Subject pretty much sums it up
Also, why is almost every thread mainly answered by the same 6-7 people?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Here is a fact for you. The "something from nothing" argument has been comprehensively answered many times on these forums. In great detail and with multiple citations.
you replied to my comment 9 mins after i posted a 9 mins and 38 seconds video. Yeah, you watch the whole thing. Awesome job old man. I would like to borrow your time machine one day.
I listened and watched until the gag reflex kicked in.
"I listened and watched until the gag reflex kicked in."
You still have a gag reflex after everything your dad has done to you?
In the first few seconds he said evolution was responsible for the beginning of life, and that the Big Bang happened after a primordial dust cloud floating in nothingness collapsed into a dense ball. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, and it's stars that form through the collapse of dust clouds. He also claims that science says nothing come from nothing.
I don't feel like sitting through another 10 minutes of this nonsense. Can you provide an executive summary of the rest of his fallacious babble?
~25 seconds in zhe states that atheist believe that evolution brought life into existence. That is not what I believe; and that is not what the theory of evolution says.
~1:20 repeatedly refers to the big bang as an explosion
~1:23 claims a "dust cloud" existed before the explosion
~1:29 claims the dust cloud (before big bang) drew together
~1:40 more references to primordial dust clouds
~2:00 several more references to the big bang as an explosion
~2:29 claims big bang made a perfect universe
~2:36 "science contradicts science"
~3:00 misrepresents the 2nd law.
~3:00 more misrepresentation of the 2nd law
~3:40 discusses people controlling chemical reactions so they won't produce entropy
~3:53 another reference to our world being perfect
~4:24 "if you look at something, you know where it came from"
~4:36 this point in the video is very sad as it is a pan of the audience. You can see the women in the audience are segregated in the back of the room
~5:02 says that natural selection can explain the diversity of species (which means he just endorsed evolution)
~5:15 postulates that souls exist
~5:38 basically says that lifeforms need more than their parts to live, they need some of outside influence
~6:45 explicitly endorses evolution by natural selection
~7:05 implies that evolution by natural selection violates the 2nd law
Some old tired nonsense; except for the parts about the dust clouds, that is new nonsense (new to me anyway).
Wow. You've a lot more patience than I have.
Kudos for enduring the entire video, I didn't last much more than a minute.
Neither did I. I paused it... I got 23 seconds into it before bailing.
For the life of me, I cannot even tell you what he said. It was that terrible...
Iron stomach! I pitched out after getting to the dust cloud.
All hail your friendly neighborhood Nyar: watching shit theist YouTube vids so you don't have to!
Selfless, Nyar- absolutely selfless. :-)
Re: Nyar's breakdown of video
For conduct above and beyond the call of duty, I propose Nyar be awarded the AR Medal for Uncommon Valor.
Fact: It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
"Fact: It is impossible for something to come from nothing."
That's not true. It's thought that strings come from nothing. At the foundation there are strings, Brane, and quantum foam. The problem is that we simply don't understand what the properties of nothing are. It's a long way to get to the hydrogen atom and stars.
The problem is similar to thinking about how the egg yolk gets inside the hard egg shell. Or where did your bones come from? Once you understand the process such things lose their mystery.
@Man searching for something,
"Also, why is almost every thread mainly answered by the same 6-7 people?"
Because we are the only ones willing?
As for that video, why cannot you Absolutists actually have someone with enough intelligence AND knowledge to speak about what they try to speak about.
You want facts. Then please quit presenting us with faerie tales.
The video is basically stating an opinion.
Maybe if the OP stated some facts, then the response would be facts.
I am one who did not listen to/watch the whole clip, because in the first few seconds and minutes, this Dr. Brown made a number of statements which were false, and showed a lack of knowledge about science. It was obvious that he does not know what he's talking about, and unless he were to retract his errors before the end of the video, I do not trust any of his misguided and misguiding attempt at using science to support his religion and god-belief. People who already believe or who want to believe, like Brown does, would lap it up I guess. Member Nyarlathotep did a good job of picking up the speaker's errors, and the reason why we should throw his video on the rubbish heap of bad ideas.
I think I made it to the "science contradicts science" part (maybe less than three minutes). A mild vertigo started kicking in by that point.
By the way, am I the only one in here who truly LOVES IT when somebody comes in and demands that we answer in a specific way? Oh, and especially when that somebody is on an atheist site expecting serious technical discussions concerning matters of astrophysics and cosmology. Since that somebody seems to have such an interest in the Big Bang and other related cosmologic studies, and that somebody acts as though he is some sort of expert in the field, then perhaps that somebody would see the logic in finding a nice Astrophysics or Cosmological site on which to debate such technical details with actual scientists and/or students who study and research such things for a living? Oh, wait. Silly me. That would make too much sense. Well, that, and the fact that the certain somebody would have his ass handed to him on a silver platter if he tried presenting his load of grade-school creationist dribble to a group of experts in the field. Geeee... What was I thinking? *slapping my forehead with palm of hand*
Oh, and as to why only the same six or seven people seem to reply.... Well, I can't speak for the other five or six, but there's just something about those big green muscles of yours that keeps drawing me in.
I guess being a Tin-Man gives you that tin stomach to survive longer than the 23 seconds I made it...
@Arakish Re: "I guess being a Tin-Man gives you that tin stomach to survive longer than the 23 seconds I made it..."
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I DID have to down a handful of Tums to get rid of the acid reflux feeling.
1. "Who made you? The question is a logical fallacy. It is called begging the question. The correct answer is "My mother and father made me." Begging the question occurs when the answer is already assumed in the question. By asking "Who" the man speaking is assuming that a "God" or some "Magical being" made mankind. This is a fallacy. A correctly worded question would be - "If life had an origin what was it?"
2, "We as a creation are the result of the Big Bang." Just factually wrong. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. The "Big Bang is a fact, supported by all the evidence we have. The Big Bang only makes the assertion that the universe is expanding. Nothing more. It often begins with a hot dense mass or a singularity. NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THESE CAME FROM or IF THEY CAME FROM ANYWHERE AT ALL. The Big Bang did not bring the universe into existence. That is just wrong.
3. "Evolution brought life into existence." Wrong Again. No one knows how life began. We have a lot of theories. Electric Spark, Primordial Soup, Clay, Volcano Vents at the bottom of the sea, Transpermia, etc... Evolution occurs after life has formed. FACT!
4. Yes, Islam like Catholicism accept the Big Bang as a creation myth. It is not a creation myth. It is an expansion of the universe myth. In these faiths, God creates the stuff and then the stuff turns into the universe. (Before you can assert a God did it, you have to prove that there was a god there.) Making the assertion is explaining one mystery with an even greater mystery. Occam's razor asserts that we do not need to add a God to the mix. And if we add a god, we can also add anything else, "Universe Creating Pixies, I Giant Jar of Life Giving Peanut Butter, or magical nothing from which everything can come.
5. What makes more sense, "Random" or "Under Control of a Creator?" This is another logical fallacy called the Black and White argument or "False Dilemma." These are not the only two options by far. The fact is, WE DO NOT KNOW. What if the multiverse theory is correct? What if aliens did it. What if one universe can give birth to another universe like cells. FACT - WE DON'T KNOW.
6. "The big bang did not start with the explosion." WTF - There is no Bang in the Big Bang. No explosion at all. It is a theory of the expansion of the universe. FACT - This idiot knows nothing about the big bang, evolution or the origin of the universe.
7. "A dust cloud in the nothingness of space." This should be a logical fallacy called moronic babble. First, we now know that space is not nothing. Space is a thing and it is held together with the Higgs Boson. We have no idea what is outside of space. Second, if there is a cloud, space is not empty. It's like saying there is a grape in an empty glass of water. The glass of water is not empty, it is a glass of water and it has a grape in it. Space is not empty, it is a thing called space and there is a dust cloud in it.
8. "Where did the primordial dust come from for this explosion?" What makes him think it "came from" anywhere. THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION.
9. "We know from science that we do not get something from nothing." Science makes no such assertion. This is a LIE. We do not have a "Nothing" to examine to see if something can come from it or not. There is no example of "Nothing" anywhere in out universe and we have no idea what is beyond it. Science can say nothing at all about "Nothing." "Nothing" is a philosophical and mathematical construct with no equivalency in the real world.
10. "The Big Bang explosion resulted in a perfect universe." NO EXPLOSION. PERFECT UNIVERSE,, perfect for what? 99.999% of the universe is deadly to us. The earth is not ideal for us and only scores 82% on the Habitability index. https://futurism.com/turns-earth-isnt-habitable-think/
11. This idiot understands entropy like I understand Arabic.
The heat death of the universe is a plausible ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy. We are dying - Good Design - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
I have no more time for this guys stupidity. Sorry, I have to go and teach a class. I Quit at 3:42 - someone else can pick it up at "Entropy."
It's a YouTube clip, showing a theist who has no grasp of physics or logic making claims he can't evidence, whilst dishonestly pretending that atheism rather than being the lack or absence of belief, involves making claims about the universe. This is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, it's a fallacy in informal logic. It has also been labelled a God of the gaps argument.
I'd imagine 6 posters are more prevalent on here because they are minded to do so. What an odd question.
Thanks for that video summary. Thought I might have missed something...
Man in search o...,
Why is it that every time you send us to YouTube to listen to your Islamic speaker (who is supposed to set us atheists straight) the guy quickly proves himself a total ignoramus?? I'm used to grossly ignorant Christians, but they look like college graduates compared to the Islamic speakers I've seen so far! I'm genuinely shocked! Shocked!
Basic Fact #1
Evolution is not an atheist theory! The fact of evolution (as versus its theoretical explanations) is accepted by biologists and geologists everywhere. There is no on-going debate on the fact of evolution within reputable scientific journals, real university textbooks, and the like. Many of those scientists are religious, Muslim as well as Christian.
Basic Fact #2
The Big Bang Theory does NOT begin with a huge dust cloud! Space and time itself were created by the Big Bang event. (Apparently he is confusing the Big Bang with the formation of the solar system.) The Big Bang Theory doesn't even address the Big Bang event! It accounts for what happened very shortly afterwards and to this day.
Where do you find these losers? You would think that someone who gets up to preach on this subject would trouble himself to at least learn the basics!
What's really sad about this video is the audience. Think about all those people. Not a damn IQ point to share between them.
FACT: if I wanna learn sumthing about cosmology I will watch one made by actual cosmologists.
FACT: didn't watch clip.
Life is to short to link on to that video. I have read the Koran twice. That was enough to persuade me of Islam's untruths. I don't imagine you tube having more compelling info than the Koran.
I'm at home now; classes are over.... let's pick up where I left off. You only get good at picking these idiots apart by picking them apart. Though he will repeat many of his original assertions, I have already trashed them so I will not repeat myself.
Starting at 3:42
13. " Atheists talk about evolution and natural selection." WRONG AGAIN Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Biologists talk about evolution and natural selection. Even if evolution is completely wrong. 100% FABRICATED You still have to prove your god exists.
14. If you look at something you know where it came from (painting - painter etc...) So were did life come from? This is a false comparison or a category error. The Moron is comparing things that are constructed or made with things that occur naturally. We recognize made things because we make them. We have no idea at all where all the natural stuff originally came from unless of course you want to blame the atoms in stars or the universe itself.
15, "We are to look at creation and think that there was not a creator." Same bullshit trick he pulled before but in reverse. He assumes "Creator" and then asserts we are to not assume "creator." Where is this creator he speaks of and what evidence does he give us? NONE.
Instead he talks about the Big Bang and Evolution and simply asserts that his God had something to do with it. This is the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. It is a moronic attempt to assert his god is real FACT - WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
16. "The proposal of the Atheist is that we evolved by natural selection." (Same shit) NO IT IS NOT! The proposal of Atheism is that you have no evidence for the existence of your god and so we choose not to believe. FACT!
17. " How can you explain the human soul?" Hopefully he is going to explain it and tell us all where it came from.... that will be interesting. Stay tuned.
18. Nope! Now he starts asking how can we explain life. We covered that already. We do not know the origins of life but have several theories supported by facts. You have one assertion. GOD, with no facts supporting it at all.
19. Science can make body parts but they can't make them live? I'm sure this moron has never heard of cloning. We can make hamburger meat in a laboratory and Russia just successfully cloned some sheep.
20. Medicine is not able to revive a dead person. Not even one that has been under the ice for 10 minutes and whose heart and brain functions have stopped.
"A teenager in Italy recently beat some incredible odds when he survived for 42 minutes underwater, according to news reports.
The 14-year-old boy, identified only as "Michael" by the Italian newspaper Milan Chronicle, reportedly dove off a bridge into a canal with some friends last month and never resurfaced. His foot became caught on something underwater and it took firefighters and other first responders nearly an hour to free him from the depths. Though Michael remained on life support for an entire month, he recently woke up and seems to be doing fine, Time reported.
While Michael's story is certainly unusual, it's not unheard of for people to survive prolonged stints underwater, according to Dr. Zianka Fallil, a neurologist at North Shore-LIJ's Cushing Neuroscience Institute in New York. Fallil, who called the teenager's recovery "quite remarkable," told Live Science that there are two physiological processes that may come into play when a person is submerged underwater for an extended period of time with no oxygen. [7 Common Summer Health Concerns."
We get better and better at it every few years.
21. Evolution and the big bang tended towards perfection. I already dealt with entropy and the end of the universe. Now evolution. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now dead.
22. The Islamic version of the ole "A tornado blowing through a junkyard and making a 747" The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is credited to Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and writer. He originally used the comparison not as an analogy for evolution, but as an argument against abiogenesis. He felt that the improbability of even the simplest life form arising from non-living matter was too great. However, his analogy lives on in origins debate despite its original context.
Arguing that abiogenesis is akin to jumbo jets appearing in a storm-stricken junkyard is a straw man, oversimplifying a complex theory. Current scientific theory in abiogenesis does not suggest that complex high-order beings appeared from primordial soup in one magical step.
Proponents of Intelligent Design, or stupid Islamic clerics erroneously assume that because the ensuing chaos does not produce some sort of complex, man-made device (for example, a Boeing 747), that various processes of evolution, abiogenesis or other origins theory are equally unlikely
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
What a FRIGGING waste of time.
And literally the horror of the whole thing is the fact that all those people sat there and listend to this moron like he was actually saying something. At no point did he validate his god or any of his assertions. The whole lecture is one big STRAW MAN attack on atheism without ever actually talking about atheism. He attacks the Big Bang without understanding it. He attacks Evolution without understanding it and he makes a bunch of false assertions about Atheism because he does not understand it. The man is an idiot.
Hey, Hulkster dude. Just a little FYI, in case you are interested....
Fact: All the Big Bang and Evolution discussions are interesting to me, but only because I'm something of a geeky nerd like that sometimes. However, both Evolution and the Big Bang could be proven to be a total bunch of hogwash, and I would still be an atheist, because my being an atheist has nothing to do with either of those subjects.
I'm afraid you will need to find some other method of achieving your "Ah-Ha!" moment. Sorry to disappoint.