![]() |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 4> |
Author | ||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 7:04pm |
|||
Done. Feel free to continue any conversations through private message. ![]() |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Doomster ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: 02 Dec 2011 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 521 |
![]() |
|||
I request this thread be locked.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
bartosso ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 31 Dec 2010 Location: coffin on Io Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
![]() |
|||
^ yeah, okay, let's assume hypothetically that it's not proven, do you think it is an evidence for the existence of God? I mean, if it turned out that DNA could not have been conceived by forces of nature and/or the evolution doesn't occur...
I'm sorry I'm back here, I'm just really curious about the answer.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
dtguitarfan ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 19 May 2012 Location: Chattanooga, TN Status: Offline Points: 481 |
![]() |
|||
There is just as much belief in Evolution. It has not been proven - there is a difference between Evolution and other scientific facts: there is no mathematical formula for Evolution. All other scientific theories that have gotten to a point where they are considered to be fact have mathematical formulas, and are repeatable. There are a number of parts of the evolutionary theory that people have come up with ideas where, if the perfect conditions existed, the very unlikely event would cause this one part of the theory to happen.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Time Signature ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 04 Apr 2010 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 7690 |
![]() |
|||
To me it's simple:
I think that religion is a private affair, and everybody has the right to have whatever beliefs they want to.... as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's lives. Unfortunately, organized religion tends to interfere with other people's lives constantly, which is why I do despise organized religion. I also don't like religion disguised as science - fortunately, all cases of religion disguised as science can be dismissed as non-sciences because they cannot be empirically tested and falsified (or verified). |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
IMPF2112 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1386 |
![]() |
|||
No thanks, I think you've hit it spot on with everything you've said, and there is no point in continuing on with this conversation. It will lead nowhere, as clearly nothing we say will be able to convince Geoff, and vice versa.
Let's just end this here for now and agree to disagree.
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() |
|||
![]() If anyone else wants to take this from here, feel free. |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
dtguitarfan ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 19 May 2012 Location: Chattanooga, TN Status: Offline Points: 481 |
![]() |
|||
I would like to move on as well, however I need to point out there there ARE peer reviewed journals from the other side, which one can easily find with a little searching...and even if they did not exist, it does not mean the ideas are not sound: it only means that the people who are politically controlling the area of science didn't like the ideas themselves because they disagree with them. A sound idea is not made unsound by the fact that a majority of people dislike it.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
bartosso ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 31 Dec 2010 Location: coffin on Io Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
![]() |
|||
^ Well, I enjoy every opportunity to practice my English, this discussion was perfect for that and I don't feel like I wasted my time, even though I failed to change Geoff's mind
![]() I just don't like the absolute morality being used as an argument for religion being morally superior to moral philosophy. That is all, I'm outta here ![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Diogenes ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 06 Nov 2010 Location: Undecided Status: Offline Points: 877 |
![]() |
|||
Yeah. That was a good debate to read but it's easy to see why some people, such as myself, choose not to get involved in these things. A person's beliefs are not so easily swayed, no matter how logically you think you're presenting your argument. Nothing wrong with that of course, it just doesn't seem like it's worth the effort. |
||||
![]() |
||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() |
|||
Sorry, Joseph. I have a tendency to get a little fired up on this sort of topic.
![]() If Geoff wishes to continue the conversation, I'd be glad to move it over to private message, although I don't think we'll reach an agreement anytime soon. No hard feelings. ![]() |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Doomster ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: 02 Dec 2011 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 521 |
![]() |
|||
Alright guys can we settle down? I just started this thread awhile ago to express opinions on this subject, not spark an argument. Please.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() |
|||
Geoff, a computer virus analogy is not evidence in favor of irreducible complexity. That's something that requires actual proof. Do you have a peer-reviewed published work that I could look at to prove this position? Otherwise, we're at a stalemate and the conversation is not worth continuing.
Furthermore, even if I were to grant you irreducible complexity, what difference does that make? Disproving evolution does not add an ounce of credibility to god claims. The only rational position that a person could possibly reach if evolution were proven false is that "we don't know". In the meantime, I recommend reading this: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Wilytank ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 24 Mar 2011 Location: Pencil-vainea Status: Offline Points: 4028 |
![]() |
|||
Once more,
|
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
dtguitarfan ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 19 May 2012 Location: Chattanooga, TN Status: Offline Points: 481 |
![]() |
|||
How is "irreducible complexity" debunked? Do any of the functions of a cell have meaning without the ability to reproduce itself? I am a computer programmer, so let me speak to what I know - consider a computer virus. I could write one that does nothing but reproduce itself with a few lines of code. None of these lines of code would be a computer virus without the others, and if I did not have all of them the virus would not reproduce itself, and would thus, for lack of a better term, die out. Each line of characters contains a certain number of characters which would mean nothing without the others, and must be in a precise order and must not contain any extra characters or the virus will not compile. Add to this the fact that I am creating this computer virus using code that is based on other frameworks written by other programmers, and the virus will only work in certain operating systems (which are written by many programmers and used many thousands of lines of code) and the probability that the virus would just randomly pop into existence becomes quite small. |
||||
![]() |
||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() |
|||
Geoff, I wish you would understand that atheism is simply 'a lack of
belief in a god or gods' and accepting a scientific fact does not
require faith. If you can't get that basic concept, I don't think the
conversation is worth continuing.
Also, do you realize how thoroughly debunked the idea of 'irreducible complexity' is? There's a reason why scientists have not accepted this absurd notion - there is no evidence to support it, and it's only another thing imagined by creationists to accommodate for their God. I'm seriously getting the impression that you do not understand what the theory of evolution actually states. You're creating a straw man, and then using that straw man to make way for an argument from ignorance. Can you provide any peer-reviewed journals from reputable sources that actually confirm what you're saying? |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
dtguitarfan ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 19 May 2012 Location: Chattanooga, TN Status: Offline Points: 481 |
![]() |
|||
No need to get PO'd. I'm merely pointing out that Atheists/Darwinists must also have a certain level of faith to believe what they do.
There have been many mathematical studies done of the probability of evolution occurring. What they do is they take the combination of things which must occur in order for an organism to work, and the number of wrong combinations that would not work, and calculate a probability. And the numbers are astounding. Evolutionists will say "well, the numbers are actually less because there are so many planets and the universe is billions and billions and billions and billions of years old." But it doesn't hold water to me. Imagine two ants, Bill and Ted, who come across an airplane. The conversation that follows: Bill: "Clearly this was designed by a being much bigger than us - it has a function, a level of complexity, there must be a precise combination of parts that are shaped and weighted just right for it to work. It must have been designed." Ted: "you're stupid. You have no proof of this bigger being. Clearly this came about by chance - a whirlwind swept through a junkyard and out popped this airplane." Bill: "That can't possibly work - the mathematical chances of the pieces coming together just right are too high!" Ted: "Well, the earth is billions and billions and billions and billions of years old, and there are many many many many junkyards, and so there have been many many many whirlwinds over this period of time. So the probability is actually much higher than you think." Bill: "Well, how did all the parts come into being? How did the nuts and bolts get shaped, which were thrown together just right by this astoundingly high number of whirlwinds?" Ted: "Volcanoes." Bill: "Volcanoes? The magma was shaped just right by volcanoes? What about the fact that magma is not pure metal?" Ted: "Well...the magma was sifted just right through...um...sand...and water...and stuff...." Bill: "You're adding more complexity to this, so your mathematical probabilities are going lower here...." Ted: "ZILLIONS...ZILLIONS of years. Yes, that'll fix it." Now, the human cell has been found to be far more complex than an airplane, and has also been found to be irreducibly complex - that is, they require the existence of numerous complex components, each essential for function, but each function being useless on its own without the other functions. So they would have all had to have developed just right, all at the same time. |
||||
![]() |
||||
J-Man ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 25 Mar 2010 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7032 |
![]() |
|||
Sorry Geoff, but I find this stupid and offensive. Morality is based on empathy and compassion - NOT a set of rules from various texts written thousands of years ago. Millions of people are moral without dogma, and to claim that false belief in a supreme being is essential to acting like a decent person is patently absurd.
1) Darwinism is NOT a religion. 2) Big bang cosmology has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory (mixing those two things up really baffles me). 3) Basing beliefs on scientific principles and evidence is NOT faith - faith is defined as a belief without evidence, which is the exact opposite of a rational and scientific worldview. 4) My lack of an explanation does NOT mean that you can just stick a God in and claim that you 'know' the origins of the universe. That's the argument from ignorance fallacy. 5) How the hell did you calculate the mathematical probability of the universe existing? I'm not trying to be a dick, but do you not see the flaws in what you're saying? |
||||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
|
||||
![]() |
||||
IMPF2112 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 1386 |
![]() |
|||
|
||||
![]() |
||||
bartosso ![]() MMA Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: 31 Dec 2010 Location: coffin on Io Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
![]() |
|||
So, in order to keep this discussion clear to the outsiders
![]()
Jeff said:
My response to Geoff's post:
And your response:
No, the difference between believing in something and knowing something is that you don't need ANY proof to believe. If you have the proof, you know it. I think you can agree with me that from the scientific point of view, religious dogma has nothing to do with science. It can't be empirically proved by any means. That's why it's called belief, and that's why dogma is by definition indisputable. How would you describe God with the use of physics? How did he come to existence? How would you explain God's eternal life with the use of biology? That is impossible. Big Bang, on the other hand, is a highly probable scientific theory based on physics. And yeah, we don't know yet what was there before the big bang. So what? At least atheists are not afraid to admit they simply don't know something. In my opinion looking for answers is more creative and more human than settling for dogma and have answers to all questions provided from the very beginning. As for morality, that's IMO another misconception. Morality has been there before religion and it's a direct result of self-consciousness. Basic ethical values are the first values understood by infants - "the good is that what's good for me, the bad is that what's bad for me". In later stages of life children learn about empathy, so their morality evolves into "the good is what is good to people in general, the bad is that's what harmful to people in general". If you need another proof, take Calvinists and their predestination. According to their beliefs, the life and its afterlife are already planned by God. No matter what your decisions are during your life, you'll go either to heaven or hell. It doesn't depend on your deeds. Still Calvinists were never less moral than Catholics, what's more, they were even more decent people even though their morality was not imposed on them with the use of dogma. They simply choose to be good. Just as most of atheists. To me the idea of being good only because I'm going to be punished if I'm evil is... primitive. I want to be a decent human being and I don't expect any reward for that.
Edited by bartosso - 13 Nov 2012 at 2:08pm |
||||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |