviewed literature that you claim supports your stance.

Behe is known for cherry picking other scientist's work - if he thinks ID is real he should get in a lab like everyone else and prove it. Instead he plagarises and twist's others work to suit his own needs, hardly the hallmark of a good scientist.

I don't disagree that people can have opinions, it's when they cite them as fact without any evidence that it's a problem. It's called an opinion for a reason.

Oh and in regards to DNA being a 'language' or a 'code' - that's an ID fallacy. DNA doesn't have some secret meaning, the outcome (ie. proteins) and protein behaviour is dictated by the structure. There isn't an arbitrary meaning hidden in the bases, and furthermore DNA doesn't adhere to Zipf's power law in regards to language. It's also highly redundant, mostly junk and prone to errors - hardly intelligent.

PS. There was mention of no other planets for life/low probability. I suggest you look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_Mission

Several planets, all within that narrow orbital window which would support life have already been found in March 2009, and the telescope isn't even focused on a large portion of the sky.

Ok that's my 2 c worth - I'm happy to see Tsid kicked for sheer ignorance to science and philosophy, stating science supports their opinion and then not providing any science to back it up and generally being circular.

Tsid502
1st June 2010, 03:10 PM
just posting gibberish

because of comments like this i don't care to be banned.

Actually, know what ?

thats my last post.

i'm done here !!

Psalm 14:1 :=)

atheist_angel
1st June 2010, 03:26 PM
Psalm 14:1 :=)
The fool says in his heart,
"The bible is a book of science."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does not troll.

wearestardust
1st June 2010, 03:29 PM
i'm done here !!



Except for coming back to edit to add a bit more.

davo
1st June 2010, 03:45 PM
because of comments like this i don't care to be banned.

Good, done.


Actually, know what ?

thats my last post.

That's ok, you were just posting crap over and over, stuff that was repetitively responded too, but didn't care. Christo-zombie. Enjoy your little cult of ignorance.


i'm done here !!

I pegged you right from the start ;) you ARE an idiot :)


Psalm 14:1 :=)

oh this one?

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

What about this one?

Matthew 5:22
Whoever Says "You Fool!" Shall Be in Danger of Hell Fire

Well interesting you post this, I'll just leave you with this shall I?

This shows the bible is false.

http://www.kiva.org/community

Kiva Atheists have donated : $2,065,475

Kiva Christians have donated : $1,254,725

There's 9636 atheists right there that put your bible verse to shame.

fool :)

fdVucvo-kDU

Darwinsbulldog
1st June 2010, 03:46 PM
how about starting to give a BETTER explanation for the origin of our universe, than God ? you have only two shots. A eternal universe, and a universe, that had a absolute beginning, and self created itself , by pure chance. So ?

Thank you for showing your willful ignorance in the face of being presented with some evidence. :rolleyes: Which you have appeared not to read, even the abstracts. Most of the papers I present were open access, and by the time you replied, you could not have found and read most of them.

Well done, enjoy Fantasy Island. :):)

wolty
1st June 2010, 04:23 PM
Tsid, you didn't come here to learn. You came here to shove your interpretation of fallacy in our faces. Even when this was pointed out to you (behe), you still went right on doing the same thing.

That is as far as I am concerned, willfull dishonesty on your part. You have been shown the error of your views countless times but still refuse to understand or even attempt to learn. Lying for god is never a good look. Especially when you throw it in our faces time and time again.

You can go right on living your lie, we don't care. We will care when you come to our home, our forum and sprout bullshit over and over again.
Bye.

Annie
1st June 2010, 04:34 PM
Yes. Bye. People here invested hours and hours of their time on this thread. Its a shame you didnt show your true colours in the early stages and save everyone's time. Your arrogance is amazing.

wearestardust
1st June 2010, 04:44 PM
Bye bye Mr Tsid.

Allow me to expand on the point of my question - theists are not the only ones who can play silly and annoying socratic games.

Of course you would not get on board a plane being piloted by someone who's experience of aircraft is also being a passenger, and who once saw a drawing of a da Vinci flying machine. One would have to be a complete jackass idiot to do so.

Yet, you seem to think that having been on planet earth, and having read some bronze-age writings, and read some similarly ignorant rantings based on the same experience and writings, qualifies you to talk with authority on cosmology. And ignore people who actually know what they are talking about.

You are a complete jackass idiot.

mayor of simpleton
1st June 2010, 06:50 PM
What a shame...

The ball flew over the fence... no more kickball! :(

Gee... I wanted to ask him a side question.

If he is so certain that all of his 'evidence' indicates that a 'creator - mono-theistic deity god' exists, how can he be sure that this god is his particular flavour of mono-theistic god?

What make him so sure that if there is a god, it has to be the christian biblical one? Why not another? All variations of mono-theistic supernatural gods would all be candidates to fill this position. How can he be so sure? :confused:

With one mono-theistic god being as absurd as the next, I find it vastly entertaining that each theist is so positive that their individual god is the only choosen one. :p

NO wonder they seem to be obcessed with fighting wars over 'who's god is the biggest'. Talk about your 'holy penis envy'! :eek:

Gee... and they accuse us (the godless) of being egotistical! :rolleyes:

I'm quite sure this will not be the last time we get to play 'kickball'.

I know they mean well, but let's face it...

"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum (attributed)

Until next time... :cool:

Meow!

GREG

riddlemethis
1st June 2010, 07:35 PM
Drat, I was so sure this would be the one who could fill me in on what the metric is that they use to determine so certainly the state of designedness of things, such that they can be so sure sexual reproduction and natural selection can't get the job done? Maybe the next one will have the answer I so crave?



Not!

Zen Badger
1st June 2010, 10:43 PM
Sorry, been away on the motorbikes for a few days.

Ok. Please show it.
Firstly the only evidence for your god is the bible. And that has been shown repeatedly to only be the words of men.

Secondly the god of abraham is repeatedly described as jealous, petty,
genocidal, intolerant, petulant, inept(re the great flood, that's like blowing up your house to control termites) spiteful and childish. In fact all the things we find repugnent in humans.
And this is congruent with a universe spanning entity?
Not fucken likely!


Why ? In what sense does timescale matter? If God is the creater of time, is the length or timescale eventually a problem for him ?
Because if he does span the universe, his thought process' will be
slower than continental drift.(speed of light limit)



Most people do. I do, too. If God exists, what i strongly believe, i want to know him. ;)
That's nice, but your god(yahweh) does not exist and is incompatible
with an ancient universe.

Jaar-Gilon
1st June 2010, 11:47 PM
What I enjoyed most about following the thread was getting to listen to XTC thanks Mayor :D

I do agree though it is a good way to keep mentally sharp.

I just haven't got it in me these days to write big explanatory posts a) because I've become such a lazy arse in my recent years, b)someone who purports to be open minded and a "truth" seeker (as if any one is a "false" seeker!) should've already heard or seen the arguments against the stuff he put up so he is either a liar or biased, there are actually quite a few well thought out theories regarding the start of the universe and all of them, even the ones that have been shown to be pretty unlikely, are better than adding a godmalogical constant!
Roger Penrose has the one I like the best so far, you can find it if you search youtube for Roger Penrose -Aeons before the big bang.
and c) It's a waste of time because he is not willing to admit to his bias, I am happy to admit I am biased against the bible just as I am biased against lets say the geocentric solar system model or Lamarckian evolution.

mayor of simpleton
2nd June 2010, 12:53 AM
What I enjoyed most about following the thread was getting to listen to XTC thanks Mayor :D

I do agree though it is a good way to keep mentally sharp.

I just haven't got it in me these days to write big explanatory posts a) because I've become such a lazy arse in my recent years, b)someone who purports to be open minded and a "truth" seeker (as if any one is a "false" seeker!) should've already heard or seen the arguments against the stuff he put up so he is either a liar or biased, there are actually quite a few well thought out theories regarding the start of the universe and all of them, even the ones that have been shown to be pretty unlikely, are better than adding a godmalogical constant!
Roger Penrose has the one I like the best so far, you can find it if you search youtube for Roger Penrose -Aeons before the big bang.
and c) It's a waste of time because he is not willing to admit to his bias, I am happy to admit I am biased against the bible just as I am biased against lets say the geocentric solar system model or Lamarckian evolution.

No problem. I'm glad to see that XTC has not gone forgotten.

Keeping mentally sharpe is a constant task. It may suprise many here, but I rarely read (listen too in my case) 'atheist literature'. I find that my thoughts become a bit too 'inbred'. I do take care that I challenge my position with opposing ideas. I do not wish to run the risk of 'Incest of Intellect'.

Right now, believe it or not, I am chatting in my other forum with the only openly Jewish member of that philosophy forum. We are not debating god so much. Just society in general. He finds proving gods exist to be a silly folly. He values his faith and does not need to trivialize it with fact. Funny how we actually get along without any strife. He is more a 'humanist' than a Jew... his words. I can respect that.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I seek more 'co-existence' with believers than out right war. I cannot believe with them, but I can respect them. Just my style. What is missing is that this respect goes in both directions, but there is hope!

Keep it real man! Keep searching and thinking. Nothing is better than thinking. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Jaar-Gilon
2nd June 2010, 01:37 AM
No problem. I'm glad to see that XTC has not gone forgotten.

Keeping mentally sharpe is a constant task. It may suprise many here, but I rarely read (listen too in my case) 'atheist literature'. I find that my thoughts become a bit too 'inbred'. I do take care that I challenge my position with opposing ideas. I do not wish to run the risk of 'Incest of Intellect'.

Right now, believe it or not, I am chatting in my other forum with the only openly Jewish member of that philosophy forum. We are not debating god so much. Just society in general. He finds proving gods exist to be a silly folly. He values his faith and does not need to trivialize it with fact. Funny how we actually get along without any strife. He is more a 'humanist' than a Jew... his words. I can respect that.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I seek more 'co-existence' with believers than out right war. I cannot believe with them, but I can respect them. Just my style. What is missing is that this respect goes in both directions, but there is hope!

Keep it real man! Keep searching and thinking. Nothing is better than thinking. ;)

Meow!

GREG
:) A couple of things I agree with Greg, I don't really read any atheist literature either. I actually find most of it a bit boring, I like reading science books and watching docos, particularly physics and geology.

I personally don't think you're wrong either about seeking co-existence, I think people are allowed to believe what they like. That doesn't mean that you can't point out where you think they may be in error.

He values his faith and does not need to trivialize it with fact.
This is a great position, and what was wrong about Tsid's approach. I don't have a problem when they admit that the extra step that Tsid was willing to take is faith. The difference, I think, with us is that although I like Penroses hypothesis (It is even probably testable) I don't at this point in time believe it's true and I certainly wouldn't base any values or decisions in my life on it that's for sure.

TÐöer
2nd June 2010, 04:11 PM
http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

You can add another few 0's to that, it doesn't matter. It happened. So what does the number have to do with anything? It's like a gambler who bets odds, for the 10th time thinking that the next role couldn't be wrong again, as the only possibility for that happening would be 1 in 1024 that you'd be wrong again.

Alas. The truth is, the possibility for each throw is still only 1/2.

Well, if you don't believe me, you should try betting on that principle.

Like wise, the odds that you mention, only applies, if we are refering to the creation of another world/universe/dimension, or whatever it is.

TÐöer
2nd June 2010, 04:17 PM
@Tsid502 too bad you're gone. You haven't even replied me, on your OP.


Your deduction is flawed.
You made alot of assumptions without realising it.


I've a better way of putting this. If nothing exist, then how can things come into existence.


The remainder is when you started writing your own script, and irrelevant to the previous deduction.

Perhaps the eternal something has no beginning, but how do you know it has no end? How do you know, it is something that has needs? How do you know it can meet this needs? How do you know it can do anything that needs to be done? How do you know it will always be superior than anything it produces?


How do you know, it is not a machine? Not programmed outside of itself? Surely, but pointless. How do you know it won't produce out of necessity? As you said earlier, there are no needs it cannot meet. which hints that it does have needs.

How do you know since it has no needs, it must have intention in producing something else?

If you don't know my previous question, how do you know it must have will, and it is personal?

How do you know if it is personal, it has to have reason to create?

And bonus question for hidden answer: How do you know that that reason is love for mankind?

:P I'm always late.

Praxis
2nd June 2010, 05:13 PM
:P I'm always late.
It's okay, the cleaners haven't gone home yet (that's us), but we'll be locking the door shortly so make sure you don't get locked in!

TÐöer
2nd June 2010, 05:15 PM
I'm done. Just wanted to get a few free shots before it was closed. :P

davo
2nd June 2010, 06:08 PM
It's okay, the cleaners haven't gone home yet (that's us), but we'll be locking the door shortly so make sure you don't get locked in!

Insane asylums are fun to visit, at first you try helping them, then you get frustrated at their wild eyed inability to grasp simple concepts and far fetched conspiracy theories .. then you just start looking for the door when they start throwing their own poo around.

wearestardust
2nd June 2010, 06:11 PM
Gee... I wanted to ask him a side question.

If he is so certain that all of his 'evidence' indicates that a 'creator - mono-theistic deity god' exists, how can he be sure that this god is his particular flavour of mono-theistic god?

etc

I am pretty sure this did get asked ... and ignored.

mayor of simpleton
2nd June 2010, 06:47 PM
You can add another few 0's to that, it doesn't matter. It happened. So what does the number have to do with anything? It's like a gambler who bets odds, for the 10th time thinking that the next role couldn't be wrong again, as the only possibility for that happening would be 1 in 1024 that you'd be wrong again.

Alas. The truth is, the possibility for each throw is still only 1/2.

Well, if you don't believe me, you should try betting on that principle.

Like wise, the odds that you mention, only applies, if we are refering to the creation of another world/universe/dimension, or whatever it is.

This is a bit of a stretch, but... this video clip can explain exactly what Tsid meant by adding more and more zeros to the 'equasion of god'.

Go to about 6:00 on the clip... Nick the bartender can shed so light on the motovations resulting in the ban of Tsid.

'Zeros' or 'Bells'... what's the difference.

HO! HO! NO!

pA_AgSDgXc8&feature=related

Meow! (and a merry christmas!)

GREG

000000000000.... hey, get me I'm givin' out wings!!! :D

mayor of simpleton
2nd June 2010, 06:55 PM
etc

I am pretty sure this did get asked ... and ignored.

This clip might explain his basic line of argumentation.

So much for the 'melody of nature'...

Tsid and his toy piano dictating reality. What a hoot! :D

hspNaoxzNbs

Meow!!!!!!!!!!!!

GREG

Xeno
2nd June 2010, 08:28 PM
Roll credits. Lights up.

Want to stop off for coffee on the way home? I know a nice little thread along the way, much nicer than one at the theatre...

:)

Jaar-Gilon
2nd June 2010, 08:33 PM
As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.
I musn't have read this properly the first time, I don't know why, it jumps straight of the screen.
I thought the main argument from Tsid was from nothing comes nothing. This seems to be a case of, in Tsid's words,
nothing x nothing = the most perfect almighty entity!?
Minds are made by brains and are therefore physical.

Loki
2nd June 2010, 10:10 PM
TSiD
He came, he saw, he pasted.
Alas, our time was wasted.

?

Annie
2nd June 2010, 10:18 PM
TS502, he caused much ado,
His posting was done with much haste,
Reading it seemed,
Was too hard we gleaned,
He could just copy and paste.

mayor of simpleton
2nd June 2010, 10:20 PM
I was suprised that Tsid never used my dyslexia to prove that god exists.

A dog exists.
MOS is dyslexic.

Therefore; god exists.

!woeM

GERG

mayor of simpleton
2nd June 2010, 10:30 PM
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

Ronald Knox reply to George Berkeley

Meow!

GREG

kencooke
2nd June 2010, 10:33 PM
If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

I propose option 4... The universe by definition contains everything that exists and has existed. Therefore it also contains its own cause.

davo
11th March 2011, 02:04 PM
Probably getting something to copy and paste elsewhere

Darwinsbulldog
11th March 2011, 02:50 PM
TS502, he caused much ado,
His posting was done with much haste,
Reading it seemed,
Was too hard we gleaned,
He could just copy and paste.
I think it is time to send Annie to the Island again! It's been a while! ;):p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p this time for bad poetry! :-)

sjd3
13th March 2011, 08:33 AM
Tsid502, if you're reading this, physicist know and can explain how the universe could of come from nothing, do some research for the flying teapot's sake and stop looking at creationist sites, and their stupid articles.

7ImvlS8PLIo