Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 29197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #551 on: March 29, 2012, 09:01:12 PM »

As was asked, what would something not designed look like? If you can't answer that then how would you know it was designed or not?


No design?  How about a 1,000 piece puzzle dumped onto the floor?  Next to a completed puzzle.  Which would you say is designed? 

As in the natural world, nothing looks like a dumped out puzzle on the floor, now does it?

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #552 on: March 29, 2012, 09:02:28 PM »
Alright, what's going on in here?  Who is this rocky character stirring up trouble?  Do I need to break out my Berkeley link?

Stirring up trouble?  lol.  I guess.  What's the Berkeley link?  I don't know whose doing the immature, name calling, but it ain't me!!

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6365
  • Darwins +748/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #553 on: March 29, 2012, 09:05:32 PM »
My dear rockyv12

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

As one theist once said (and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't find it via Google). "For order to increase on this planet to drive evolution, there would have to be an external energy source."

At least you're not alone. He couldn't envision such a thing either. He was probably a vampire or something.

Edit: Added kind salutation to clarify who the f**k I was talking too.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 09:10:31 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1797
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #554 on: March 29, 2012, 09:08:03 PM »


I know nobody is claiming that.  They were claiming that a snowflake comes from disorder, therefore, I am incorrect.  I am speaking of purposeful order, not shapes being formed in order.  Gravity can pull things onto the ground, thus they are in the same plain (orderly).  But something was made and manufactures the snowflake that is orderly....science.  Snowflakes didn't exist before all the elements were lined up properly to form them...It is NOT random.  So, no, I will not admit I'm wrong, cuz I'm not.

Please explain exactly what you mean by the bolded section. All that is required for snowflakes to form is the right combination of water droplets, water vapor and temperature. These are not rare conditions and they are easily simulated and known to exist in nature.

Quote
Now back to the point of order I was making.  Ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? 

What would cause life to spring up from elements floating around?  There is no natural selection/survival of the fittest with random particles floating around.  It falls to chance.  And purpose.  Now this is where you can't start in the middle with evolution.  You MUST first explain the foundation of things to begin to PROVE evolution as being true.

Merely repeating this does not make it true. Evolution is independent of the origin of life. Evidence has been shown to you on this thread of the existence of evolution. What explanation do you have, backed up with evidence, that would prevent evolution from occurring if life were deliberately created? 

Quote
Where did the things come from for the Big Bang?  Who knows?  They've always existed.  The same could be same for God.  We can't fathom such a thing.  Does it mean it's impossible?  No.  All it means is that we can't fathom it.  So why is belief in something that we can't explain irrational?  We ALL do it.  You do it...I do it.  So don't call me an idiot for believing in God, when you believe in the same type of unknown thing.

You're being called ignorant because you believe without evidence. The full details of the origin of the universe, of life and the course of evolution are not known, nor likely will be for some time (if ever). Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.

Yet you believe in this creator without evidence. That I call ignorant. Even foolish.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #555 on: March 29, 2012, 09:14:43 PM »

You're being called ignorant because you believe without evidence. The full details of the origin of the universe, of life and the course of evolution are not known, nor likely will be for some time (if ever). Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.

Yet you believe in this creator without evidence. That I call ignorant. Even foolish.

Good, you agree that we just simply don't know.  But we believe!  You believe!  I believe!  We're believers!

I don't believe without evidence.  I've tried to explain how this notion of blind faith is NOT true.  Just because someone comes up to you and says, "Jesus died for your sins, believe in Him!", doesn't mean it's a good idea to just go, "Gee ok, that sounds great!".  I'd expect someone to have a bit more judgement than that. 

Evidence is everywhere!  I've said and shown that, but nobody wants to realize that creation is evidence.  That's the whole point!  It's simply too complicated and perfect to be chance.  And yes, chance.  Our planet landing where it did with the perfect elements to sustain life, is luck!  From an explosion?  Yes, luck. 

More evidence, again and again if I must, come from the Bible, prophecy, and the life and death of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.  Without the resurrection, the entire Bible is false.  Have you proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus didn't die and rise again?  If you have and concluded that it didn't happen, please share.  But again, it's NOT blind faith.  Look around you.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #556 on: March 29, 2012, 09:25:13 PM »
Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."
Back up the evidence of design in the world?  I have to DO that?  What haven't I said?  Design is everywhere around us!!  You want an example?  The penis and the vagina.  There.  There's a great design!  The anus.  There's a great design.  Nice sphincter action right on our behind for us to squat.....happens really easily.  What if the anus was in front or on top?  It wouldn't work so nicely, would it?  What if the penis didn't get erect?  It wouldn't work so well, would it?  Anymore examples?
You really aren't good at paying attention, are you?  First off, you cannot just point to something and say, "see, design!"  Which is what you're doing here, again.  You point to the penis and vagina (reproductive system) and the anus (elimination system) as examples of design.  Never mind the fact that you're yet again pointing to the obvious and pretending it's evidence of design[1], you're also making elementary mistakes.  For example, if the penis is designed for reproduction, why then it is also used for elimination?  This makes sense if you consider that the two systems evolved in tandem, but much less so if you assume someone designed it.  It would make far more sense from a design perspective to have the ureter/urethra in back, near the anus, for ease of eliminating waste, and not intermixed with the the reproductive organs.  You would also not have to have a mechanism to scour urine from the ureter so that the sperm can survive the trip.

This literally only scratches the surface of just how bad the design argument is.  Why not keep the testicles inside the body, where they're protected (and incidentally, so that the male doesn't risk incapacitation if they're injured?  Why have women go through a monthly fertility cycle in order to get pregnant?  Why do women have thousands of ova when at most, they're looking at a few hundred fertility cycles if they never give birth?  Seriously, I cannot see how this can be called a design (since the compromises are things you would expect from a system that evolved naturally, rather than one designed), let alone a perfect one.
 1. Seriously, the fact that there are males and females is design?  The fact that the anus contracts to expel waste is design?  You must do much better than this if you want to show real design.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #557 on: March 29, 2012, 09:26:09 PM »
Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.


Explanations are everywhere, it doesn't make them true.  So evolution IS a theory?  I never said it wasn't a good explanation if, indeed, a God was out of the question.  But why is a God out of the question?  You said yourself, we don't know or may never know.  Well, there you have it.  You left the impossible up to being possibly possible. 

I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain?  You admitted it, it's there, the unknown and unexplainable.  Therefore, we could call that unexplainable God.  The fact is we don't know!  That's my point!  And why not use God as that unknown?  We have many more things other than this to point to a God.... The Bible.   Maybe we should be talking about the "other" proof that I claim exists. 

I can see your point.  You're not dumb or stupid.  Nobody here is.  You're very smart and make some good points.  I think we all do.  That's why I like talking to athiests/evolutionists.  They are typically very smart people.  So thanks for the comments and questions, but lets keep it adult and mature. 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #558 on: March 29, 2012, 09:29:17 PM »

You really aren't good at paying attention, are you?  First off, you cannot just point to something and say, "see, design!"  Which is what you're doing here, again.  You point to the penis and vagina (reproductive system) and the anus (elimination system) as examples of design.  Never mind the fact that you're yet again pointing to the obvious and pretending it's evidence of design[1], you're also making elementary mistakes.  For example, if the penis is designed for reproduction, why then it is also used for elimination?  This makes sense if you consider that the two systems evolved in tandem, but much less so if you assume someone designed it.  It would make far more sense from a design perspective to have the ureter/urethra in back, near the anus, for ease of eliminating waste, and not intermixed with the the reproductive organs.  You would also not have to have a mechanism to scour urine from the ureter so that the sperm can survive the trip.

This literally only scratches the surface of just how bad the design argument is.  Why not keep the testicles inside the body, where they're protected (and incidentally, so that the male doesn't risk incapacitation if they're injured?  Why have women go through a monthly fertility cycle in order to get pregnant?  Why do women have thousands of ova when at most, they're looking at a few hundred fertility cycles if they never give birth?  Seriously, I cannot see how this can be called a design (since the compromises are things you would expect from a system that evolved naturally, rather than one designed), let alone a perfect one.
 1. Seriously, the fact that there are males and females is design?  The fact that the anus contracts to expel waste is design?  You must do much better than this if you want to show real design.

If you can't call that a design, I don't know what you would call a design?  Can you show a design example for me that pleases you?

Are you an expert on the topic?  Can you show how, scientifically, the testicles would be better suited deep inside?  You point it out as a fairly good point, I might add, but don't go far enough to prove that it is wayyyy better the other way around.  But with your point, it fails to prove that the prior is a bad design, or even a non-design.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #559 on: March 29, 2012, 09:33:09 PM »
rockv12,

Where is the designer of all that you claim is designed?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #560 on: March 29, 2012, 09:38:52 PM »
Quote
I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why. 
Good one. Let's see the math.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #561 on: March 29, 2012, 09:38:56 PM »
Stirring up trouble?  lol.  I guess.  What's the Berkeley link?  I don't know whose doing the immature, name calling, but it ain't me!!

I think I've said it a thousand times.  When you don't understand the theory of evolution, you have no right to use that ignorance to try to refute it.  You must first demonstrate a clear understanding of the theory, and then you are free to disagree and argue against it.  It is extremely clear that you have not taken the time to demonstrate a clear understanding of exactly what the theory states, and the mechanisms by which it is accomplished.

I know you won't spend much time on it, but here is the Berkeley link:  Evolution 101

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #562 on: March 29, 2012, 09:42:55 PM »
<snip>
Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain? 
<snip>

At what point does it become astronomically possible to form the god as you believe it? Since we dont resort to special pleading, return the courtesy.

Again, at what point does it become astronomically possible to form the god as mentioned in the Bible?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #563 on: March 29, 2012, 09:46:58 PM »
I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain?  You admitted it, it's there, the unknown and unexplainable.  Therefore, we could call that unexplainable God.  The fact is we don't know!  That's my point!  And why not use God as that unknown?  We have many more things other than this to point to a God.... The Bible.   Maybe we should be talking about the "other" proof that I claim exists.
I'll bet you don't really understand probability either.  Let me clue you in on something, rockv...if the odds are indeed astronomical as you claim, it's a good thing there's lots of places for life to have come about.  Billions of planets, just in this galaxy alone (given that there are hundreds of billions of stars, there are probably a lot more than a few billion planets, but I digress).  When you have billions of chances for life to come about just in one galaxy, then it hardly matters if the odds are "astronomical", because it's a statistical certainty that life will come about on at least some of those billions of planets.

Also, I need to clarify; the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion.  We aren't talking about a firework or a bomb here, not even a really big one, we're talking about something more akin to the sudden inflation of a balloon, filled with energy, which condensed into matter as time passed.  And also, the omnipresence of everything?  Are you kidding?  You do know that most of the universe is essentially empty, right?  For all that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there, there is so much empty space that the galaxies are like needles in a haystack, just easier to find.

And finally, you cannot simply suggest whatever idea sounds good to you if you want people to believe it.  You've already admitted that the only real evidence you have of God is the hearsay evidence in the Bible; the rest is based on the whim and fancy of your emotional investment in your religious belief, not on anything tangible and solid that you or anyone can actually prove.

If you can't call that a design, I don't know what you would call a design?  Can you show a design example for me that pleases you?
I already did.  Keyboards, monitors, mouses, speakers, computers themselves.  They're all designed for specific purposes, and it can be clearly demonstrated what those purposes are and that someone did design them.  Yet the best you can do is to point out things like the fact that the penis and vagina fit together as evidence of design.

Quote from: rockv12
Are you an expert on the topic?  Can you show how, scientifically, the testicles would be better suited deep inside?  You point it out as a fairly good point, I might add, but don't go far enough to prove that it is wayyyy better the other way around.  But with your point, it fails to prove that the prior is a bad design, or even a non-design.
The part that you are missing is that you have to show that it is a design first.  And you can't do that, or else you would have already.  The most you can really do is ask obtuse questions that display your ignorance of the subjects in question, and (essentially) say, "see, design!  They fit!  That's design!"

I understand that you're credulous when it comes to seeing design in things.  But I require a bit more in the way of proof than your assertion that it was designed because the design seems obvious to you.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2023
  • Darwins +203/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #564 on: March 29, 2012, 10:03:46 PM »
Explanations are everywhere, it doesn't make them true.  So evolution IS a theory?  I never said it wasn't a good explanation if, indeed, a God was out of the question.  But why is a God out of the question?  You said yourself, we don't know or may never know.  Well, there you have it.  You left the impossible up to being possibly possible. 

Yes, but behaving as if the one specific God that you've been culturally indoctrinated to believe in is the actual 'One-true-only-super-special God' and that every single other person in the world that believes in any of the other thousands and thousands of gods... is fucking ridiculous.

A god is not out of the question for most of us.  The problem isn't that.  The moment you start giving that god any sort of attributes, then you have to defend each and every piece against harsh scrutiny. 

I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity. 

What evidence?  Your lack of understanding as to how it could have come about any other way?  That's not very good.  Do you know that's the same argument that ancient people made when they saw lightning streak across the sky?  They thought lightning was evidence of a deity as well.  You can almost hear them saying, "I don't know any other way to explain that white flashy thing, so it must be god."  Was that right?  Or were they just so scientifically illiterate that they didn't know any better?  Did you ever stop to think that your dogged insistence that the universe is too perfect to have appeared without the intervention of a deity is EXACTLY the same type of scientific ignorance that leads to thinking that lightning is too difficult to understand without the intervention of a deity? 

Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.

See what I mean?   The sum total of your argument is... "I don't understand how it could have come from natural causes so a god must have been involved."  That argument was wrong for lightning, diseases, earthquakes, and just about every other thing that we understand about the universe.  And I mean everything.  Where you stand right now in your argument against evolution is exactly where people stood with lightning right up until Ben Franklin figured that shit out.  Now, it's just stupid to say lightning comes from a god.  In the future, the same will be said about all life.  It will be stupid to say it had to come from god. 

And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain?

Those are 2 very, very different things.  Saying there is something about the universe that we don't understand is something a lot of us would agree with.  But to say it was the Christian God?  No, you have to prove that.  Creation is not timestamped by the Christian God.  There is no 'Yahweh was here' on anything.  ANY god could have created it all.  Including none at all.

You admitted it, it's there, the unknown and unexplainable. 

Partial credit.  There is unknown and unexplained... but it remains to be seen whether or not there is unknowable and unexplainable

Therefore, we could call that unexplainable God. 

Or we could call it parfugahargin.  It really doesn't matter. 

The fact is we don't know!  That's my point!

You believe in God, don't you?  Are you saying now that you don't know if God is true?  Why would you ever live your life as if it were? 

We have many more things other than this to point to a God.... The Bible. 

The bible is a poor substitute for evidence.  Its a book with words and claims, just like all the other religious books in the world.  Claiming that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, with the razor thin (the bible is all you've got) evidence we have is totally ridiculous.  Just ask yourself this simple question.  If you read the story of a man being tortured to death and then rising from the dead 3 days later in ANY other book, what would you think of it?  Wouldn't your brain immediately tell you that it's fiction?  Of course it would.  The only reason you don't think it's fiction for the bible is because people you trust and that have indoctrinated you to think it, have all said that the bible is true.  Guess what? Those people aren't perfect!  They don't know everything.  They really could be wrong about it. 

Maybe we should be talking about the "other" proof that I claim exists. 

We've heard everything you are going to say rockv.  I can almost guarantee you that.  It's all crap, and deep down inside, I think you know it.  Or maybe even worse... deep down inside, you're scared to admit that your proof is horribly lacking. 

I can see your point.  You're not dumb or stupid.  Nobody here is.  You're very smart and make some good points.  I think we all do.  That's why I like talking to athiests/evolutionists.  They are typically very smart people.  So thanks for the comments and questions, but lets keep it adult and mature.

If you really mean this, then please understand that we aren't out to get you with the theory of evolution.  We accept it, not because of the fact that it removes God from the equation, but because it's one of the most well supported theories in all of science and for the most part we understand how it works.  I firmly believe that you too could understand it, but you just aren't willing to let go of the idea that you could be wrong.  This is the problem with your world view.  Let go of it for just a moment and open your mind to the possibility of being wrong and the flood gates will open.  You're human.  You really could have lived your entire life thus far believing something that wasn't true.  And think of it this way... there are lots and lots of old people who are atheists and lots and lots of old people who are Christians.  ONE set of people has been wrong for a really long time.  It really could be you that's wrong, right?
 
Evolution doesn't have to be true in order to say god isn't real.  Atheists existed long before that theory came along. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2191
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #565 on: March 29, 2012, 11:29:33 PM »
As said above, you want to claim that w"don't k.ow". Fair enough. But....you wanna insert YOUR god into the equation, even though there is no evidence, no proof, that your god exists, much less interacts with us. Tell me, with a straight face, that the above hypothesis makes more sense than what we're  telling you. And....go.

While not impossible, it is highly unlikely.

Wanna know why? Because EVERYTHING science has EVER discovered has had a perfectly natural explanation. Everything.

Prove me wrong. Name just ONE thing that we, as a species, simply cannot attribute to the natural, and MUST go to the supernatural for an explanation. Just one.

There are none. Know why?

As a point, I'd REALLY like to know your understanding of why you dismissed my last set of questions....theyre not that deep. They're simple. Answer please.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #566 on: March 30, 2012, 02:39:27 AM »

well obviously you are forgetting the clever design of the pointy end of turd.
Like everything you've mentioned it was designed.
It stops your anus from violently clacking shut after each defecation.


My pointy head...thanks.  Good one.  We need a little 3rd grade humor once in a while in here.

So you agree that the anus appears to be a good design?  Can you explain the evolution behind it to me?


rock I've watched the pages of effort the forum has put in to educate you.

Your deliberate refusal to "get it" is one of the more sustained and blatant intellectual dishonesties I've ever witnessed here.

I would not waste my time on attempting to educate a rock.


The 3rd grade humour was " intelligently designed" to be at a level you could "get".

Did you get it you get?

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #567 on: March 30, 2012, 03:54:29 AM »
Evidence is everywhere!  I've said and shown that, but nobody wants to realize that creation is evidence.  That's the whole point! 

Okay rockv, I agree with you.  Creation IS evidence of Osiris.  I'm convinced.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #568 on: March 30, 2012, 06:24:58 AM »
I've thought about this overnight, and I decided that feelings must be specially created for man. Only man has deep feelings for things. Dogs and cats have just been bred for behavior that makes it looks like they feel for us. They are just using us to get free room and board.

[/sarcasm]

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #569 on: March 30, 2012, 07:17:52 AM »
If only Kymer hadn't been banned. He could have shown us how to reach out to rockv12.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #570 on: March 30, 2012, 07:32:29 AM »
I'm ignorant?  And nobody can answer MY questions? 

Yes, you are ignorant.  And arrogant.  Your questions - those that are not completely meaningless - have been answered.

And there aren't smart scientists who believe in Creation or question evolution?

I am sure there are.  but none of them are evolutionary biologists.  They creationist scientists that I am aware of or have been offered by xians tend to work in fields far from biology.

They have overlooked plenty.

This goes back to my point on your arrogance.  You, Sunny Jim, are not going to blow up the theory of evolution with just a cursory glance.  You haven't got it in you.  The smartest people on the planet have been working on this for 150 years.  You, rock, are not going to sink it.


BUT why not even think of the possibility that there is a God or a designer?

Because it is a stupid idea without any explanatory or predictive power.  ToE has both.  In fact, that is how it is tested.  If the ToE is correct, you would find certain species only in certain predictable places in the geological column.  And guess what, it has always been right.

Since we can't prove evolution or prove the Big Bang,

There you go again, using the "p" word.  Evolution and big bang are the best models of reality we have.  Setting that aside, nobody has proven god.  god as a model of the universe sucks.  It explains nothing.  It just moves the questions one step farther away.

then there is a lot of unanswered questions, isn't there?

Yes there are.  So what?  What is your problem with that?  If "goddidit" is your answer, then there are even more questions.

So where is the proof of NO God...absolute proof? 

You stupid ignorant sonofabitch dumb bastard.  You arrogant rockheaded twat.  This is why you are getting such a shitty reception here.  I already told you, god does not have to be rejected or disproven to accept either ToE or BBT.  Get it through your thick, idiot skull.  Absolute proof is a phrase that is absolutely meaningless in any context.  Asking for it is like asking for mermaids, faeries and unicorns.

You see in one sentence you'll say, "Your delusional to believe in something that you can't see or explain."

No, fucko.  No one has said that.  We have said "you are delusional for believing something for which there is no evidence."  big difference.

"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. 

there is no faith involved.  We are here, so one way or another, life emerged.  All matter in the universe is moving away from all other matter, so one way or an other, it all started off from one point.  Whether our models perfectly reflect the reality is not the point.  The point is, you are wrong.

I take that unknown and use a bit more reason than ...

No, you don't.  You think you do, but that is because you are stupid and cannot tell the difference.

Design equals a designer...that's the reason.

It is infantile, not more reasonable. 


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #571 on: March 30, 2012, 08:07:09 AM »

If you can't call that a design, I don't know what you would call a design?  Can you show a design example for me that pleases you?


Perhaps a few words from Neil deGrasse Tyson would appease your ignorance. He barely scratches the surface and yet points out so many flaws in the notion of an Intelligently Designed Universe. I feel embarrassed for you.

Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #572 on: March 30, 2012, 08:31:49 AM »
A Christian who is a top biologist: Francis Collins. See wiki for his views on the universe.

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 #573 on: March 30, 2012, 08:38:28 AM »
aw, how sweet, rockv is lying even more and more.  I do love to watch theists act as the best argument against the faith they claim to have with their outrageous actions. Way to go in willfully ignoring evidence and avoiding being educated, rockv! I did enjoy writing my post in the secure knowledge that you would lie again.  Still keeping up with the stupidity that no one notices your lies and that you’ve been answered repeatedly.  Well, dear, at least you are consistent.  Lying, dodging, moving the goalposts, ignoring requests and questions put to you.  Ah, a religion based on lies, fear and greed.  What a good one!
Good, you agree that we just simply don't know.  But we believe!  You believe!  I believe!  We're believers!
nope, I have evidence. You don’t.  If you do, show it, and not just some claim that “creation” is evidence since all religions claim that. If you want me to accept that, then you need to accept that this means you believe that all religions are just as valid as yours.  I need evidence that *your* religion is the only true one.  Where is it, rockv? 
Quote
I don't believe without evidence.  I've tried to explain how this notion of blind faith is NOT true.  Just because someone comes up to you and says, "Jesus died for your sins, believe in Him!", doesn't mean it's a good idea to just go, "Gee ok, that sounds great!".  I'd expect someone to have a bit more judgement than that.
Unforunately you don’t have that judgment at all.  You accept the claims of your religion, the religion you were exposed to culturally and the religion you trust because you had reason to trust the people who told you it was true.  You have no evidence other than that.  If you, do, again, show it and no your claim that creation is “evidence” fails because again, all religons claim it. 
Quote
Evidence is everywhere!  I've said and shown that, but nobody wants to realize that creation is evidence.  That's the whole point!  It's simply too complicated and perfect to be chance.  And yes, chance.  Our planet landing where it did with the perfect elements to sustain life, is luck!  From an explosion?  Yes, luck. 
Rockv, since you calim that ‘creation’ is the evidence that should be considered, please do show that it was *your* god that did anything.  You’ve been trying to claim that your god is the only real one.  Now it’s time for you to support that claim.  Alas for you, you evidently cannot since you have been asked this repeatedly.  Show that your god is needed for life to be “complex”.  Since you’ve ignored the evidence given to you and ignored that life has gone from simple to complex, your claims fail again.  And poor poor thing, using the goldilocks argument, when again not understanding evolutionary theory and understanding the world was not made for life, life was made by the world.   
Quote
More evidence, again and again if I must, come from the Bible, prophecy, and the life and death of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.  Without the resurrection, the entire Bible is false.  Have you proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus didn't die and rise again?  If you have and concluded that it didn't happen, please share.  But again, it's NOT blind faith.  Look around you.
And there is no evidence from the bible.  No prophecies have been shown to have come true.  Jews say that Chrisitans are wrong and none of you have any evidence to support your mythical nonsense.  So, who should I believe, rockv?  I’ve asked this before and you avoid answering it.  There is no evidence of the resurrection so, yep, the whole bible is false.  You’ve won a pony!  Have you, rockv, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mohammed didn’t ride to Jerusalem on a magic pony, that he didn’t’ take dictation from the archangel Gabriel?  Why that must mean that is just as true as your religion’s supposed resurrection! 

There is no evidence of a man/god in the eastern Mediterreanan lands.  There is no evidence of any of the essential events in the bible, including the cruxifiction and resurrection.  None at all.  I could say “look around you, rockv, at Vishnu’s creation”.  So why don’t you believe in Vishnu and the Hindu myths?   
"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 kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #574 on: March 30, 2012, 08:39:19 AM »
A Christian who is a top biologist: Francis Collins. See wiki for his views on the universe.
He sounds familiar, I will have to read up, but isn't he part of The Genome Project or something?
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #575 on: March 30, 2012, 08:52:40 AM »
A Christian who is a top biologist: Francis Collins. See wiki for his views on the universe.

Did some quick reading. So he believes in Theistic Evolution. What a load of crap. It's really sad that someone that intelligent can still have these fantasies. It is no better to me than Intelligent Design, which he says he rejects. It's really splitting hairs, and I would think that any argument against Intelligent Design would probably have a comparable application to Theistic Evolution. He is also blatantly ignoring Occam's razor here. No need to postulate a god for all of this to happen. Then, he has to take a big leap to make the conclusion that HIS god is the one responsible for this, as opposed to Zeus, Odin, or Osiris (why do all of the "other" gods have cooler names than Yahweh or Jesus?). I'd be interested in reading an explanation from him as to how he considers himself a Christian when he rejects some of the founding stories of his faith. But, I guess I would have that same question of most Christians, so he can hardly be to blame here.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10942
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #576 on: March 30, 2012, 08:55:28 AM »
rockv12... you delusional coward. Can't even show that you're right, because you're too scared to look at the evidence. Oh well. I guess it can't be helped. When people know they're wrong, they do what you do - dodge, lie, et cetera.
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: 725
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #577 on: March 30, 2012, 09:51:19 AM »
Kb, he resembles a Unitarian. Church is for community and Jesus is a symbolic figure. People have this need ti do good, and pick some ideas from mythical Jesus as a guide.

No need for son of god and virgins.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #578 on: March 30, 2012, 10:02:22 AM »
A Christian who is a top biologist: Francis Collins. See wiki for his views on the universe.

Get your facts straight skippy. Collins is not a biologist and intentionately avoided that field when considering his career.

Which of course, for the most part, disqualifies him immediately on matters and opinions concerning the ToE.

He's a physician/bio chemist/geneticist, which in ways could help him understand the ToE, but he refuses to appreciate it fully for what it is and messes it all up with his faith.


« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 10:06:37 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #579 on: March 30, 2012, 10:07:15 AM »
rockv12,

Where is the designer of all that you claim is designed?

Good question.   But it's one of those that can't be answered. When was the beginning of time?  What happened before that?  Where's the edge of the universe?  How can something NOT have a beginning?  We HAVE to accept it.  We HAVE to.  But we DO know, through the logic and reasoning we can understand, that things don't form themselves physically.