hear me out # 1

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
Talyyn's picture
Nothing new has been brought

Nothing new has been brought here by you Jordan. You say to us that we have to open science books. The fact is that, a substantial part of us have done it, either as a professional or just for fun. We have actually no evidence that you ever did it.

Jordan's picture
Correction. I have explained

@talyyn

Correction. I have explained how the properties of DNA and the universe imply a creator by default and therefor the burden of proof is on those who belive reality is a result of an explosion.

Sapporo's picture
Jordan: Correction. I have

Jordan: Correction. I have explained how the properties of DNA and the universe imply a creator by default and therefor the burden of proof is on those who belive reality is a result of an explosion.

"In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed."

Demonstrate an example of a creator that has been observed.

Jordan's picture
I create. People create.

I create. People create.

LogicFTW's picture
@Jordan

@Jordan

Oooo... bad analogy you just lead yourself down.

If you are calling god creator like us humans as the "observed" creator. You just brought your god idea down to well humans and yourself.

See what you did yet?

Who/it/what

Created

God?

Is "god" a bored kid in chemistry class?

Want to take back your comment yet?

I got lots more if you want to keep going with this...

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Sapporo's picture
Jordan: I create. People

Jordan: I create. People create.

A true act of creation requires the creation of something out of nothing. Otherwise, you are merely engaged in an act of transformation.

David Killens's picture
@Jordan

@Jordan

"I create. People create."

Yes, including gods.

Randomhero1982's picture
Hands up who believes that

Correction. I have explained how the properties of DNA and the universe imply a creator by default and therefor the burden of proof is on those who belive reality is a result of an explosion.

Hands up who believes that our reality was formed from an "explosion".......

Jeez, how can people still make this common mistake...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jordan

@ Jordan

The "properties of DNA etc" Are you kidding? No they do not. That is just an assertion from your challenged mind. Or in other words, utter bollocks. Back to middle school with you, this time, pay some fucking attention.

Jordan's picture
It’s not just me. Even the

@old man shouts...
It’s not just me. Even the greatest minds in science and biology are baffled by the complexity of DNA. Have you taken any biology courses ever?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jordan

@ Jordan

Once again you misrepresent what I said...Now;

1> Please cite these "greatest" but 'baffled' minds you claim, and exactly where and what context they claim to be "baffled"
2>

" I have explained how the properties of DNA and the universe imply a creator by default"

No you have not. You have made several unevidenced assertions, and some speculative suggestions but nothing approaching evidence for your assertions and fanciful claims.

As to my qualifications...none of your fucking business until you make an evidenced, serious. peer reviewed submission regarding your supposed creator thing.

I won't hold my breath.

Talyyn's picture
@Jordan

@Jordan

The Universe is not the result of an explosion, only that proves that you know nothing of what you are talking about. I don't know much about the properties of DNA but do you care to define, explain us its properties and how it allow you to tadaaaa.... assume a creator. This creator that you must define the properties too, mind you.

Jordan's picture
@talynn

@talynn

I assumed you wouldn’t be so bold to assert any such thing as an explosion was the cause of everything. I was using an “explosion” as a general metaphor for how a lot of atheists view the beginning.

DNA is by far the densest storage mechanism known in the universe. For example, the amount of information contained in a pin head size of DNA would be equivalent to a stack of books 500xs higher than the distance to the moon.

There is no natural law through which matter can give rise to information.

After decades of research, no experiment or a simulation has shown that a natural process is able to generate information.

No tech company uses evolution to improve their designs because it would never work

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jordan - DNA is by far the

Jordan - DNA is by far the densest storage mechanism known in the universe.

The density of the information stored in DNA isn't even close to the Bekenstein bound, so that is false.

Talyyn's picture
@Jordan

@Jordan

Yeeeeessss... Of course... It is you who used the term "explosion", not me. You assume that atheists in general are a bunch of dumb and illiterates misfits, don't you?

"DNA is by far the densest storage mechanism known in the universe", actually "known", and what is your evidence for that? Please link papers, scientific studies or academic lectures.

"After decades of research, no experiment or a simulation has shown that a natural process is able to generate information", Yeeeessss, all the genetic studies amount to nothing...

Sheldon's picture
"I have explained how the

"I have explained how the properties of DNA and the universe imply a creator by default "

Nonsense, you e simply asserted this without demonstrating any objective evidence, and using cliched creationist arguments containing known common logical fallacies, and well debunked pseudoscience.

And again since you're ignoring it, even if you could evidence design this doesn't evidence a deity, let alone the one from the bronze age superstition you happen to have been raised to believe is true.

Science does not evidence design in nature, nor any deity, nor does it or can it evidence anything supernatura,l BY DEFINITION, that is axiomatic to any objective person. Creationists sadly are as blinkered closed minded and intransigent a group as anyone could encounter.

Cognostic's picture
@Jordan: "Correction - You

@Jordan: "Correction - You have done no such thing." Do you not think that if you could do such a thing you would be the most talked about person in the world today? Where is your Nobel Prize. All you have done is make one inane assertion after another. Frankly, it's really boring.

Randomhero1982's picture
Bangs on about the importance

Bangs on about the importance and complexity of DNA, doesn't note that all life has DNA and thus, we are nothing special.

This would lead one more to evidence of naturalism rather than an invisible cosmic wizard.

Furthermore, take the Daphnia Pulex that has 31,000+ genomes, far more intricate and complex then a human... but we are special?!

Yeah, ok....

Sheldon's picture
Very good point, though the

Very good point, though the fact the universe is almost 14 billion years old and the earth over 3cbillion years old, yet homosapiens didn't evolve until just 200k years ago, tells any objective person how asinine the religious claim that humans are special really is. This is why creatards keep wasting everyone's time by denying objective scientific facts like evolution, natural selection, and even carbon dating, in favour of a risible bronze age creation myth that doesn't have the most basic chronological order correct, days and light without a sun, all the stars created in one go, and all life magic'd into existence at the same time in an instant.

But then again what can you expect from anyone stupid enough to believe a deity with limitless power needed rest after their fantasy creation was completed.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I think this thread is more

It is my guess that this thread is more or less what religion will look like in the future. The old institutions seems to be dying, but are being replaced by this woo woo non-sense. Strung together from misconstrued headlines, ill defined weasel words, argumentum ad youtube, etc; all the while claiming that it is science, despite the fact it is clear the speaker don't know shit about science.

Welcome to the future.

Talyyn's picture
@Nyar

@Nyar

"...despite the fact it is clear the speaker don't know shit about science."

So you DID watch one of his videos? I will try to look at one...

Peurii's picture
1. You get mixed up in the

1. You get mixed up in the analogy of DNA to language and over stretch it. Even though DNA and language share similiarities, it doesn't mean that DNA is language. This is one of the points when metaphors, while useful, can lead people astray. Evolution doesn't just work at random like throwing alphabets in air and expecting to find something that works. Evolution works through accommodation to surroundings. There is a kind of "guidance" in the way that surroundings makes some genes preferential for survival.

2. This is the anthropocentric fallacy. If the unverse would be some other way, we wouldn't be here. To infer from that, that the universe must thus be fine tuned is a fallacy, because if it was some other way, no one would know.

3. Mathematics is the language of relations. Of course the universe conforms to a relational language. You are putting the wheel before the cart here.

Regarding quantum physics I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate if possible?

4. An "irreducibly evolved" cell is a contradiction in terms. If a cell evolved from some other cell, it is not irreducibly complex.

5. Our thinking about living organisms fool us. We think we are a whole one being, that dogs and cats are whole beings, but in fact we are a web of interconnected lifeforms (cells) working together. Same with our cognition. We are made of various systems, but we feel as if we were a one being.

6. No idea.

7. Ok... And?

8. And the Babylonian creation myth says that Marduk created the world out of the slain body of Tiamat. So I guess the divine coders had some row during the beta test phase?

Cognostic's picture
@Jordan: FFS - This whole

@Jordan: FFS - This whole mess could be a whole lot easier if you could just stay on one topic. LISTING ALL YOUR INANE ARGUMENTS AND NOT FOLLOWING UP ON A SINGLE ONE IS FUCKING DISHONEST AND EXACTLY WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THOSE WHO HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

1. RE: " Believing in a Creator isn't foolish." THEN STOP THE DAMN RANTING AND GIVE US A NON-FOOLISH REASON FOR BELIEVING IN A CREATOR.

NON-FOOLISH REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN CREATORS. (As the OP simply lists his favorite "NON-FOOLISH" arguments and does not defend or even complete any of them. I will not be completing them for him. I will simply reference their debunking.

PAINTER PAINTING - FFS - RAY COMFORTS FAVORITE ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY. Same as the "Building Builder" or "The Watchmaker." FOOLISH ARGUMENTS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UilWWnK1h4

1. The complexity of DNA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADWQoZ2HHoI
1a. DNA is an actual Language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2leoi54i4s
1b. DNA is like a computer code - Reference `1a'

2. Nature is "made up" of mathematical properties. NO! We use mathematical properties to describe nature. THE UNIVERSE IS FINED TUNED FOR LIFE. (A FOOLISH ARGUMENT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t10fDLfSV88&t=418s

3. Quantum physics shows us that reality is made up of tiny pixels. At our most sub atomic level we are made up of pixels and empty space similar to *cough computer simulation cough*

You are just WRONG. WE HAVE NO EXAMPLE OF EMPTY SPACE ANYWHERE IN OUR UNIVERSE. SPACE ITSELF IS A THING. Quantum Field Fluctuation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

4. Irreducible complexity. (YOU HAVE LOST EVERY COURT CASE) nuff said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS0hlXxHx78

5. Of course cells repair themselves. They are biological organisms. This, in no way, leads to "free will" any more than your body repairing itself is a result of free will. What we have now is a CONSCIOUS CELL OF THE GAPS argument. Cells can communicate, therefore GOD. Horseshit. Self repairing is a property of living organisms.

6. We have no theories or understandings of other dimensions. We have hypothesis and assertions. M-theory may be on its last leg. "5th May, 2015
Andrew Messing, Harvard University
"Yes. String theory, M-theory, and other physics beyond the standard model are derived mathematically and have no empirical evidence nor any known way to obtain any such evidence (any currently realizable way, at least). In fact, particle physics and quantum mechanics are both regarded with skepticism (particularly the former)" WE KNOW SO MUCH!!!! More FOOLISHNESS. BASICALLY - We don't understand other dimensions - therefore GOD!

8. BACK TO PREVIOUS BULLSHIT.

Why don't you stop wasting our time. Try choosing one position, one topic and stay with it. FUCK - if I had to respond to each inane assertion you made I would be here for a year. NOTHING YOU POSTED FOR AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD even comes close to NOT BEING FOOLISH.

Tin-Man's picture
All I wanna know is that if I

All I wanna know is that if I am some sort of pixelated character in a gigantic computer simulation, then where the hell is my super-spiffy armored spandex warrior outfit? Oh, and my mega-high-tech laser blast weapon? I swear, whoever the programmer is/was certainly didn't have much of an imagination. I mean, it's bad enough that I cannot fly, but - hell - I can't even so much as jump up on top of my house in a single bound. (Hmmm... For that matter, I can't even jump up onto my kitchen table... *scratching chin*...) Anyway, my point is, this simulation would be soooo much more gnarly and cool if the programmer would have been just a bit more creative. Just sayin'...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jordan - 4. Irreducibly

Jordan - 4. Irreducibly complex cells...I do believe irreducibly complex cells evolved...Everything I brought up can be found in a science text.

Expanding on what Peurii said above: in the field of biology, Irreducible Complexity is widely considered pseudoscience. In the field of mathematics it is sometimes refereed to as "pseudomathematics".

Now it is OK that you disagree with the experts (even experts can get it wrong); but for you to claim what you have said is backed up by the literature in the field tells me you are either:

  • trolling
  • are totally clueless (and innocently repeating the lies of others)
  • just a damn liar

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are clueless.

Jordan's picture
@nyarlathotep

@nyarlathotep

You must not be familiar with irreducibly complex cells like the bacteria flagellum. It is a machine like cell which is composed of 40+ parts all
Which have to be in place before the cell can serve any function. If evolution relies on slow gradual improvements, the flagellum is an oddity since all interdependent parts need to be present at the exact same time before the cell is useful.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jordan - You must not be

Jordan - You must not be familiar with irreducibly complex cells like the bacteria flagellum.

While I'm no biologist, but I know that claim is the hallmark of the pseudoscience of irreducible complexity. Only the fruitcakes take that seriously.

Why don't you read what the peer reviewed literature has to say on this matter:

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

Now I ask you, if this has all been established by science (like you said); why does the scientific literature contradict you? Let me guess: it's a conspiracy!?

Talyyn's picture
The linked page from

The linked page from Nyarlathotep is very informative. My favorite part was when some dude began spewing probabilities out of his ass. When someone tries something like this, it should raise your bollocks alarm to the highest level, especially if you are not comfortable with the subject of probabilities in general.

LogicFTW's picture
@Jordan and thread re:

@Jordan and thread re: formation of life on earth

We don't really know for sure how life arose on earth, we have some decent guesses, but when we don't know and are just theorizing, occam's razor is a useful tool.

Which is more likely and which involves more assumption?

An all powerful entity (god) that is outside of time and space created life (in a contradictory manner in our time and space!) a god idea that is not "understandable" to us mere humans, infinitely more complex than anything we humans have ever observed and we are left with 1000's more questions then when we started with asking about creation?

-OR-

The unique property of carbon atoms and the ability to connect to other atoms, (including itself,) in so many different ways, giving rise to complexity, (perhaps the best way to define "life,") if the right conditions are present, of which in this vast universe only has to show up in 1 in a trillion to be all over. Of which we have direct corrabatory evidence of which we can observe and understand?

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Jordan's picture
@logicftw

@logicftw

Thank you for your reply. Yes I suppose at that point it is a matter of personal opinion and think both answers are equally plausible.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.