Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Science / Re: CERN coming experiments - Big Bang didn't happen?
« Last post by jetson on Yesterday at 09:41:54 AM »
How many times have we theists said that the Big Bang theory might be wrong?

How many times have the atheists called us idiots, morons, and fools for saying this?

 :o

Don't lump all theists into your "we theists" group. It turns out that there are young earth creationists, as well as those theists who actually claim that the big bang theory is exactly what Genesis stated thousands of years ago. I don't know of any particular theists who have claimed that the universe is infinite (as this research is looking into).

BS - as a person who follows science, I remain very aware that science has been wrong in the past, and it will be wrong in the future. That is why I don't worship science. I follow the research that interests me, and I accept the current consensus based on facts and evidence provided. If the Big Bang theory is replaced with a better explanation, that is a GOOD thing. It means we are continuing to learn, and we are at a better understanding of how the universe works.

For many people, things like the Big Bang are boring, and have no relevance in their day to day lives. That's OK too - as log as they don't get in the way of continued research and better understanding for future generations. Things that could really help humanity in good ways.

Besides, aren't you one of those theists who can't wait for the end of humanity at the hands of a vengeful and nasty god character who still plans to wipe out all but the chosen?
62
Chatter / Re: The Amanda Knox skeptical experience tour
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 09:41:44 AM »
No bites.

It's interesting, the guy on the youtube asserts that he has investigated the Italian's evidence against Knox, and says it's ridiculous. If anyone contradicts him, he says that he is a professional investigator, and has investigated violent crimes for blah years. Yet, when you read the anti-Knox wiki, you find that their truth is so radically different, that it's impossible to reconcile what he says with any possible reality.

Moore: Knox was interrogated by the Italian police for 53 hours, while being slapped around. At the end of this grueling set of interrogations, deprived of food and sleep, and an interpreter, she gave a vague statement about how her black boss at the bar might have killed Kercher. Under this pressure, it was understandable that she cracked.

Anti-Knox reply: The first interrogation of Knox lasted 2.75 hours, from 11pm to 1:45AM. It was done by one female officer, with one female interpreter present. By 1:45AM she'd signed a statement that Lumumba had killed Kercher. You can see the statement. That statement would have taken about 1.5 hours to draw up and clarify. My deduction: this means that she would have come up with this statement about Lumumba some time within the first half hour of the first interview.

Moore: The Italians said they had a receipt for bleach, that they never produced in court. You can see from all the crime scenes that nothing was ever cleaned, anyway.

Anti-Knox: the police said they smelled bleach when entering her boyfriend's place, and found 1 closed bleach under the sink, and another open. His cleaner told them that he told her never to use bleach, and to always use Lysoform.

Moore: testing of the knife they said had Kercher's DNA on it, was done by amateurs who weren't up to the task. After a lot of hassle, they finally got the knife off the Italian police and did independent testing, and found only rye starch on it.

Anti-Knox: forensic investigators found one speck of blood in a crack of the knife. When they knew the test could only be done once, they called all interested parties to witness the testing of this speck of blood, so nobody would cry foul, later.

Anti-Knox: when Sollecito was interviewed, he immediately had an explanation for Kercher's blood on the knife. He said she had been over for dinner, and had been pricked by it accidentally. He later admitted this was all a lie.

Moore: Guerde's modus operandi as a known burglar, was to throw a rock through the window, and wait until anyone responded. If nobody did, he would go in and rob the place. The police protected him because he was obviously an informant.

Anti-Knox: the rock was 5kg (which would have been near impossible to throw) The first Communication Police on the scene, deduced within minutes that the burglary was staged, because the glass was ontop of all the strewn-around mess, and there were two laptops and other stuff lying around the place. He advised Sollecito of this. Guerde had no criminal record.

Moore: Knox and Sollecito called the police, and for some reason these incompetent Communications Police turned up, and wrecked the crime scene.

Anti-Knox: The Communications Police had turned up because someone had turfed both of Kercher's mobile phones into someone's back yard. The owner of the yard, was concerned that the first phone they found might be part of a bomb from a bomb threat they just had. The police tracked down Kercher's dwelling and found Knox and Sollecito at the house. Anxious to return the phone directly to Kercher, the police walked into the house and inquired about why Kercher's door was locked. Knox said that Kercher locked her door all the time, and it was nothing to be concerned about. As the police headed away from the house, another resident of the cottage returned home, and talked to the police. When she heard that Kercher's door was locked, she freaked out, and convinced the police to go back, and break the door down. Knox's statement later said they had been attempting to break the door down, just prior to the police turning up. The police later had a minor argument about whether one of them had gone through the door, momentarily, after busting it down.



I find it difficult to reconcile the two positions, even accounting for significant bias. It's somewhat like religion.


63
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Does evolution disprove (bible) god?
« Last post by Defiance on Yesterday at 09:41:23 AM »
Alright.

Skep, if you want, you can ask me one question at a time. This rejection of ToE don't fly with me.

I said that I am up in the air about the theory. It could be true, but it's not "set in stone" in my opinion yet.

One question I will ask is, "When, how, why, and from what did bones start to evolve?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

So, as you know, hopefully, Evolution occurs not be need, but by death of the least successful and the reproduction of the more successful (relative to their environment). Reference back to my earlier posts if you need to recall how these differences in success arise.

Quote
The earliest mineralized structures in the vertebrate lineage were tooth-like structures, odontodes.

Makes sense, and those that had even the tiniest accidental pieces of "hardened" mineral had some advantage in some function they performed. Natural selection!!

Fast forward, collagen started to appear, simply by the processes of eliminating those who didn't have this advantage.

Fast forward, and this is a VERY long time, and you have more prominent endo skeletons.

Interesting diagram:



See how the bones are a bit similar in order? That's called a homologous structure, serving as one of the best evidences for Evolution. These structures are produced by divergent evolution.

Unfortunately, I don't know when the first bones appeared. If anyone has that, please add that.

I think I've answered all your questions but "when". Regardless, the more important ones are answered and you may research it yourself.
64
Religion & Society / Re: Another GOP presidential candidate
« Last post by junebug72 on Yesterday at 09:33:16 AM »
Nobody should be forced to give up their religious beliefs just because the left doesn't like it. I have noticed that. They are only tolerant of people who agree with their viewpoint. If you don't agree with their viewpoint, they cal you names and belittle you.

Nobody is being forced to give up any religious beliefs anyway.  Where did you get the idea that they were?

If a Christian believes being gay is wrong, they should not be FORCED to serve them. That is a violation of religious beliefs in the same way FORCING Muslim restaurants to serve pork is a violation.

How about forcing them to do what their religion says to do?  Love thy neighbor?

That's the perfect smiley for my response.  It loves me; it loves me not, etc etc etc....

In this case It loves me not.
65
Science / Re: CERN coming experiments - Big Bang didn't happen?
« Last post by One Above All on Yesterday at 09:28:54 AM »
How many times have we theists said that the Big Bang theory might be wrong?

How many times have the atheists called us idiots, morons, and fools for saying this?

The difference is why you say those things, and your understanding of what you say might be[1] wrong.

You say those things because they go against your religion. This is a moronic thing to do.
These physicists say those things because they have reason outside their own beliefs to say them. This is a smart thing to do. They also understand the Big Bang theory, as well as the meaning of the word "theory".

Theories are models used to explain observations. They make predictions and are supported by evidence, and the most widely accepted ones are the ones that have the best support for them. However, any and all theories - including germ theory and even the theory of gravity - can be disproven at any given point in time. They're falsifiable. If evidence comes along that says gravity isn't the way we thought it was, then the current theory will be discarded for one that explains the newfound evidence, as well as the old evidence. Religious dogma doesn't work like that. With religious dogma, if something is found to be false, the evidence is discarded, rather than the belief. This has been the case throughout history, and even when ID'ers find evidence of evolution[2], it is claimed to be false by all other ID'ers, and the ID'er-turned-smarter is discredited.
 1. By which you mean "is". Your subtlety is non-existent.
 2. In an ironic attempt to discredit it.
66
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by jetson on Yesterday at 09:24:22 AM »

My problem with the quiz is: it precludes any religious people from even being considered a humanist.

[snip]

It basically tells you you have to be an atheist to be a humanist and that's ridiculous.

I took a similar test years ago where all but the first question was irrelevant if you were a Republican or not. The first question asked if one believed in a god or not. Apparently that's the only qualification in being a Republican; and where today that may be truer than not, when I took it: it was not.

These quizzes mean s**t. I mean, does anyone here believe I am even close to being a Humanist? I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

-Nam

This is more of an advertisement than a quiz, if you ask me.

Anyone who has ever worked in the survey industry knows that the questions are critical. The best surveys try to remove as much bias as possible, and get honest responses. Hell, they even try to account for intentional bias through other questions within the same survey.

Sampling is the other aspect that is critical. Online surveys are notoriously skewed towards people who are online, and those online people who are willing to fill out surveys!

It was way too easy for me to know exactly which answers were "right".

67
Chatter / Re: Device Drivers upgrades
« Last post by Defiance on Yesterday at 09:19:15 AM »
Warning, Live Discs will be slow. Not nearly as fast as a hard-drive OS.

Live Discs only serve as a "demo" or a quick emergency.
68
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by relativetruth on Yesterday at 09:18:18 AM »

1. The mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain or independent from the brain.
2. If the mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain, then the mind is controlled by the brain
3. If the mind is controlled by the brain, then free will and moral responsibility do not exist.
4. Free will and moral responsibility do exist.
5. Therefore, the mind is not controlled by the brain (MT 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the mind is neither identical to the brain or dependent on the brain (MT 2, 5)
7. Therefore, the mind is independent from the brain (DS 1, 6)

Definitions:
Mind is the source of our beliefs, feelings, desires, volitions, and  perceptions.[1]
Free will is, minimally, the capacity to control one's actions.[2]
Moral responsibility is the capacity to know and ability to act as one ought.

 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mental-c/
 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/

1. The brain is either identical to the mind or dependent on the mind or independent from the mind.
2. If the brain is either identical to the mind or dependent on the mind, then the brain is controlled by the mind
3. If the brain is controlled by the mind, then the mind is the CEO in control, and responsible for all the outcomes.
    All the cancers, viruses etc that the body encounters, if these are not managed responsibly then the mind takes all the blame.

4. As most minds do not, and cannot,  take full control of their host bodies, free will and moral responsibility do NOT exist.  :(

5. Therefore, the brain is not controlled by the mind (MT 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the brain is neither identical to the mind or dependent on the mind (MT 2, 5)
7. Therefore, the brain is independent from the mind (DS 1, 6)
8. Therefore, logically, the mind does NOT need to exist.
69
Science / Re: CERN coming experiments - Big Bang didn't happen?
« Last post by Defiance on Yesterday at 09:18:09 AM »
How many times have we theists said that the Big Bang theory might be wrong?

How many times have the atheists called us idiots, morons, and fools for saying this?

 :o

BS. Your people are first to say "Oh yeah the the Big Bang happened, just that god was behind it."
70
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by junebug72 on Yesterday at 09:14:50 AM »

It basically tells you you have to be an atheist to be a humanist and that's ridiculous.

I took a similar test years ago where all but the first question was irrelevant if you were a Republican or not. The first question asked if one believed in a god or not. Apparently that's the only qualification in being a Republican; and where today that may be truer than not, when I took it: it was not.

These quizzes mean shit. I mean, does anyone here believe I am even close to being a Humanist? I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

If you use logic and reason to solve problems instead of praying you may be a humanist. 

That's why the religious could not be humanist.



Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10