It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Atheist Arrogant

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Hmm...confirmation bias and a post that doesn't address the topic.

Also, you both come to the same conclusion, but without explaining why. Odd thing, isn't it? I'm apparently so in error that you both simply dismiss me, but neither of you demonstrates why.

Though I do understand why you've dismissed me before, since it tends to be right after I utterly dismantle your arguments.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What personal attacks?

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Good attempt...but it's not an ad hom. It's actually attacking the source. He's not even blaming you, he's saying that you're misinformed by improper material. An ad hominem would have been:

"Look at the idiot using this stupid source"

Your character was not impugned by the statement, though the character of the source is easy to throw into doubt due to bias.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Hmm...confirmation bias and a post that doesn't address the topic.

Also, you both come to the same conclusion, but without explaining why. Odd thing, isn't it? I'm apparently so in error that you both simply dismiss me, but neither of you demonstrates why.

Though I do understand why you've dismissed me before, since it tends to be right after I utterly dismantle your arguments.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What personal attacks?

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Good attempt...but it's not an ad hom. It's actually attacking the source. He's not even blaming you, he's saying that you're misinformed by improper material. An ad hominem would have been:

"Look at the idiot using this stupid source"

Your character was not impugned by the statement, though the character of the source is easy to throw into doubt due to bias.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Good attempt...but it's not an ad hom. It's actually attacking the source. He's not even blaming you, he's saying that you're misinformed by improper material. An ad hominem would have been:

"Look at the idiot using this stupid source"

Your character was not impugned by the statement, though the character of the source is easy to throw into doubt due to bias.


I never claimed it was an Ad Hom against ME. I linked a source, and instead of addressing what the source SAID he just attacked the source itself.

That's an Ad Hominem argument. Relax and take a few deep breaths Madness, you don't have to explain debate logic to me, I've been doing this quite a long time.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, it's addressing that the source is clearly one with a bias.

Also, I'll address the argument here:


The second error is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! Their conclusion was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.


The full refutation can be found here.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



what personal attacks?


This one:

"...to save you the trouble, I know you actually can't. You're showing an incredible level of ignorance with regard to stellar mechanics and then claiming that your ignorance proves something. And the atheists are the arrogant ones?"

The personal attack was you're attempt at ridiculing my understanding of 'stellar mechanics', (I'll call it Physics). But you see, you're not attacking MY understanding of stellar mechanics, you're attacking Dr. Jason Lisle's understanding of 'stellar mechanics'.

"The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate" ~ Dr. Jason Lisle

You don't thinks it's quite arrogant to say a P.h.D in Astrophysics from Colorado University has an:"incredible level of ignorance to stellar mechanics"?? Now THAT'S arrogant. Madness, how many books by Creation Scientists have you ever read?




"He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." ~ Proverbs 18:13



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



No, it's addressing that the source is clearly one with a bias.


Moot point. All sources have bias. Are you trying to claim your sources have no bias towards Evolution or an old age for the universe?

The measurements of the Sun have been declining at roughly the same rate since humans began measuring the decline. I'm making my claim based upon your Naturalist philosophy of Uniformitarianism.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Moot point. All sources have bias. Are you trying to claim your sources have no bias towards Evolution or an old age for the universe?


No, they do not. There is no emotional connection to evolution, there is no dogmatic acceptance of evolution. Scientific sources propagate science, nothing more. If something is unscientific it will be discarded.



The measurements of the Sun have been declining at roughly the same rate since humans began measuring the decline.


Incorrect, the measurements were thrown out. In fact, the paper cited in the source you provided was never published because it was poo. I even provided refutation of it. The measurements that you're using are hokum, hot air, empty, etc. Those measurements are not to be found in a single piece of solar research of any merit.



I'm making my claim based upon your Naturalist philosophy of Uniformitarianism.


Eh, this isn't a discussion of naturalist philosophy, and any discussion of such is a red herring. Not that I won't discuss it, just not in this thread.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



what personal attacks?


This one:

"...to save you the trouble, I know you actually can't. You're showing an incredible level of ignorance with regard to stellar mechanics and then claiming that your ignorance proves something. And the atheists are the arrogant ones?"


That is not a personal attack, that is a statement of fact. You couldn't demonstrate and still cannot demonstrate your claims. You are providing evidence of an incredible level of ignorance towards science and you're claiming, based upon that ignorance, that your position of a young Earth is correct. You provided reference to a thoroughly eviscerated scientific claim, I showed it was thoroughly eviscerated. I know this because I've encountered this argument before and I will encounter it again.



The personal attack was you're attempt at ridiculing my understanding of 'stellar mechanics', (I'll call it Physics).


Well, stellar mechanics is just the understanding of how stars function. And I'm not ridiculing it, I'm saying you're demonstrating misunderstanding. A personal attack would be that you cannot understand it. Pointing out that you're not grasping the subject of debate is in no way a personal attack, it's a statement of fact.



But you see, you're not attacking MY understanding of stellar mechanics, you're attacking Dr. Jason Lisle's understanding of 'stellar mechanics'.


Ah, the argument from authority. I must say, the guy does have legit science credentials, an anomaly in the scientific community, but he's not demonstrating an understanding of a subject he must understand due to his credentials. But his arguments are still empty, regardless of his understanding.



"The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate" ~ Dr. Jason Lisle


Is a piece of poo paper. If you want to start a thread on it I can personally dismantle it as a lay person, as it doesn't rely upon his expertise. I can debunk it with my high school education in sciences plus my personal independent studies as well as University level philosophy and theology studies (why yes, I actually had to study theology last year and I'm still an atheist).



You don't thinks it's quite arrogant to say a P.h.D in Astrophysics from Colorado University has an:"incredible level of ignorance to stellar mechanics"??


No, but they can lie. Or they can delude themselves. Of course, he's doing one or the other, because PZ Meyers has written about him. Rationalwiki has some info on him.




Now THAT'S arrogant.


Well, he has a PhD in 'astrophysics', it's not very specific. I mean, my father has a doctorate in 'physics'. Of course, he doesn't routinely demonstrate ignorance in his own field of expertise.

Now, Lisle has referred to debunked measurements....so, how am I arrogant. I'm pointing out that he's wrong and that you don't understand that he's wrong because of your lack of exposure to proper science.



Madness, how many books by Creation Scientists have you ever read?


Books proper? None. I don't bother buying material if I can access more or less the same stuff online. You can hear the exact same arguments on YouTube or on creationist websites like AnswersInGenesis. I mean, I'm a student, I don't have a lot of money to spend on books that don't relate to my fields of study.

But I've watched days worth of creationism seminars, creationist YouTube videos, read creationist materials on the internet, and I've been actively engaged in the discussion of creationism on ATS for a while. I've even approached it with an open mind. I even opened a thread asking for proof of creationism that you can find in my signature, yet there's been a deafening sound of crickets in that thread. In fact, not a single post in that thread put forth a single shred of scientific evidence of creationism. It's among the longest threads in this subforum's history.

Now, how many books on evolution have you read by proper scientists? How many books on cosmology? Chemistry?



"He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him." ~ Proverbs 18:13


Says the person citing creationist sources. The thing is that creationist sources as proof are more or less admittance of ignorance. They are inherently unscientific. Now, if you want we can have this sparring match in the thread I started that called for proofs of Creationism. But that's up to you.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by spy66
 

The Sun loses great mass and size daily.
Just imagine how massively HUUUUUUUUUUGE the Sun was 'billions' of years ago. By mathematical estimates it would have been over half the distance it currently is to the Earth. (93 million miles)

The sun is still "over half the distance it currently is to the Earth."
Well over. In fact you could say it's pretty well double half the distance it currently is from the Earth.



Originally posted by spy66
I would say you are onto something. Because after a compression you would have nothing but hot plasma, and the plasma will cool down by emitting of energy ( this is called expansion). As the plasma cools down by emitting of energy, the universes will start to take shape. There would probably be a lot of shining stars, planets and suns at an early stage. Earth was a shining bright light to in the beginning until it cooled down.

The grass on earth could manage to grow from other light sources then the sun, until the sun takes over as the main source of light and energy. The sun could overlap a previous light and energy source.

Isn't it fun to cast out all common sense and just imagine?

You are free to imagine all the stars and planets glowing, except Sol which is mysteriously absent still, and plants growing on this still molten orphan Earth. You are free to believe god then created Sol and our Moon and then stuck Earth and the other planets into a system with them. In fact you are welcome to believe god also created a turtle to carry Earth through space. But if you are going to rely on imagination and not bother reading up on what is known about the universe, why bother trying to explain anything? You might as well stick with an established creation myth.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceJ
What of Lot and his virgin/not virgin daughters and the incest of the daughter's raping him I suppose?

And where's the daughters' verson of events?

I hope you realise incestuous fathers always blame it on the children.
Can you imagine if one of your daughters got you drunk alone and raped you one night, letting the other daughter get you drunk alone the next night?
Of course not, which makes the whole story a load of pervert tripe.

There was a specially censored bible produced for missionaries, as any natives they came across rejected Christianity out of hand when they discovered the stories if incest in the great holy book.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well i challenged you. But you resisted by not answering.

I asked you for specific scientific evidence of what caused the Big Bang. You mentioned that something blew up. And i asked what blew up and how.

Would you care to try again?


I have been studying this subject for a very long time. Both Genesis and the scientific version. I would love to be corrected by your scientific knowledge.


Can you tell me:

1. What exploded?

2. How was the matter that exploded formed. What proses formed that matter?

3. What happened to the proses that formed the matter, or that surrounded the matter since the matter exploded?

4. Is your source challenged by any other scientific sources. If so why?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I've seen this approach before.

A: Argument presented.
B: Person does Google search for anything negative he can find then posts as rebuttal
C: Repeat.

Been there done that.




posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Actually, I've heard it before. I didn't really have to do a Google search because I read Phyrangula regularly and love Rationalwiki for being...rational.

Of course, your post doesn't address the counter-points. Also, the majority of my post didn't rely upon external sources, why didn't you address that?

reply to post by spy66
 



Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well i challenged you. But you resisted by not answering.


I'm sorry, but there isn't a single post addressed to me that is a challenge for anything.



I asked you for specific scientific evidence of what caused the Big Bang.


If you did I would have responded with: "We aren't sure"

Oh wait, no...my answer was that the question was entirely off-topic. Screw it, I'll school you in science.



You mentioned that something blew up. And i asked what blew up and how.


The Big Bang is not an explosion. There was no instance of something blowing up. There was an expansion. Do not stuff words into my mouth.



Would you care to try again?


...le sigh.Do or do not...



I have been studying this subject for a very long time. Both Genesis and the scientific version. I would love to be corrected by your scientific knowledge.


Nobody is certain what happened to cause the Big Bang. This doesn't mean it's unknowable, this doesn't mean that religious accounts are more valid. It simply means...we're not sure. We're working on the answer as a species and we'll hopefully figure it out.



Can you tell me:

1. What exploded?


There was no explosion, there was an expansion.



2. How was the matter that exploded formed. What proses formed that matter?


Um...again, not an explosion. As for the matter...the matter didn't exist until after the expansion. We had an ultra-dense point of energy. Now, as far as we know, that energy always existed. It might not even be a logical question to ask what happened before the event.

Of course, we simply aren't sure yet. This doesn't make the religious answer better, it makes the only justification for the religious answer the argument from ignorance.



3. What happened to the proses that formed the matter, or that surrounded the matter since the matter exploded?


It didn't explode. This is also an unreasonable question. We have no reason to believe that the matter formed out of anything other than preexisting energy, in a process that still happens.

E=mcc
Or
E=mc^2



4. Is your source challenged by any other scientific sources. If so why?


No.My source is...any reasonable scientist. There are competing views, but none of them are established. Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm not going to put my lot in with any theory.

We just aren't sure yet.


Of course, this is still off-topic.

And didn't I mention that I'd discuss this in O&C? ...oh, yes I did.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thank you.

Yes, the Big bang only acknowledges that the universe is expanding. And that it expanded from a point.

Since you also mentioned that science is not sure about how existence came to be. Isn't it arrogant to deny creation?

When you can't account for how it happened?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Of course, your post doesn't address the counter-points. Also, the majority of my post didn't rely upon external sources, why didn't you address that?


Because your link didn't present anything other than arbitrary opinion. How can I present a counter-point to that? Secondly, it's obvious your professor who wrote the article in the link didn't read the book, he states so, more it's apparent he didn't even read the entire first chapter only a paragraph. Dr. Lisle says this in the second paragraph in the INTRODUCTION to his book on pg. 11:


"But is there an argument that is so powerful that no refutation is possible? Is there an ultimate proof of creation? If by "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that will persuade everyone, then the answer has to be no. The reason is simple, persuasion is subjective. Sometimes people are not persuaded even by a very good argument. Conversely, people are (unfortunately) often persuaded by very bad arguments. Generally speaking, most people are simply not very rational; they are not good, clear thinkers. Of course this does not mean that people are unintelligent. But most of us are not rigorously objective as we would like to think. We often believe things for psychological reasons, rather than logical reasons. Many people refuse to accept a very good argument simply because they do not want to believe it's logical conclusion... However, if by an "ultimate proof" we mean an argument that is conclusive - one for which no rational refutation is possible - then I am convinced the answer is yes."


Your link did nothing whatsoever to discredit what Dr. Lisle had to say, in fact demonstrated the professor didn't even READ THE BOOK. So you want me to comment on the professor's Ad hominem and arbitrary opinion???

I wonder if the professor would suggest his students not read his course material, briefly view the 2nd paragraph in the first chapter, then take the test??

But you think his critique is a logical counter-point??





edit on 25-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: Sorry, my "hatred-of-good-science" bubble got in the way of accurate keystroking.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thank you.

Yes, the Big bang only acknowledges that the universe is expanding. And that it expanded from a point.

Since you also mentioned that science is not sure about how existence came to be. Isn't it arrogant to deny creation?

When you can't account for how it happened?





They're not denying anything, they just admit to NOT KNOWING. Why make up some mythical story (Christianity, Islam, etc.) just because you don't know...I rather be humble enough to admit to not knowing instead of making stuff up for which there is ZERO proof.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


This is an example of the argument from ignorance. No, I'm not calling you ignorant, I'm saying you're arguing that ignorance justifies your position.

Not having an adequate scientific understanding doesn't bolster unscientific claims. By your fallacy we would also have to thrown in all mythological and religious explanations as equal with all proposed scientific hypotheses, this would be ridiculous.

Your position's lack of objective evidence is all that is needed to deny it. It is not made more valid by a lack of proper scientific understanding. You need evidence to accept a claim, you lack any sort of evidence in favor of yours.

It is no more arrogant for me to deny your claim that it is for you to deny the ancient Greek story of creation or for me to deny the Pastafarian story of creation.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I was actually referring to the rest of my post rather than the external sources.

Now, I unfortunately lack access to a copy of the book, and it would be inanely ridiculous of anyone to ask that I refute a whole book. Nonetheless, this book still relies on the false premise that the sun is shrinking, for which the evidence is weak.

The observation relies upon the false assumption that the sun's activity over less than a century is equivalent to its entire billions of years lifespan. It conflicts with everything we know about how stars are formed.

If you can show me a proper, published scientific paper that demonstrates that there is cause to think that the sun has been shrinking since it was first formed, I'd like to see it. The tract you provided didn't actually have any scientific merit and relied on bizarrely simplistic mathematics. Now, were it correct it would be obvious that there would be external sources that corroborated the conclusions about solar mechanics proving a young Earth.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What i am saying is that its to early to make a claim.

I am not saying that everything within creation as it is told in the Bible is right. I said Genesis chapter 2 seams to be false. It seams to be made and formulated by someone who has no understanding of God. Because God don't do magic. There is no magic in Genesis chapter 1.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I was actually referring to the rest of my post rather than the external sources.


I have to ask why you included it then? I see so often a tactic in this origins debate to just Google search for some contradictory piece of evidence and paste it as a counter-point. Kinda why I refuse to go into the O&C forum. Quite often an argument will be made, then others will use a Google counter-argument that is chock-full of logical fallacies, then the poster's supporters will gather like a wild pack of dogs, high-five each other, and award stars for an absurd counter-argument.

I don't have the patience or time to engage in that circus. I see you as reasonable, therefore i prefer to discuss this topic with you privately instead of in public where a majority of people have no clue what constitutes a sound logical argument or counter-argument.


Now, I unfortunately lack access to a copy of the book, and it would be inanely ridiculous of anyone to ask that I refute a whole book. Nonetheless, this book still relies on the false premise that the sun is shrinking, for which the evidence is weak.


I disagree completely. But, would you like to provide me with your address in a U2U and I'll mail you a signed copy of the book at my expense?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join