Origins and Science
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Bloody hell! What a load of horse shit.
Do these people watch William Lane Craig's woeful attempts at physics and come running on to atheist sites pretending to understand?
Absolutely mental!
"Do these people watch William Lane Craig's woeful attempts at physics and come running on to atheist sites pretending to understand?"
That is exactly what many of them do. Go read that appalling thread where the author relentlessly asks for a code not created by intelligence. That then insists DNA is a code and *ta da...drum roll....DNA requires intelligence. Woeful stuff and he acts like he's deciphered the dead sea scrolls.
I love YouTube, but let's face it, it has a lot to answer for in transfering woeful apologetics to the ignorant sheeple, who then go off to stun the heathens with their "irrefutable evidence" for god.
lukew0480, your original post comes across as a case of the Gish Gallop. It contains so many assertions and inaccuracies that to handle them all properly, and adequately, would take too much space, in this type of forum.
Read about Gish Gallop here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Covering and refuting just one in adequate detail would take up quite a bit of space. In the process, that might make it seem that all of the others are legit., (especially to you).
The best approach would be to take the whole OP, and look at each assertion one-by-one, seeking to reach an agreement on that. Then the next point could be taken.
In covering just the first instance of what I claim to be baldly asserted and inaccurate, might take a lot of to-ing and fro-ing to complete to some sort of mutual consensus. Take for instance: "there must be some reverse of the second law of thermodynamics/miracle". On both counts that is wrong, and on the first, (ie. some sort of reverse of the second law of thermodynamics), that has been refuted many times over, and could be answered and refuted by YOU, for yourself if you went and looked.
I would hope that if you are honestly seeking the truth, you would indeed look for yourself, and not demand that others do the work for you, (though we can).
Mu.
@lukew0480
You are the one saying that Atheist say that life came from nothing. Where is the objective evidence for any miracle?
I'm surprised you haven't tried to claimed that god created life.
All of your answers say absolutely nothing. I always hear, it would take too much space. The attempt to say that the relationship between joules from the sun and entropy is complete bullshit. No one has explained anything about the actual content. You all just want to say I don't understand physics. Physics is not a difficult field. It all works together and I have an extensive understanding of it. All that I have truly seen is that I am wrong, I'm an idiot. Keep it up guys.
If you want to purpose that the encoded information found in DNA or even RNA coming together naturally in perfect sequence to be able to ingest food, let alone duplicate itself is not a reverse of entropy, you are a moron. So explain it to me, or just say, we don't know, which points you to the fact that no one knows the answer. If we did, we would not be arguing. We look at the same evidence and end up with different conclusions. Each calling each other insane. I just want an answer to the questions prompted in the original post, which, besides the guy who thinks that joules from the sun make everything right, I haven't seen. But at least he took a shot at the actual content, and not the person writing it.
@lukew0480: Physics is not a difficult field. It all works together and I have an extensive understanding of it.
You cited the second law of thermodynamics. That states that entropy can never decrease in an isolated system. So I'll ask you again. Do you consider the Earth to be an isolated system?
absolutely, it's called the atmosphere
Re: "absolutely, it's called the atmosphere"
That's right, boys and girls. Because as we all know, NOTHING ever-ever-ever-ever comes into our atmosphere or exits our atmosphere. Words to live by...
Tell me then, if our atmosphere is so great, why does heat energy escape from the Earth?
@Chicken Re: "Tell me then, if our atmosphere is so great, why does heat energy escape from the Earth?"
*yelling back over shoulder*... Hey, luke(warm)! Don't worry, I've got this one for you!.... *back to Chicken*....
Really? Don't be so silly, dude. Like I said, NOTHING ever escapes from our atmosphere. And nothing ever enters it. All those things people see falling from the sky that "scientists" call meteorites are nothing more than all the stuff that is TRYING to escape the atmosphere collecting up there until it clumps together big enough and heavy enough for it to fall back to Earth. Wow! This stuff is SO obvious! Ain't yew never learnt nuthin' in skool?
*back over shoulder*... There ya go, luke(warm). That's handled. You can move on to more important matters. I've got your back!
lukew0480: absolutely, it's called the atmosphere
Are you serious? In the middle of summer, do you walk around saying the atmosphere's hot today, I'd better put on some atmosphere-block or I might get atmosphere-burnt?
What is there in your isolated system that makes the winds blow, that makes it cold at the poles and hot at the equator? What causes the seasons? What powers thunderstorms?
@luke(warm) Re: "So explain it to me, or just say, we don't know, which points you to the fact that no one knows the answer."
Can't speak for everybody else, but I DON'T KNOW. Next question, please. *Big Grin*... *thinking to self*... (gee, that was easy. still wondering what any of this has to do with atheism, though... *scratching head*...)
Could you cite a single peer reviewed scientific paper that has ever concluded a deity exists? Theists like yourself keep implying science validates their beliefs, but it clearly just isn't so...
and that's the reason why there is no God, because He has never been mentioned in a scientific peer reviewed paper. ok. Thank you for wasting my time
That was really intelligent way to say absolutely nothing. I guess you guys are all idiots. I didn't want it to be true.
@lukew0480: I guess you guys are all idiots.
Coming from an ignoramus who thinks the Earth and its atmosphere are a closed system, we should probably take this as a compliment.
I guess it was pointed out by some people already, but how can you say you have an extensive understanding of physics and then consider the earth a completely isolated system? You'd have to explain that to me.
and the burden of truth is on everybody who doesn't know, all of us. Christian and Atheist. If you don't agree with this fact, your arrogance will never let you see past your pride.
@luke(warm) Re: "and the burden of truth is on everybody who doesn't know, all of us."
*perplexed look*.... Errr-uhhhh..... Soooooo what you're saying is that I have to PROVE to you I DON'T know something???.... Wow.... Just when I thought I had heard everything.... *looooooong slooooooooow whistle*.....
(*** On a side note here, this is actually kinda fun. But he is making it waaaaaay too easy. Almost no challenge.***)
"Burden of truth"?
Never heard that before ever, do you mean burden of proof perhaps? If so then epistemology demands this falls squarely on the person making the larger claim. Not believing archaic superstitious creation myths is not a claim, and carries no burden of proof.
Theists are forever claiming they know something the entire scientific word has missed, that they have discovered absolute and esoteric truth, that everything was created for them, so they live for all eternity like a god, and that this inexplicably means that anyone who doesn't share their belief is being arrogant.
Theists just don't understand irony it seems.
you knew what I meant to type. I love how you all just want to make fun of me, but haven't answered anything. pathetic
@lukew0480: I love how you all just want to make fun of me, but haven't answered anything. pathetic
I tried to answer your idiotic statements logically and factually, but you just ignored my responses. And now you offer insults. Piss off and get educated you arrogant, ignorant piece of shit.
lukew0480,
Which of the thousands of assorted Gods is your favorite one?
Here lets work with this instead.
I have it simplified here:
-Every organism that exists, eats; therefore, the first organism had to have eaten.
-Even if the source of food was sunlight alone, the organism must undergo photosynthesis to create usable energy.
-Photosynthesis is a process by which sunlight is turned into energy to be used by an organism. The instructions for this process are found in the organism’s genes.
-The encoded information found in genes is as complex, if not more complex than a 300 page book.
-In order for naturalist’s theory of the origins of life to happen, complex genes would have had to spontaneously create themselves in some manner.
-The likelihood of this occurring labels this as being conceivably impossible.
-Therefore we come upon two points: 1. The naturalist’s theory of the origins of life is not possible. and 2. Intelligence would have had to have been a part of the process.
@luke(warm)
Re: "-Every organism that exists, eats; therefore, the first organism had to have eaten.
-Even if the source of food was sunlight alone, the organism must undergo photosynthesis to create usable energy.
-Photosynthesis is a process by which sunlight is turned into energy to be used by an organism. The instructions for this process are found in the organism’s genes."
Alrighty then. Check, check, and check.... Hey! I actually remember most of that from a junior high school science class! Cool! *grinning with pride*...
Re: "-The likelihood of this occurring labels this as being conceivably impossible."
*bottom lip quivering*... But.... but.... but...... I am HERE.... If it were impossible, then how am I here?... If it were impossible, then shouldn't I be somewhere else... or something else.... or... or... or... NOWHERE???... *tears pooling in eyes*...
Re: "Intelligence would have had to have been a part of the process."
*deeeep sigh of relief*.... Oooooh! Okaaaaay!... Phew!... *wiping brow with back of hand*.... What a RELIEF! Was getting a bit worried there for a second.... *nervous chuckle*... So, you are saying some type of higher intelligence was involved in causing all these complex things to happen. Check! Got it! That explains everything so much better now. Now, with THAT little hiccup out of the way, I'm sure you have a most splendid explanation for where that "intelligence" originated, right? I mean, what exactly created the intelligent being/entity that was complex enough that it was able to create all of the complex structures and life that was too complicated and sophisticated to have been able to spontaneously create themselves? Please, please, pleeeeeease! Do enlighten us dullard atheists, Mr. luke.
wow, pathetic cry baby tin man hasn't said anything intelligent yet, just no. no.no
@luke(warm) Re: "wow, pathetic cry baby tin man hasn't said anything intelligent yet, just no. no.no"
Waaaaaaa!... Waaaaaa!.... Waaaa!..... *whiney voice*... I am NOT a cry baby, you ol' MEANIE!... *stomping foot*.... *looking around anxiously*.... Arakish!... Old Man!... Cog!.... Mr. luke(warm) is being a mean doo-doo head to me!... Waaaa!... Waaa!... Waaa!.... He almost hurt my feelings!... *grabbing teddy bear and blankie*.... *plops down on floor*... *sitting cross-legged while sulking*.... *mumbling to self*... (i am not a cry baby. i am not a cry baby...)
(Edit to add:) Oh, almost forgot. I would like to apologize in advance. If I DO happen to say anything intelligent, I am sorry. It is not my intention to insult you by doing so. Sometimes intelligent shit just slips out of me before I even realize it. Feel free to ignore anything intelligent I might accidentally post.
Now why did you go and do that. I cannot understand simplified. It must be sufficiently over-complicated else I cannot undertand you. But let's see what you got.
Nope. Not even close. Go and study up on paleogeology.
Yep. First one correct. 1 for 2.
Got first point partially correct. Second point: wrong. Go study up on microbiology and genetics. That's 1½ out of 4.
Yep. Actually it would take about 816,326 pages of text. And it is NOT complex, just detailed. What is complex is manipulating it. And nature does just fine doing so. 2½ out of 5.
Nope. Not even close. Try studying abiogensis and the Theory of Evolution. 2½ out of 6.
Nope not even close. If it even was inconceivably impossible, it did happen. That means it is conceivably possible. 2½ out of 7.
First point: wrong. Since life did originate, it is not impossible. Second Point: Burden of Proof.
Let's see, that leaves us at 2½ out of 9. That means you scored a 28. Now let's see, my grading scale is A = 91-100; B = 81-90; C = 70-80; F ≤ 69. You failed my son. Perhaps you should go back to school and not skip so many classes this time.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
That is Latin for, “He who says he does not have the burden of proof lies.” And this is something ALL you Religious Absolutists truly lie about (including you)... Your favorite tactic is to turn the burden of proof around by saying, “Then prove God does not exist.” Pathetic cop-out which only a childish and spoiled brat would resort to in a discussion. Funny how that also describes all Religious Absolutists. Childish, spoiled brats.
Here is actually where the burden of proof lies. You Religious Absolutists claim there is a supernatural super-being who has ultimate-power, ultimate-knowledge, and ultimate goodness (I beg to differ). We Atheists are simply saying, “We do not believe you. Show us the evidence.” Thus, the burden of proof is on you Religious Absolutists.
The burden of proof shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof. — synthesized by Arakish
Until you Religious Absolutists can present any hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed. — RMF Runyan
he person making the claim bears the burden of proof. If you are going to claim that scientists are lying, doctors are being paid off, there is a global conspiracy against religion, etc., the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. Just saying it proves nothing, except you possess just enough intelligence to speak. — paraphrased from thelogicofscience.com by RMF Runyan
For us atheists I can solve our part of the burden with four words and one symbol, also know as Arakish's Razor: No Evidence = No Existence.
Similar to, and I include it with Hitchens's Razor: an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it (Wikipedia).
Oh! And quit being so mean to Tin-Man. He does better on this stuff than you could ever hope to.
There, there, Tin-Man. You did better on the test than luke(warm) did.
rmfr
Firstly, define intelligence.
Secondly, How do you get intelligence? How does something become intelligent?
The irony...
- natural process
- natural process
- natural process
- spouting this code bollocks, you're privelleging your position as a human. Codes are abstracts constructed by humans... yet 'codes' within genes is a natural process
- truth is no one knows, but an infinite regress of causality always has natural phenomena as it's explanation.
- Science doesn't support that notion, again... bollocks.
- there are far more then two possibilities and to claim otherwise demonstrates your incredulity and complete lack of intellectual honesty.
Furthermore, given that EVERY phenomena has a natural causal link from one to another, we can be good Bayesians and state with 99% accuracy that whatever the cause it'll be natural without requiring the laws of nature and physics being suspended.
A theological explanation has next to zero evidence to support the notion and can be filed as horse shit.
Pages