Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 30984 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #493 on: March 29, 2012, 06:07:23 AM »
Tero, rockv12 is afraid of looking at the evidence. Deep down, he knows that the evidence is not in favor of his god's existence.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #494 on: March 29, 2012, 06:48:37 AM »
I've known that from his first post. I just enjoy watching a presumably grown man act like a high schooler. Usually they have a list of baits from Answers in Genesis (bones in inner ear, wings, irreducibly complex organs) and they do not actually know any biology.

And his goal is to have the last word.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #495 on: March 29, 2012, 07:47:47 AM »
You can't start in the middle. 

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.

Yes, that was cut and pasted from my previous post.  Same situation.  Same response.  If you want different results, you need to do something different.

You can start in the middle.  In fact, when you start counting, you start in the middle.  0 is in the middle of - infinity and + infinity.[1]  When trying to make a vaccine we need not know absolutely everything about the virus or human physiology.  We just need to know how vaccines work. 

Do you know how to build a computer from the ground up?  I'm guessing you do not.  Yet you manage to post here.  You started not just in the middle, but near the end.

To prove something as "proven", as you say evolution is, means that ALL elements must be proven.

For the zillionth time, science does not PROVE things.  Science is a method for making a model of how things work.  Newton's law of gravity is a very good approximation, but it is only that.  Nobody here think evolution is proven.  Nobody here claims it is perfect.  But the only perso here who thinks it must be is you.  And that is because you do not understand what science is or what it is for.

This is the best method we have for understanding.  If you have a better idea, let's have it.

the problem is this:
1. You are ignorant.
2. You do not realize you are ignorant.  You think you know better.
3. You are unwilling to accept that you are ignorant and so hold on to your wrong ideas.

I would like you to respond to this^.

We have just one little, itty bitty problem (well many IMHO)....

IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 

Humble?  Please.

I can't teach world history by starting with the Middle Ages.

Actually, you can and it is often done.  Here is the course list for the Penn State history program:
http://php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/history/undergraduatePrograms/courseList.php
Quote
001. (GH) THE WESTERN HERITAGE I (3)
A survey of the Western heritage from the ancient Mediterranean world to the dawn of modern Europe .

002. (GH) THE WESTERN HERITAGE II (3)
A survey of the Western heritage from the dawn of modern Europe in the seventeenth century to the present.

003 (GH) THE AMERICAN NATION: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ( 3) American history from discovery to the present, focusing on both racial, ethnic, and religious differences and shared traditions and ideals.

 
012. (GH) HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA (3)
Chronological and topical survey, emphasizing immigration of diverse ethnic groups and religious, political, economic, and social developments, including industrialization and urbanization.

020. (GH) AMERICAN CIVILIZATION TO 1877 (3)
A historical survey of the American experience from its colonial beginnings through the Civil War and Reconstruction.

021. (GH) AMERICAN CIVILIZATION SINCE 1877 (3)
A historical survey of the American experience from the emergence of urban-industrial society in the late nineteenth century to the present.


100. (GH)(CAMS) ANCIENT GREECE (3)
Greek world from the earliest Aegean cultures to the death of Alexander the Great and the beginnings of Hellenistic civilization.

(GH)(CAMS) THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND EMPIRE (3)
History of the Roman Republic and Empire from the origins of Rome to the disintegration of the Empire.



107. (GH) (MEDVL) MEDIEVAL EUROPE (3)
Rise and development of the civilization of medieval Europe from the decline of Rome to 1500.

Hey, lookit that.  None of them start with the big bang.  And unless my eyes deceive me, course 107 is Medieval European History.  Aint that a bitch?  There are another 392 courses of history where they begin in the middle.

edit - added footnote 1
 1. in fact, you could say that about any number.  So, wherever you start counting, you are starting in the middle.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 10:35:47 AM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #496 on: March 29, 2012, 07:59:50 AM »
Again, and again, and again, with the arguments from incredulity.  The thing that rockv12 doesn't get is that pointing out so-called "gotchas" in evolution will do nothing to benefit his own argument.  First off, we'll eventually figure out the "gotchas" even if we can't answer them right now, and second, even if evolution were somehow discredited by these gap arguments, it wouldn't make his "God did it" argument more likely.  Because, to put it bluntly, that argument rests on his belief that the Bible is accurate, but it can easily be shown that the Bible is much more inaccurate than accurate.  I don't just mean the kind of gaps he likes to point to in evolution, I mean actual inconsistencies and contradictions within itself which can't be explained away, just excused.

I don't deny that there are things we don't know about evolution, but what we do know about it is internally consistent.  That's why we have a theory of evolution in the first place, because what we have fits together and explains things effectively.  We don't have to overlook contradictions or inconsistencies, like the fact that insects were stated as having four legs, or the sun standing still in the sky, or the Earth having corners, or any of the other things that the Bible gets wrong.  And yet, rockv12 still thinks that Biblical accuracy is a good justification for his belief system.  Let me put it this way; if his belief were an arch, and it depended on Biblical accuracy, the arch would never have held up to begin with.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #497 on: March 29, 2012, 08:46:53 AM »
Natural selection is NOT evolution. 
and more willful ignorance and evidence you again have no idea what evolutionary theory says.

Poor rockv, like so many Christian creationists, you have had to accept natural selection as a fact, something your predecessors would never do and they were "good Christians" just like you.  They would be sure that your acceptance of any science was unChristian and would consider you a heretic and going to hell.  Unfortunately for you, rockv, you are a classic example of the Christian who has resorted to the god of the gaps argument, still sure that some day your god will reveal itself.     
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #498 on: March 29, 2012, 08:56:52 AM »

You can start in the middle.  In fact, when you start counting, you start in the middle.  0 is in the middle of - infinity and + infinity.  When trying to make a vaccine we need not know absolutely everything about the virus or human physiology.  We just need to know how vaccines work. 


But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"  So I don't want to hear that anymore. 

You say science does not prove anything?  So, what does prove something?  How do you know evolution is proven?  I thought you used science? 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #499 on: March 29, 2012, 08:59:55 AM »
Natural selection is NOT evolution. 
and more willful ignorance and evidence you again have no idea what evolutionary theory says.

Poor rockv, like so many Christian creationists, you have had to accept natural selection as a fact, something your predecessors would never do and they were "good Christians" just like you.  They would be sure that your acceptance of any science was unChristian and would consider you a heretic and going to hell.  Unfortunately for you, rockv, you are a classic example of the Christian who has resorted to the god of the gaps argument, still sure that some day your god will reveal itself.     

And all I get back is, "Rockv12, what an idiot".  And no answer or rebuttal to tell me how I'm wrong.  Seems like everyone likes to call me an idiot, but offer no reason or rhyme to why I'm wrong.  What Christians in the past didn't see differences in species? 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #500 on: March 29, 2012, 09:03:39 AM »
Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation? 

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #501 on: March 29, 2012, 09:39:23 AM »
Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation?
I think you missed his point, actually.  Your whole argument, pretty much from your first post in this thread, has been that unless someone can provide a perfect answer to every question you might come up with about evolution, then evolution is a faith-based belief.  I suspect screwtape was throwing some of that back in your face with his analogy about how history is taught.  And he's right, to boot.  Your belief that you have to have a beginning and move forward with "proof" from there is based on the false answers given in the Bible, the ones made up by ignorant people who knew even less than you do about how the world really works.  But the fact is that we don't have to start from The Beginning and move forward, as you seem to think.  We can start from the present and move backwards.

And you know what the real irony is?  Only a made-up story has to start at the beginning to make sense.  If you're exploring something real, you can start anywhere and build from there.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #502 on: March 29, 2012, 09:39:28 AM »
And all I get back is, "Rockv12, what an idiot".  And no answer or rebuttal to tell me how I'm wrong.  Seems like everyone likes to call me an idiot, but offer no reason or rhyme to why I'm wrong.  What Christians in the past didn't see differences in species?

Because you have demonstrated that you are not interested in learning about anything you want to attack, and that you think that because you claim you haven't been shown all that you have asked for, no one will notice that this is a lie.  That is quite stupid, rockv.  Just because you try to close your eyes and claim something you don’t like isn’t there, doesn’t mean that is true at all.

Christians have, and still claim that there are no species, that there are only "kinds" and these kinds magically sprung from the ground.  They do not acknowledge that life has gone from simple forms to more complex forms.  I do find it amusing that even creationists can’t agree.  We have the AiG folks sure that their god did the “major structures” but want to accept natural selection.  Young earthers want to claim that the earth is only 6000 or so years old.  Old earth creationists want to go with a old earth since the evidence is overwhelming, but still want their god to have done “something”, anything from magically popping out animals or just giving a “soul” to the apes that where already here.  You can see the variety here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html  Theists can’t get their stories straight *again*. So much for thinking any of you have any “truth”.   

Now, to show you *again* that natural selection is indeed what underpins evolutionary theory, here we go: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
Quote
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
  And it goes into a very nice example in the link.  This is evolution 101, rockv.  So you need to read it. 
Here’s a slightly more difficult version: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
and this is the summary of that page:
Quote
Darwin's theory of evolution fundamentally changed the direction of future scientific thought, though it was built on a growing body of thought that began to question prior ideas about the natural world.
The core of Darwin's theory is natural selection, a process that occurs over successive generations and is defined as the differential reproduction of genotypes.
Natural selection requires heritable variation in a given trait, and differential survival and reproduction associated with possession of that trait.
Examples of natural selection are well-documented, both by observation and through the fossil record.
Selection acts on the frequency of traits, and can take the form of stabilizing, directional, or diversifying selection.
You have been repeatedly told this, that natural selection is one of the prime agents in evolutionary theory, the theory that biological entities can diversify  , e.g. “change” because of how the environment they exist in selects for certain attributes. These attributes can come from mutations.  The best adapted entities pass along those beneficial traits to their offspring and this can result in two differing populations that can take advantage of differing environments.  If the difference is enough, they can be so different that they can no longer interbreed.   

Now, many creationists have done their best to try to change the definition of evolutionary theory so they can lie and claim it doesn’t work, by trying to split off natural selection from the term.  They do this because they know that natural selection has become too obvious for even them to ignore.  Even the liars at AiG know it is observable.  They try so pitifully to claim that there wasn’t enough “time” for this to have lead to the changes we see today and they claim that they know there wasn’t enough time because the bible said so. However, they cannot provide any evidence that there was only 6000 years for it to occur.  They ignore the problems with geology, with radioactive decay, etc. They claim that “We mentioned earlier that natural selection tends to delete information from the population.”  They of course don’t show any evidence this is the case.  Unfortunately for them, actual biologists can show that they are liars.  We can see new abilities come up in populations by natural selection.  Feathers are one main example, a change in scales so we have feathers which are insulating, which may have been appealing as displays, etc; so is the return of land mammals back to the sea, no information lost there and indeed no new information needed as the creationists at AiG would claim, just repurposing of the information already there. The mistakes that AiG and other creationists make is from their willful ignorance.  If you don’t know what you are attacking, then you make mistakes and reality takes its toll on your believability.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2202
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #503 on: March 29, 2012, 09:52:30 AM »
  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation?

It does have a foundation.

Simpler organisms become more complex, over eons of generations, due to environmental pressures and genetic mutation. With more complexity comes more diversity.

You've been shown this repeatedly, but refuse to believe it, arguing from incredulity. It is the truth, whether you believe it or not. The truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings, nor mine.

I'll ask again; why do you suspect all these scientists are intentionally lying? Why do you suspect that all these scientists are out to disprove your god? To what end?

Why?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #504 on: March 29, 2012, 09:56:04 AM »
And his goal is to have the last word.

And it eats away at his ego that he won't have it.

But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"  So I don't want to hear that anymore.

So that means from now on you're going to quit posting about your silly deity? Because that's the only way you'll never get that question.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #505 on: March 29, 2012, 10:50:40 AM »
But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"

"we live by eating bread."
"where does the bread come from?"
"a baker"
"where did the baker come from?"
"That's a silly question.  I don't want to hear it anymore."

Why is it a silly question?  Because you cannot answer it?  Or is there another reason?


You say science does not prove anything?  So, what does prove something?

Nothing.  Proofs are for math & geometry.  Do you know what geometry is?  Have you heard of it in whatever bumfuck backwater you come from?  They are abstractions, ideas.  Science is empirical.  That means, you must make observations.  Geometry is not empirical because you will never observe a true circle or square.  Nothing actually exists that meets the equation x2+y2= 4 except as an abstract idea.

That is why proofs are meaningless outside of math.


How do you know evolution is proven?

It is not proven.  It is the best explanation we have, the best way to describe reality.  If a better one comes along, we use that one. 

Are you hamfistedly trying to say "I want evidence to convince me"?  If so, then you have to let go of the stupid, anti-science beliefs you currently have. You have to be willing to admit you could be wrong.  You have to be willing to change your mind.  I have found no evidence of that willingness.

I thought you used science?

Yes.  And you seem to still not updated your understanding of what science is.

I asked you specific questions in my last post.  You have not answered them.  Please do.


Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation? 

One link.  You said you cannot start in the middle, cannot teach medieval history.  I showed you were wrong on both counts.  And if I missed your point, then understand that your communication skills suck as hard as your comprehension skills.

What foundation do you think evolution needs?  What does it lack?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #506 on: March 29, 2012, 10:56:09 AM »
rock,

You have a bad habit of responding only to the most irrelevant and tangential points I made.  There are two points below to which I would like you to respond.

This
the problem is this:
1. You are ignorant.
2. You do not realize you are ignorant.  You think you know better.
3. You are unwilling to accept that you are ignorant and so hold on to your wrong ideas.


And this
IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #507 on: March 29, 2012, 10:59:02 AM »
rockv12, why are you so scared of looking at the evidence?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #508 on: March 29, 2012, 04:14:51 PM »
rockv12, why are you so scared of looking at the evidence?
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #509 on: March 29, 2012, 04:16:54 PM »
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?

Try every piece of information that was posted in this thread for starters. Which you dismissed. If you really cared about being right, you'd look at the evidence.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #510 on: March 29, 2012, 04:21:00 PM »

And this
IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 

I'm ignorant?  And nobody can answer MY questions? 

And there aren't smart scientists who believe in Creation or question evolution?  They have overlooked plenty.  If your mind is made up that there is NO God whatsoever, then, of course, the only thing would be evolution at this point to explain our existence.  That's a "good" guess, I suppose.  BUT why not even think of the possibility that there is a God or a designer?  Since we can't prove evolution or prove the Big Bang, then there is a lot of unanswered questions, isn't there?  So where is the proof of NO God...absolute proof? 

You see in one sentence you'll say, "Your delusional to believe in something that you can't see or explain."  And in the other sentence say, "We don't know how the Big Bang happened or how exactly the first life form emerged, but it HAS to have happened."  So don't call someone delusional or ignorant when you yourself have the EXACT same faith in believing in the unknown. 

I take that unknown and use a bit more reason than "science has to explain everything or else I don't believe it"!  Design equals a designer...that's the reason. 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #511 on: March 29, 2012, 04:22:26 PM »
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?

Try every piece of information that was posted in this thread for starters. Which you dismissed. If you really cared about being right, you'd look at the evidence.

The little articles that try to explain how the wing evolved, etc?  I refuted that evidence pretty well, why don't you look at MY evidence....the evidence within your very body?   Again, if you had one piece of evidence for me to look at to prove evolution, what would it be?  One.  There's got to be a good one.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #512 on: March 29, 2012, 04:24:01 PM »
I refuted that evidence pretty well

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #513 on: March 29, 2012, 04:30:14 PM »
I'm ignorant?

Yes.

And nobody can answer MY questions?

This belief that your questions have not been answered is not supported by the evidence.

And there aren't smart scientists who believe in Creation or question evolution?  They have overlooked plenty.

Well, they have to if they're going to believe such drek as creationism.

"We don't know how the Big Bang happened or how exactly the first life form emerged, but it HAS to the evidence we have shows us how it might have happened."

I've corrected your sentence in the bolded part. You're welcome.

Design equals a designer...

And the fact that you are unable to point out any design in nature equals no designer.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 04:43:36 PM by caveat_imperator »
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #514 on: March 29, 2012, 04:39:09 PM »
The little articles that try to explain how the wing evolved, etc?  I refuted that evidence pretty well, why don't you look at MY evidence....the evidence within your very body?   Again, if you had one piece of evidence for me to look at to prove evolution, what would it be?  One.  There's got to be a good one.
You didn't actually refute a single thing, but you did do a whole lot of dismissing without cause (by asking more loaded questions, go figure).  You've showed, and showed, and showed that you're too ignorant about the subject to be able to consider it rationally.  This is the rough equivalent of someone who's never taken English class considering themselves qualified to correct someone's grammar.

Let me emphasize this.  You are less qualified to refute evolution than I am to work as an automobile mechanic, because I'm at least willing to admit that I don't know how to fix cars and thus can be taught how to.  You aren't even willing to admit that you're practically clueless about evolution when it's blatantly obvious to everyone else in the thread that you haven't even tried to learn what evolution actually is.

I fully expect you to ignore this, but I want to reiterate something screwtape said earlier.  Namely, evolution and God-belief aren't mutually exclusive.  There are lots of Christians who accept evolution as reality, because they're sensible enough to realize that the god they believe in could have worked through evolution rather than snapping his fingers to magically poof everything that ever lived into existence.  Religion doesn't determine reality, reality determines religion.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #515 on: March 29, 2012, 04:56:28 PM »
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #516 on: March 29, 2012, 05:11:08 PM »
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.

Do I need to?  If you can't see design in this world or living things then it's useless.  What would evidence for a designer look like to you?  It would look like a design to me.  Gee, where's a design?  Oh, my hands/fingers typing on the keyboard.  Design!  Oh, my eyes placed a few inches apart in front of my face to look forward at this screen.  Design!  Oh, my ears to capture sound and filter it into my tympanic membrane and amplify sound and transfer it to the cochlea where it transfers it into electronic signals to travel to the brain for interpretation!!! Wow...Design!!!

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #517 on: March 29, 2012, 05:12:29 PM »
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.

Do I need to?

Yes.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #518 on: March 29, 2012, 05:17:45 PM »
I've been looking at this world in microscopic detail for 30 years, for pay. It's pretty cool as far as details go. Look up keratin, you have lots of it.

The molecular level is where the answers will be, including the first life.

I have not found a designer yet. Order, yes. Matter works that way.

Rock, What do you do for a living?

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #519 on: March 29, 2012, 05:23:19 PM »

You didn't actually refute a single thing, but you did do a whole lot of dismissing without cause (by asking more loaded questions, go figure).  You've showed, and showed, and showed that you're too ignorant about the subject to be able to consider it rationally.  This is the rough equivalent of someone who's never taken English class considering themselves qualified to correct someone's grammar.


Dismissing absurdities?  Far-fetched theories of animals gliding off cliffs with wide arms?  Dismissing silly notions that a light-sensing cell aided anything to any degree?  Dismissed bizarre comparisons of hummingbirds evolving because of....oh, there was no answer to that one.  Too ignorant?  I love that excuse.  I'm simply pointing out flaws and exaggerations in the theory that everybody seems to ignore because there are NO answers to them..  It's easier to see evolution as simple and easy, but really think about how and why things would progress they way they have.  Order does not come from disorder.  That's a fact. 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #520 on: March 29, 2012, 05:24:51 PM »
Rock, What do you do for a living?

I'm a garbage man.  No, I have a Masters of Science degree in Speech-Language Pathology and I work in the medical field.   If you must know.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #521 on: March 29, 2012, 05:25:49 PM »
Dismissing absurdities? 

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me