Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

a reply to: peter vlar

Im not even sure why this kind of nonsense is allowed on ATS...

I suppose willful ignorance isn't against the rules... Nor is trolling for the most part

Its just kinda sad that it takes page after page for people to see what this guy is actually up to...

funny part is he actually has some fanboyz...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

And back to the strange pathology you have, where you fixate on earth and water.....

You also really seem to be inheriting others inability to read and retain. I don't claim faith needs proof. I am comfortable with my religious gnoses, I just do not expect others to have to believe them. Now my eidein (intellectual knowledge) that requires proof. That would be the science I work in

So cliff notes for you, as you seem to function at that level:

Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, and that requires belief
Eidein it is intellectual knowledge, it requires evidence.

They are different. Just as my spiritual practice (nDraíocht) is different from my Science.

slán leat

Congratulations noinden, good to see you have a capacity to study

You got the difference between belief and evidence
If you understood it before, why were you asking me for evidence of God, demanding evidence for God or my beliefs

You knew that, you knew faith doesn't require evidence, yet demanded evidence, sounds a little childish, no?

Cliff note for you
Religion faith no evidence
Evolution faith no evidence

And yes I am fixated on star dirt and star water
See for me to believe in your theory, I need that answered
How did star dirt and water turn into life, so yes, I am fixated

And finally, believe what you want to, please feel free to worship what gods God you choose
I am here asking for evidence for evolution

I want evidence, dirt and water thing, remember

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neigbour, its not my theory. You are missing the difference between hypothesis and theory once again. Just as you are missing (and ignoring) that evolution has a large amount of evidence.

If it's naturally occurring, it's not a conspiracy theory then, is it ?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Ignorance

Are you for real, they date fossils by the rocks they find them in and the rocks by the fossils in them

No, they don't date fossils by the strata in which they are found and then subsequently date the strata by the fossils found. Certainly there are what we refer to as 'index fossils' but no one method of dating is ever utilized to obtain dates for fossilized remains.

It's called circular reasoning

That's much more your forte

How about you show me my ignorance, how about you get the evidence to shut me up

Why would any sane individual continue to entertain your tantrums when you either refuse to read the data given to you, are incapable of understanding or carry on with baseless ad hominems? It's ridiculous that you post page after page in thread after thread the same BS lies, refuse to support your own willfully ignorant garbage and then continue to demand what has been given ad infinitum.

It's just ignorance

In your case, the ignorance is entirely willful. You don't want evidence. You're just a cheer leader for scientific illiteracy.

Evidence or turn tail and run, run quick, nobody likes to be seen as a failure

You're doing just fine all on your own with that.

Any malarkey can be shut down with evidence

Then please demonstrate some.

I don't expect you to do anything more than talk opinion, assumption and yourself up

,
And likewise nobody expects you to be honest or literate at this point.

Thanks Pete, thats awesome

Just by the way, can you tell me what an index fossil is

Can you tell me what theGeological columnis

I mean if it wasnt common knowledge, if it wasnt a fact, if it wasnt in its own name (index fossil :ham I would think circular reasoning was beyond your comprehension



You talk about ad hominems, I am talking simple evidence and truth then this "likewise nobody expects you to be honest or literate at this point" , bitch about ad hominems and then, spew hate and anger Crazy isnt it

COELACANTH WAS AN INDEX FOSSIL THEY STILL LIVE

www.creationscience.com...


DEMONSTRATED

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neigbour, its not my theory. You are missing the difference between hypothesis and theory once again. Just as you are missing (and ignoring) that evolution has a large amount of evidence.

I dont care for your semantics noinden, dont care at all.
I dont believe evolution has any valid evidence, you havnt shown me any and you want to argue the words theory and hypothesis
Sorry I am not interested in arguing the difference between the words theory or hypothesis

I am not denying that there is evidence for evolution, in my opinion its circumstantial
I want to see hard, proven evidence, worked out by real science.
Not the fluff science you propose, not mortar and pestle concoction mixing you play at.

"On the previous page but a few posts ago I have linked Dawkins saying that everything came from nothing I would be happy to show you new scientist explaining something from nothing and also talk origins as well "
See noinden, I wrote this a page ago, you ignored it

Then you go off on some strange religious tangent about gnostics and gnosis and what not, dragging Akragon into it, I wonder where gnosisfaith is

Then you ask me to prove my faith, what ever that means or is, then you tell me about yours
What? Why?
I dont care.

Gnosis is spiritual knowledge, and that requires belief Eidein it is intellectual knowledge, it requires evidence. They are different. Just as my spiritual practice (nDraíocht) is different from my Science. slán leat

What has this to do with me and my question, leave it at the door.
Its irrelevant

You and Barcs and the band of misfits, unlead and unorganised will do anything to sidestep the issue, trawl, anything to smear, use every dirty tactic in the book to distract from the question asked and unanswered.



Now, you want to argue semantics with me, clever, very clever, but pretty foolish
Go start a semantics thread

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are doing a mighty fine Doctor Doom impression there Raggedy Man (11 called, he said stop using that moniker). The fact remains, you can not believe something all you like, when it is an eventual based thing, you are out of luck. Evidence is evidence. You could believe that potassium is fine to add water, but you will end up loosing some hair if you try. Similarly you do not have to acknowledge that evolution has evidence which supports it, none the less you will just look like a troll for refusing to acknowledge that evidence exists.

The fact you do not understand the difference between gnosis and eideinm or the relevance here, is the crux of your problems here. Perhaps you are unversed in etymology? Let me give you a hint, the word idea has etymological roots in one of the above words. Here is the major hint, its not the one which begins with the letter g.

You also seem to be missing the point with regards to Dawkins, and the fact that I DID acknowledge you posting it. Thus let me fix that for you. The first real time he mentions this is in his book, The Ancestor's Tale: published for the general populace. "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it."

In there he references (a) The Big Bang to create the Universe, we have some evidence for that, though this will remain for now a hypothesis and (b) thetheory of evolution, which we have a great heaping pile of evidence for.

You should note he has not said that life came from nothing, he said the UNIVERSE came from nothing, and that life evolved.

I will stick with his published works Dawkins can be abrasive to the zealous religious person, just as the fundamentalist can be abrasive to those of other faiths, or no faith. Get over it neighbor.

I dont get the raggedyman 11 reference, its lost

Now the troll thing

You keep changing the subject, denying my choice to believe what I choose to believe, drop potassium into water what?(yeah like thats relevant to my faith in God, to what I believe or even remotely to what this threads about, just why?)

AlsoI am not denyingthe evidence, I am calling it stupid and circumstantial, please try and keep up

Justifying Dawkins and his baseless crap, i have listed heaps of stuff he has said, linked youtube videos of qanda, abc tv, shown other videos, and you reply, "no he hasnt"
Are you barcs pretending to be noinden, denying the obvious.
Know what an index fossil is, not a bone in your finger

I dont care about your semantics, still dont, your choice of religion.
I dont care about Dawkins abrasiveness, thats irrelevant, please soak that up, its not about these sideline issues. Get over it, keep up, the question, you will travel down any rabbit hole to evade an answer, say anything, drop anything, play any game.
Potassium and water, what, just what, is that what a tertiary education teaches where you come from?

Dont mix possums and watercats, excuse me for that stupid comment, not sure why I said it, totally irrelevant but you know, smoke and mirrors, you may fall in the bag and die, I have warned you

originally posted by: Raggedyman
AlsoI am not denyingthe evidence, I am calling it stupid and circumstantial, please try and keep up

No offense but that means the same thing, bud. Saying the evidence is "stupid" just because you don't like it and don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. You are only saying it's stupid because you deny the science even though it's readily available to test yourself.

I dont care about your semantics, still dont, your choice of religion.

You don't care, yet you are polluting this thread with constant attacks and lies about science. Obviously you care greatly or you wouldn't be posting here or in that trash heap of a thread you made about stardust and mud.

I get the frustration and the need to parrot other people's arguments, but repetition doesn't make something correct. At this point you have still brought nothing to the table whatsoever in this conversation aside from rants and personal bias.

If you think science is some big elaborate conspiracy, then stop supporting it! Stop using products of science in your daily life. If it's all a conspiracy, why would you buy into it and then hypocritically denounce it using products of science?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Just by the way, can you tell me what an index fossil is

yes, its a fossil that has been dated by more than one dating technique and known to exist in a specific strata. Fossils or strata that are below this layer are older, and fossils and strata above this layer are younger. Even you should be able to grasp this. Let me repeat the important point that you ignore and lie about... there is never one method used to derive a date. What this means is that the strata is not used to date the fossil which then is used to date the strata. Potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, luteium-hafnium, rhenium-osmium, thorium-lead, and the two uranium-lead dating methods all point to the same data and answers. It's not circular reasoning and you are doing nothing here but parroting creationist websites and ignoring any and all science.

Can you tell me what theGeological columnis

Sure. it's a sequence of rock formations that demonstrates the geologic time scale. but please see links at the end. It is much more succinct than I could put it.

I mean if it wasnt common knowledge, if it wasnt a fact, if it wasnt in its own name (index fossil :ham

I would think circular reasoning was beyond your comprehension

apparently it is beyond yours because your approach to the geology is equitable with letting a blind man drive in the Indy 500

You talk about ad hominems, I am talking simple evidence and truth then this "likewise nobody expects you to be honest or literate at this point" , bitch about ad hominems and then, spew hate and anger Crazy isnt it

nowhere near as crazy as your refusal to look at real data. You're not talking simple evidence and truth, you dismiss it all without even a passing glance.

COELACANTH WAS AN INDEX FOSSIL THEY STILL LIVE

www.creationscience.com...


DEMONSTRATED

Coelacanth was not an index fossil. This examples serves only to show how ignorant you really are on the topic because Coelacanth is not a type of fish, it is an entire order of fish. The 2 surviving members of this order are of the Genus Latimeria and are not the same as any of the older fossilized remains of the Order from which these 2 surviving members are a part of. There are many morphological differences. Anyone who actually engaged in due diligence would know this. Instead you simply parrot creationist sites because you suffer from chronic confirmation bias. I'm sorry that you purposely choose willful ignorance and that your source material is full of the same lies you repeat on here but that's not my fault.

Your link states that index fossils are almost always used to date geological strata and this is an absolute lie. No single dating method is ever used to discern an age of strata or fossils. That worst part is that you don't actually care if it's true or not or whether or not you spread lies, all because it fits into your neat little pigeonhole. I stand by my earlier statement that nobody expects you to be honest or literate. It's not an ad hominem, it's an observation on your knowledge of the subject matter and your posting pattern. Your ignorance regarding Coelacanths simply drives the point home.

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

www.kheper.net...

www.talkorigins.org...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh lad, you accuse me of arguing semantics, yet you build your entire set of arguments around such arguments.

You've gone in the space of days from "there is no evidence" to "it is circumstantial and stupid". Now I am sure you meant the legal definition of circumstantial, but I have bad news for you, the definition of the word circumstantial inculudes "marked by careful attention to detail : abounding in factual details ", ponder that.

You as always are missing the point of these posts. I illustrate things in ways that others will be able to identify with. They are not necessarily aimed at you. Because honestly you are a fanatic, a zealot. As such, you are closed of mind.

You three guys need an award for your patience...



I find this similar to explaining Physics to a 1st grader...

Good luck boys

a reply to: Akragon

At least Physics has Hawkings Try being a Chemist and Biochemist Those fields have more myths about them with the general populace than other sciences.

a reply to: Noinden

This particular situation isn't about Myths in those fields though...

More like the absolute denial of the science behind them, and a refusal to even look or read about it

One can not explain or even attempt to explain something to a person who is as follows

a reply to: Akragon

Oh no it is about myths from the a fanatic subset of the uneducated public, but in this case the science is indeed Chemistry, Biochemistry/Genetics.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

At least Physics has Hawkings

Try being a Chemist and Biochemist

Those fields have more myths about them with the general populace than other sciences.

Anthropology isn't much better off. We suffer being lumped in as die hard Atheists and the closest we get to Hawking is probably Gould. When I bring up Svante Paabo, people think I'm talking about a Swedish band not a Geneticist least of all one of the most important people in his field.

a reply to: peter vlar

So the most famous chemist? Try Margret Thatcher (masters).... lets ignore Max Borne or Fritz Haber (and what it meant for our food sources), Linus Pauling etc, but people know t he "Iron Lady"...

a reply to: Barcs

Why do you hate science and want to turn it into a religion.
Please stop using science as your crutch

Barcs, I can see the evidence, it doesn't mean I think the evidence supports evolution.

Coelacanths wasn't extinct? Really, evidently.

Are you really denying that the scientific community believed that the coelacanth, and let's tell the truth, they didn't know about the assumed order of fish back then, wasn't assumed extinct
How you can say that is beyond belief

Poor Barcs, holes in his religion and science

a reply to: peter vlar

Can you show me the geological time scale in nature, the bedded rocks
Can you tell me why the geological time scale is 200 year old science that hasn't moved on, why I should accept it as valid

Why they date the geological time scale the way they have

I am not denying 200 year old science, just wondering why I should believe 200 year old science should still be valid if it has no evidence

Why do you hate science, why do you call yourself a proponent of science why don't you demand science be tested

Why do you believe what you are told, unquestioning?

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to not understand, Science bases it's assumptions on observable evidence, not on belief and will reassess based on new evidence.

Thus the Coelacanth was considered to be extinct. When identified as not extinct, this assessment was changed. Other species have suffered similar fates. Guess what, that is an honest approach to life. The philosophy of science is such that, you may only make decisions based on observable, verifiable data, not wishfull thinking and gnoses.