Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


A truly intelligent person would not say this exists or not for his knowledge and faculties limit him so greatly that humans need 5 million years of brain development to even scratch the surface of understanding. but what ever entertains the weak mind and ego.

And you discovered this... how?

Has it occurred to you that you may be judging others by standards you do not apply to yourself?

Or, alternatively, that you are judging others by standards that apply to you, but not to them?


Pretty avatar, by the way. FWIW.




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


How about you explain abiogenesis so I have a foundation of the ground rules...

Try Chapter Two of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.


...but before that I want evidence of the of the BIG BANG, or at least some explanation with evidence as to how the universe came about.

Learn some physics. Pay particular attention to special and general relativity, electromagnetism, wave mechanics and the concept of red shift. Learn to distinguish between cosmic and Doppler red shift. Discover the significance of the cosmic microwave background.

Once you've got your head around all that, you won't be asking the question any more.


How about explaining the causation of the different elements within periodic table of elements

Nuclear fusion explains that. Again: learn some physics. Till you do, you won't be able to understand any explanation we can give you. You'll just be too ignorant. Sorry about that.


Christianity is faith based.... Just like the foundations of evolution.

Someone's definitely being a bit faith-based round here... I wouldn't say it was evolution, though.

edit on 22/1/12 by Astyanax because: I forgot wave mechanics.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Abiogensis is not evolution. The big bang is not evolution. The elements in period table are not evolution. Try again. I gave you the evidence. It's your choice to ignore it and debate philosophy, but I prefer science. You are trying to say science doesn't know, therefor god did it. That's called god of the gaps.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 




How about you explain abiogenesis so I have a foundation of the ground rules


This film gives an excellent explanation of abiogenesis, what it is not and what it is. It also describes ONE current hypothesis.



I recommend you crank up the volume to eleven, because the sound track is excellent.

Understand that there is no one agreed to "Theory of Abiogenesis", just a work going on with several hypotheses, 'sifting out the grain from the chaff'. Some of the hypotheses are mutually exclusive; some are complimentary. Some depend on beginning conditions that may have existed or may have not, and will be eliminated or advanced as that issue is resolved.

There is lots of work is going on identify dead end ideas. The ultimate dead end idea is "God did it" because it automatically closes off any and all other questions. There is no Science in "God did it" because there is no possible way to disprove it.

A fish is not incompatible with a bicycle; a fish is simply irrelevant to a bicycle. In exactly the same way, God is not incompatible with Science; God is simply irrelevant to Science.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Abiogensis is not evolution. The big bang is not evolution. The elements in period table are not evolution. Try again. I gave you the evidence. It's your choice to ignore it and debate philosophy, but I prefer science. You are trying to say science doesn't know, therefor god did it. That's called god of the gaps.
edit on 22-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



Hmmmm
I didnt suggest those questions were relating to evolution........did I??
You want rational formed conclusive scientific answers then I demand answers to my questions above.
As I clearly stated I want a foundation to base my answers on.
If science is so black and white, WHY NOT just answer the questions.
I know why you cant, cos you cant and thats why you operate within scientific faith, the religion of science,
but wait, there is more
Answer my three questions zand I will supply formed conclusive scientific answers to justify creation that you will not be able to refute scientifically.

Since England lost its Christian moral standard it has started reverting back to a third world country.
edit on 22-1-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
and just quickly I am not going to read Dawkins, he is boring ill informed and generally talks crap
No Youtube, if you want ME to answer your questions, then answer mine. I can provide links as well.
Thats not what I want this to be about

Nuclear fusion? Explain the "recipe" for nuclear fusion and how that brought about ALL the elements. What a silly scientific answer...nuclear fusion. And still the same old question arises from that silly answer. Where did NUCLEAR FUSION come from without the elements first DOH



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 




Does a computer have a creator? How do we know this? Why is when man tries to achieve great technologies they attempt to copy nature?

I guess what it boils down to is who is intelligent and who is not. Intelligent people dont bother arguing with fools and fools dont understand how unintelligent they are.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?

If your answer is 'x' then please watch this next video.


As you can see in the video that the this technology is so high tech that we claim it appeared from nothing. It is indeed a vast, super complex, super efficient technology and we are thousands of years away from re-creating it.


The system of the creator of this complex machinery to house our conscious energy is far too complex for the human mind to ever comprehend.

We are like an ant walking on top of a computer circuit board. This is how far we are from understanding where and what we are.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





As you can see in the video that the this technology is so high tech

No, it is not high tech. It is in fact, no tech. It is biology. The graphics are high tech and quite illuminating, but the process it is modeling is not technological.



that we claim it appeared from nothing.

No 'we' do not claim it appeared from nothing. It appeared in tiny incremental steps, over hundreds of millions of years. Your assertion is absurd. If you viewed the video link I provided, you may remember that there is exactly one source for the idea of something coming from nothing - The Bible.



It is indeed a vast, super complex, super efficient technology and we are thousands of years away from re-creating it.

Why would 'we' want to "re-create" it? The point of studying these processes is not to re-creating them, it is to understand them. And to understand them is to hopefully gain insight into solving problems and treating diseases.

Having said that, 'we' may in fact be only a few decades away from re-creating it, thousands of years is certainly an overstatement. But, like I say, what would be the point of "re-creating" biology?



The system of the creator of this complex machinery to house our conscious energy is far too complex for the human mind to ever comprehend.

Exactly the point. Comprehending a hypothetical creator is hopeless. Seeking to understand the beauty of the universe on the other hand, is a fundamental consequence of being human. Being satisfied with the 'God did it' answer is actually anti-human when viewed in this way.



We are like an ant walking on top of a computer circuit board. This is how far we are from understanding where and what we are.


That may well be a true simile. I can think of a couple of problems with it, but it boils down to the comment I made in my previous post. The ant and the circuit board are not incompatible, they both exist at the same time and they don't perform the same function in incompatible ways, they are simply irrelevant to each other (unless the ant causes a short circuit somehow, of course).



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 

Is this directed at me?


I am not going to read Dawkins, he is boring ill informed and generally talks crap...

Well, then, you're just going to have to stay ignorant, aren't you?



if you want ME to answer your questions, then answer mine.

I didn't ask you any questions. I go to reliable sources for my information.



Explain the "recipe" for nuclear fusion and how that brought about ALL the elements. What a silly scientific answer...nuclear fusion. And still the same old question arises from that silly answer. Where did NUCLEAR FUSION come from without the elements first DOH

The first element, hydrogen, along with deuterium, helium and lithium, formed soon after the appearance of protons in the primordial universe. The electroweak force was sufficient to bring them into existence. Gravity then caused hydrogen atoms to congregate in ever-greater density. Eventually the pressure resulting from this was enough to start a fusion reaction that made helium from hydrogen. Thus the stars were lit. Within them, the process of fusion continues, giving rise to the other elements of the periodic table up to iron. When stars explode, they scatter these elements across the universe. The remaining elements, the ones heavier than iron, are also formed in these explosions. They are found throughout the visible universe.

By the way, nuclear fusion is a tried and tested process, frequently replicated by humans. Indeed, the heaviest elements of all have been formed artificially, inside particle accelerators.

Like I said: learn some physics. Right now, you don't know enough to understand the answers to the questions you're asking. That's not the fault of the people supplying you with the answers, you know.


edit on 22/1/12 by Astyanax because: I like smileys now.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by borntowatch
 

Is this directed at me?


I am not going to read Dawkins, he is boring ill informed and generally talks crap...

Well, then, you're just going to have to stay ignorant, aren't you?



if you want ME to answer your questions, then answer mine.

I didn't ask you any questions. I go to reliable sources for my information.



Explain the "recipe" for nuclear fusion and how that brought about ALL the elements. What a silly scientific answer...nuclear fusion. And still the same old question arises from that silly answer. Where did NUCLEAR FUSION come from without the elements first DOH

The first element, hydrogen, along with deuterium, helium and lithium, formed soon after the appearance of protons in the primordial universe. The electroweak force was sufficient to bring them into existence. Gravity then caused hydrogen atoms to congregate in ever-greater density. Eventually the pressure resulting from this was enough to start a fusion reaction that made helium from hydrogen. Thus the stars were lit. Within them, the process of fusion continues, giving rise to the other elements of the periodic table up to iron. When stars explode, they scatter these elements across the universe. The remaining elements, the ones heavier than iron, are also formed in these explosions. They are found throughout the visible universe.

By the way, nuclear fusion is a tried and tested process, frequently replicated by humans. Indeed, the heaviest elements of all have been formed artificially, inside particle accelerators.

Like I said: learn some physics. Right now, you don't know enough to understand the answers to the questions you're asking. That's not the fault of the people supplying you with the answers, you know.


edit on 22/1/12 by Astyanax because: I like smileys now.


Assuming you cant relate the illogic of Dawkins to me, I can assume you dont understand it.
Ignorance sounds like a confession?


What a cracker of a statement??
"The first element, hydrogen, along with deuterium, helium and lithium, formed soon after the appearance of protons in the primordial universe"
That is NO answer. I want to know the science of how the elements formed. These elements "hydrogen, along with deuterium, helium and lithium"
You cant say fusion created the elements unless you can explain initially where the elements came to create fusion. Its Dawkinish in its stupidity.
Do you see the problem?

You cant admit physics hasnt an answer, so you attack me. Yours is a religion.

The question remains, albeit we can change it slightly. Where did the elements that created fusion to create all the other elements come from.
Do you understand the problem?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


Assuming you cant relate the illogic of Dawkins to me, I can assume you dont understand it.

I can't stop you from making assumptions, but the above are false.


Ignorance sounds like a confession?

I really couldn't care less what it sounds like to you. There are people whose opinions I do care about; I have every confidence that they will read what I have written and derive the right conclusions from it.


I want to know the science of how the elements formed. These elements "hydrogen, along with deuterium, helium and lithium"

Roughly speaking, early elements formed from hadrons and leptons under the action of the electroweak force. Hadrons formed from quarks under the action of the strong force. These events occurred in a sequence, under a set of rapidly evolving environmental conditions in the aftermath of the Big Bang. I am not sure of the details of the process but you (or I) could very easily look them up. They are well established both theoretically and experimentally.


You cant say fusion created the elements unless you can explain initially where the elements came to create fusion. Its Dawkinish in its stupidity.

If you want more detail than I have supplied, I am afraid you will have to accept my original suggestion and learn some physics.


Do you see the problem?

Yes. It is that you believe the world can be dumbed down to a level where you are able to understand it.


You cant admit physics hasnt an answer, so you attack me. Yours is a religion.

Attack you? My replies to you have been brusque (which is no more than you deserve, since you extend no courtesy to others) but they have also been explanatory, helpful, and truthful.

Physics does have answers to your questions – though there remain other questions still unanswered – but you are not capable of understanding the answers at your present level of scientific education. There is nothing anyone but you can do about that.


Where did the elements that created fusion to create all the other elements come from. Do you understand the problem?

Yes. Like most people who don't understand modern physics, you're asking 'what existed before the Big Bang'. Though it seems a sensible enough question on the face of it, a little intelligent reflection on the nature of spacetime will show that it is actually meaningless. I refuse to spoon-feed your ignorance, but here's a little hint: Stephen Hawking once described the universe as 'finite but boundaryless'. Get it?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
AHH
so you believe in the religion of Hawkings.
He said it and you have accepted it without evidence??
Thats how I see it
You have offered no evidence outside of name dropping the hi priests of science.
Enough of your infantile arguments.
Somebody else please step up and deliver me from this fool.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?


Funny how you come up with this argument even if it was completely debunked and dismantled in the video I posted


You're simply ignoring facts...

To any rational person it should be obvious that a man-made computer isn't the same as a living being.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by borntowatch
 


So you believe in the religion of Hawkings. He said it and you have accepted it without evidence??

Physics was the subject of my university education. I have studied and understood the evidence for the models of the physical universe we now possess. The ideas of Stephen Hawking are not a closed book to me.

By the way, a finite but boundaryless universe is just one of many hypotheses Hawking was playing with back in the 1970s and 1980s. It isn't necessarily the one that describes reality best; I only used it because I knew it would rile you. Result!


You have offered no evidence outside of name dropping the hi priests of science.

That's right. I have no interest in convincing you of anything. I am merely here to amuse myself. If you want to be educated, go to school.


Enough of your infantile arguments.

I offer no arguments, merely answers you claim to seek but do not seem able to grasp.


Somebody else please step up and deliver me from this fool.

This is my thread, chum. There's the door; here's your hat.

edit on 23/1/12 by Astyanax because: of reality.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?


Funny how you come up with this argument even if it was completely debunked and dismantled in the video I posted


You're simply ignoring facts...

To any rational person it should be obvious that a man-made computer isn't the same as a living being.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





If you were to find a computer when you have never seen a computer before would you say it was created or it evolved?


Funny how you come up with this argument even if it was completely debunked and dismantled in the video I posted


You're simply ignoring facts...

To any rational person it should be obvious that a man-made computer isn't the same as a living being.


Ignoring facts??
Thats rich, even from an atheist.
Tell me who programs the computers to relate/interface with other computers.

Who created the program that teaches everything within the computer to relate to everything outside the computer. On its own the computer is useless, it needs power a program and an operator to name a few basic.
Your youtube video was a lie

Any rational person would understand a computer is well below the dynamics of humanity.
Clearly establishing the fact mankind must have been created.

What evidence was/has been offered to my three simple questions.
The big bang is a religious belief. No evidence
The periodic table of elements cant exist. No explanation
Abiogenesis isnt real because it cant happen. No evidence
Evolutionists believe by faith that science is correct. Atheist proselytise their opinion with a religious ferver.
Thats religion
Dawkins victory is comparative with Stalins or Maos or the Khmer Rouge. Humanity are animals with no standard.
Survival of the fittest at the expense of the poor and weak.
Well done atheism.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Do we need evolution to be taught ? Do we need creation to be taughT ? How are either one essential to history,
math, science, reading ? Both were merely glossed over when I went to school enough to make me aware of the two world views. If I didn't have the brains to figure out there was a creator for myself I'd be SOL. Those who know him will hear him.
edit on 23-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

The periodic table of elements cant exist. No explanation


CNO Cycle

Proton-proton chain reaction

Stellar nucleosynthesis

Supernova nucleosynthesis

Explanations.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by skonaz
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive -

Surely evolution could be designed intelligently ?


Or indeed intelligence could have evolved?

Always hold a mirror to every argument.


Which means you should be in favor of teaching both in an evidence based method and allowing people to decide what has stronger evidence to support it. That or you are a hypocrite.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by skonaz
 

Yours was a very quick response, I must say. The thread's only been up five minutes.

Life may well have been created, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was. Therefore, you cannot honestly teach creationism in schools as if it were true.

It certainly is possible that life was originally created, even if it isn't very likely.

edit on 17/1/12 by Astyanax because: of repetition.


What is the more likely scientific explanation for how life came from non life? Not ideas, a verifiable, repeatable, scientifically factual method.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join