EddieB Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 how is any of that horse shit? No-one knows what most of DNA is - that is true. We are very close to celery - in fact all biological things are very close in DNA. Evolution is a weak theory (Macro not micro) in that there is very very little evidence partly borne out of the theoretical timings being difficult to observe, but also to be a strong science it needs to be observable. It is also quite wishy washy and almost fantastic in some of the co-incidences it requires - which raise further queries... Big bang - read above. DNA and a code to life - I think it is a fair opinion that it indicates a creator of some sort / intelligent design. I can see why this may not be the case also. But it certainly is a debate worth more than horse shit... and in a thread titled 'things I wonder' is a reasonable contribution... It's all horse shit. Evolution is a fact (without any distinction between macro or micro). We do not share 99% of our DNA with celery (maybe around 50%). We do understand what all of DNA is and a large amount is not active (the problem with "design" by natural selection - lots of inefficiencies). The big bang isn't just a fact, it's observable. The big bang doesn't require ANY "co-incidences". As to your appeal to a magic sky fairy? Simply no. Don't try to squeeze a god into the gaps. I didn't say anywhere that big bang requires co-incidences (by read above - I meant my above post sorry for the confusion). But it is certainly NOT observable. What can be observed are effects or observations that could relate to a number of possibly infinite observations - as I alluded to the constant temperature of deep space / red shift / sky being black / dispersion of galaxies. In fact it is called the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang specifically because they are theories - not facts. What is a fact is that big bang relies upon gravity being the central underpinning force of the universe. This is increasingly implausible as the main forces are electricity and magnetism. A strong current scientific debate is that the effect of gravity is merely a manifestation of electro-magnetism interacting with physical mass. But if gravity doesn't exist - then the big bang theory is hugely flawed - so we have a problem. I am sure I don't need to explain the problems for evolution to you if the big bang theory falls apart as while they are not insurmountable they are part of the same narrative. Is a sky fairy more laughable and ridiculous that the notion that every single thought, feeling, love, hurt, pain, emotion, idea that you as a conscious human BEING has ever had evolved over some ludicrous and illogical time scale, that doesn't tie remotely in to the fossil records, from a consciousless rock?? Sorry but that is more ridiculous and implausible that life came and developed with a poke from other directions. How do you reconcile evolution with the clear archaeological / biological / historical records of civilisations more advanced than cave men? How do you explain the move from a sexual reproduction - surely you would have needed two huge co-incidences beyond imagination to have occurred in the same place at the same time? To be a scientific fact then it needs to be observable. No one has EVER observed a species changing into a different species - therefore macro cannot be scientific fact. This is despite the thousands of millions of bacteria observed in labs - with a short reproduction time. No one has EVER observed the big bang happening. All there are, are speculations based upon blurry grey observations, and based upon political agenda's. Can you provide evidence that these are scientific facts for me please? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 24, 2015 In fact it is called the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang specifically because they are theories - not facts. There is no point in debating someone who can get such a fundamental statement wrong. Please read up on the "theory" of gravity. Or read down. Apparently it's not a fact if it's a theory. big bang relies upon gravity being the central underpinning force of the universe Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Gravity isn't a force it's local distortion in spacetime caused by the interaction of particles in a Higgs field. Gravity is both a fact and a theory. Same as evolution. Your logical fallacies are showing. Time for some prescience. I'll link to peer reviewed papers with definitive conclusions accepted by the scientific consensus and you'll link to various apologist and creationist self-aggrandisement web blogs. Of course, if you have something new, then that's what the religion thread is for, but please don't just repeat the same old rubbish from the same old web sites. All your examples have been debunked many times, even on this website. Thanks 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 24, 2015 Author VT Supporter Share Posted July 24, 2015 Looks like we got ourselves another godbotherer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I fairness, even famous theoretical physists like degrass tyson, lawrence krauss etc are agnostics because they can't say definitively either for or against. Schrodingers cat if you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) So it turns out someone already made the Big Wang Theory (although not called that). Shame, as I'd also thought up some character names: Hardon Cooper Boner-dette How-hard Wolowitz Amy Farrah Growler Edited July 24, 2015 by dAVe80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 24, 2015 An agnostic is someone without knowledge of god(s). I'd argue everyone is agnostic as no-one has met a god. For or against what? Are you confusing agnosticism with atheism? An atheist is someone without a belief in god(s). Belief is not the same thing as knowledge. I don't claim there is no god. I believe there is no god. I'm an agnostic atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 will Glamorgan vs Gloucester actually get going this evening? players warmed up 20 minutes ago, now the umpire feels we need to wait a bit longer, pitch still too wet supposed to be a 6:30pm kick off, this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 So it turns out someone already made the Big Wang Theory (although not called that). Shame, as I'd also thought up some character names: Hardon Cooper Boner-dette How-hard Wolowitz Amy Farrah Growler Len-hard Whoreshagger? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Looks like we got ourselves another godbotherer... So, any relation to JulieB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) In fact it is called the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang specifically because they are theories - not facts.There is no point in debating someone who can get such a fundamental statement wrong.Aye, there's one of my pet peeves for you right there. 'It's just a theory, you know, and ID is another theory'. ID is not a f***ing theory! ID wishes it were a theory. ID is a blind-as-a-bat hypothesis at best. Mere guesswork. Edited July 24, 2015 by Michelsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 An agnostic is someone without knowledge of god(s). I'd argue everyone is agnostic as no-one has met a god. For or against what? Are you confusing agnosticism with atheism? An atheist is someone without a belief in god(s). Belief is not the same thing as knowledge. I don't claim there is no god. I believe there is no god. I'm an agnostic atheist. I know what an agnostic is, they don't believe in a god, but won't say there isn't one either. The atheists are people such as Richard Dawkins and actively criticise religions and the practices within them. Degrass Tyson for example, says that "God" is a filler of unanswered questions and shrinks with more scientific knowledge. And he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 will Glamorgan vs Gloucester actually get going this evening? players warmed up 20 minutes ago, now the umpire feels we need to wait a bit longer, pitch still too wet supposed to be a 6:30pm kick off, this this now starts at 9:00pm..............and will be a 5 over match! FIVE T5 has arrived Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Boner-dette I'm not sure I'm that keen on the direction in which your film seems to be going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 24, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 24, 2015 An agnostic is someone without knowledge of god(s). I'd argue everyone is agnostic as no-one has met a god. For or against what? Are you confusing agnosticism with atheism? An atheist is someone without a belief in god(s). Belief is not the same thing as knowledge. I don't claim there is no god. I believe there is no god. I'm an agnostic atheist. I know what an agnostic is, they don't believe in a god, but won't say there isn't one either. The atheists are people such as Richard Dawkins and actively criticise religions and the practices within them. Degrass Tyson for example, says that "God" is a filler of unanswered questions and shrinks with more scientific knowledge. And he's right. Sorry, but your assertion is wrong. agnosticism is a position based on knowledge, not belief. Someone that advocates against religions is more commonly called an antitheist (secularist, disestablishmentarianist). This is a different thing than atheism (lack of belief in gods) or agnosticism (lack of knowledge of gods). There is no link between (dis)like of religions and belief in god(s), although many people are both. Almost all religious people are antitheist towards other religions. I believe Dawkins to be an agnostic atheist, he has stated that he would change his mind about god(s) if presented with sufficient evidence. He describes a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is someone who strongly believes there is a god and 7 is someone who strongly believes there is no god. He puts himself at 6 or 6.9 depending on which interview you read. He also stated he was agnostic during a discussion involving the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2012. Tyson is describing the "god of the gaps", which is the intellectually bankrupt position that "we don't know therefore god". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Consider me learneded 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Relevant: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 In fact Limpid, I'm annoyed (maybe not surprisingly) by my old RE teacher at secondary school who said agnostics were the middle ground between atheists and belivers in faiths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 How to stop unspeakably vile people getting into power? If not that, how to escape their influence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 25, 2015 Administrator Share Posted July 25, 2015 In fact Limpid, I'm annoyed (maybe not surprisingly) by my old RE teacher at secondary school who said agnostics were the middle ground between atheists and belivers in faiths. Yeah, it's not uncommon to find people believe that. Some people are scared to accept the label "atheist" as believers tend to give it meanings far beyond what it actually means. Atheism should be the starting point for a rational mind as it simply means "without god". It doesn't claim "there is no god". It is the position of waiting for or seeking evidence. The James Randi Educational Foundation will give $1m dollars to anyone that can demonstrate anything supernatural as true. Since 1964. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 25, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted July 25, 2015 The James Randi Educational Foundation will give $1m dollars to anyone that can demonstrate anything supernatural as true. Since 1964. James Randi is a spectacularly interesting bloke to read up on, incidentally. He's a magician by trade but became particularly well known for really really pissing off charlatans. Particularly Uri Geller. Hence the $1m challenge. People have actually tried it but the best ones are always the ones that go on about doing it then back out by claiming the challenge is rigged when actually it's set up to prove there's no trick in what they're doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts