"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[Fruitloop]

Beacuse the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't let microscopes grow on trees!

Heresy! The FSM does not interfere in the workings of the universe. He merely set it running then went out, forgetting to turn it off at the wall.

 

[treefrog]

Not usre what you mean by this. What have shepherds got to do with it?

Forgive, it's the New Testament that was written by shepherds and the like. Which biology scholar wrote Genesis?

mysterious ways!!

Not sure what you mean by this. Is this a standard answer for stuff ID can't answer? I prefer the scientific "we don't know" myself, far more satisfying.

 

[treefrog]

Heresy! The FSM does not interfere in the workings of the universe. He merely set it running then went out, forgetting to turn it off at the wall.

And yea, we're all buggered when he comes back from whatever Cosmic Errand he was running (The Great Pilgrimage to the Shop to buy Some Rizla), sees the plug still in and remembers it has to be unplugged so can get some hoovering done...

 

[kyser_soze]

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not.

I take it from this that any kind of notion of the quantum universe isn't real AFAYC?

So what are the basic particles in the universe phil? I mean the IBM logo above would suggest that there are things which are very tiny, and experiments involving smashing these non-existant particles together to create whole new particles, and this process can be observed.

 

[angry bob]

Forgive, it's the New Testament that was written by shepherds and the like. Which biology scholar wrote Genesis?

dunno ... god?

It's got creation in a surprisingly accurate order though ... if it was written by someone who knew nothing of science.

Not sure what you mean by this. Is this a standard answer for stuff ID can't answer? I prefer the scientific "we don't know" myself, far more satisfying.

'we don't know' will do just fine.

 

[Fruitloop]

So basically you get either science or mystery. I'll take science personally.

 

[angry bob]

So basically you get either science or mystery. I'll take science personally.

How's that then?

Either way, when it comes to the origins of life and the universe, you get mystery.

 

[treefrog]

How's that then?

Either way, when it comes to the origins of life and the universe, you get mystery.

Not really. From science you get a measured response, some theories and the knowledge that people dedicating thir entire lives to working on these theories.

With ID you get a cop-out "someone put it here".

 

[angry bob]

Not really. From science you get a measured response, some theories and the knowledge that people dedicating thir entire lives to working on these theories.

The same could be said of religion. Measured response, theory and people dedicating their entire lives to working on it.

With ID you get a cop-out "someone put it here".

It is, at least, an answer. Surely it is just as much of a 'cop-out' to say "we don't know"?

 

[Fruitloop]

It's not a blank 'we don't know' though , there are a couple of different models for abiogenesis with all of which have their strengths and weaknesses, and all of which are far more likely than any of the design-based explanations (which mostly violate not just what we know about biology, but what we know about physics etc as well).

 

[Poi E]

So basically you get either science or mystery. I'll take science personally.

Mystery pulls the chicks, though.

 

[angry bob]

It's not a blank 'we don't know' though , there are a couple of different models for abiogenesis with all of which have their strengths and weaknesses, and all of which are far more likely than any of the design-based explanations (which mostly violate not just what we know about biology, but what we know about physics etc as well).

None of these models are more viable theories than the existence of a creator. They all fit the observations that we have the ability to make. I have no idea how you might evaluate the likelihood of the correctness of such a theory. Maximum likelihood theory? Gawd knows what your probability functions would look like.

I don't see any violation of physical laws in the creation theory I have set out. Perhaps you could point some out for me?

 

[kyser_soze]

Just had a peek at the 'Darwinists Running Scared' thread and Gurriers post about PD...

From what I can gather, phil believes in the following:

ID
Plato's early work, extending to some mystical realm where ideas and emotions come from.
Science and technology = unnatural & 'bad'
H-G lifestyle = natural and 'good'

And doesn't believe in...
Scientific method...well science generally
Atoms and by default anything smaller
That brain chemistry doesn't respond to sensory stimuli which in turn leads to ideas.

Anyone else got anything to add?

 

[treefrog]

Just had a peek at the 'Darwinists Running Scared' thread and Gurriers post about PD...

From what I can gather, phil believes in the following:

ID
Plato's early work, extending to some mystical realm where ideas and emotions come from.
Science and technology = unnatural & 'bad'
H-G lifestyle = natural and 'good'
And doesn't believe in...
Scientific method...well science generally
Atoms and by default anything smaller
That brain chemistry doesn't respond to sensory stimuli which in turn leads to ideas.

Anyone else got anything to add?

Shouldn't he be leading by example and not using a computer? And why should a computer work at all? In his world, electrons don't exist...

 

[Fruitloop]

None of these models are more viable theories than the existence of a creator. They all fit the observations that we have the ability to make. I have no idea how you might evaluate the likelihood of the correctness of such a theory. Maximum likelihood theory? Gawd knows what your probability functions would look like.

I don't see any violation of physical laws in the creation theory I have set out. Perhaps you could point some out for me?

I don't see a theory that you have set out, so you'll have to point that out first.

One principle simplicity that tips that scales for me is that I would expect that the same laws have pertained throughout the history of the universe - determinism is either a constant or nothing. The idea that some deity intervened immediately before the creation of the universe (a period about which we can conveniently say nothing) and then again just after the formation of this planet to create life, and yet all the rest of the time determinism prevails seems to introduce complexity that I find unlikely and unnecessary.

 

[Fruitloop]

Mystery pulls the chicks, though.

This is obviously where I'm going wrong...

 

[revol68]

phildwyer

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not.

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

I'd say that viruses are part of nature, whereas atoms are not

fucking MORON!!!!!

Seriously stop badly interpreting textualism and get a fucking grip you absolute fucking moron!

this debate should have ended with his banning straight after this comment!

 

[angry bob]

I don't see a theory that you have set out, so you'll have to point that out first.

One principle simplicity that tips that scales for me is that I would expect that the same laws have pertained throughout the history of the universe - determinism is either a constant or nothing. The idea that some deity intervened immediately before the creation of the universe (a period about which we can conveniently say nothing) and then again just after the formation of this planet to create life, and yet all the rest of the time determinism prevails seems to introduce complexity that I find unlikely and unnecessary.

OK ... my theory is as follows:

-God sets universe in motion with big bang.
-God knows the exact laws of physics.
-The universe is deterministic.
-By the act of creating it, god knows everything that will happen.
-This includes the formation of earth and the "spark of life" and the evolution of mankind.
-Thus, the initial act of creation was tantamount to creating humans.


Now ... you can't really say "immediately before" when it comes to the big bang. There was no before since time and space began together.
Big bang theory does support (a long, long way from prove) the idea of creation in as much as it gives the universe an age. It has not always been here. It was created, or it created itself.

 

[kyser_soze]

phildwyer


fucking MORON!!!!!

Seriously stop badly interpreting textualism and get a fucking grip you absolute fucking moron!

this debate should have ended with his banning straight after this comment!

LOOK!! *POINTS AND JUMPS UP AND DOWN*

It's one of PD's 'scientific fundamentalists'!!!

Watch it revol68 - he'll have the Platonic Inquisition on to you!!!

And remember, no one expects...

THE PLATONIC INQUISITION!!!

 

[redsquirrel]

LOOK!! *POINTS AND JUMPS UP AND DOWN*

It's one of PD's 'scientific fundamentalists'!!!

Watch it revol68 - he'll have the Platonic Inquisition on to you!!!

And remember, no one expects...

THE PLATONIC INQUISITION!!!

But do they exist or are they only an idea?

 

[Fruitloop]

OK ... my theory is as follows:

-God sets universe in motion with big bang.
-God knows the exact laws of physics.
-The universe is deterministic.
-By the act of creating it, god knows everything that will happen.
-This includes the formation of earth and the "spark of life" and the evolution of mankind.
-Thus, the initial act of creation was tantamount to creating humans.

Well, it's not disprovable, since the sole act of creation takes place before there was a 'before'. However, I don't see how your universe differs from mine (deterministic universe without a creator) - it seems to me there would be no observable difference. You're also asserting causality before it makes sense to talk of a cause.

 

[In Bloom]

[Genesis]'s got creation in a surprisingly accurate order though ... if it was written by someone who knew nothing of science.

Its got plants coming into existence before the sun and the Earth existing from the beginning. What on earth are you chattin?

 

[kyser_soze]

But do they exist or are they only an idea?

Well I've never met 'em so I reckon they're figments passed to our brains via Phils Mystical Messgage Brain Cell (C) Crispy.

 

[angry bob]

Well, it's not disprovable, since the sole act of creation takes place before there was a 'before'. However, I don't see how your universe differs from mine (deterministic universe without a creator) - it seems to me there would be no observable difference.

well quite. It's all just pointless theory. Which is why I'm agnostic.

I suupose the only difference is that my theory gives a reason/cause for the universe. Yours doesn't. I guess why? is a meaningless question when it comes to the BB since there was no time before ... there wasn't even a before ...

Still ... once you had a creator, who had the aim of making man, then perhaps he had some reason and enjoys intervening from time to time.
Who knows? What bothers me about the gods of the major religions is why all the secrecy? Why not just come out and tell people who you are? Why must we decode your existence from a book? But that's another thread ...

 

[revol68]

God sets universe in motion with big bang.
-God knows the exact laws of physics.
-The universe is deterministic.
-By the act of creating it, god knows everything that will happen.
-This includes the formation of earth and the "spark of life" and the evolution of mankind.
-Thus, the initial act of creation was tantamount to creating humans.

Just out of interest what created God?

Your argument is infinitely regressive. And if you can accept god as always being there then surely you can just accept that what set the big bang into motion was always there. One requires the invention of an intelligent designer (which we have absolutely no precedent for) whilst the other just requires us to admit we don't know. Now which ones more rational.

 

[angry bob]

Its got plants coming into existence before the sun and the Earth existing from the beginning. What on earth are you chattin?

Ah well ... the clearing of the skies is written as the creation of the sun,moon,stars.
It's got day and night first I believe?

earth, seas and plants.
clearing of skies.
fish and birds
mammals
man

 

[kyser_soze]

It's got creation in a surprisingly accurate order though ... if it was written by someone who knew nothing of science.

Given that some scientists reckon that Sol is a 3rd generation star I'd say that it's order is about as accurate as a teenage boy's claim of penis size.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth wasformless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Big Bang theory posits that there was a 600Kyr warming up period after the BANG! before there was any light, and geology can proove that the earth is younger then the rest of the universe...which kinda fucks your 'pretty accurate' assertion by about 8 billion years...

 

[angry bob]

Just out of interest what created God?

Your argument is infinitely regressive. And if you can accept god as always being there then surely you can just accept that what set the big bang into motion was always there. One requires the invention of an intelligent designer (which we have absolutely no precedent for) whilst the other just requires us to admit we don't know. Now which ones more rational.

True I suppose. I'm just giving a name to your "what set the big bang in motion"

Saying 'i don't know' IS more rational than saying there is a god. It is also more rational than saying there isn't a god. That's why I'm agnostic ...

 

[phildwyer]

phildwyer


fucking MORON!!!!!

Seriously stop badly interpreting textualism and get a fucking grip you absolute fucking moron!

this debate should have ended with his banning straight after this comment!

Well goodness gracious me. I've certainly set the cat among the pigeons, haven't I? There could be no better evidence for the obsolescence of Darwinism than the fact that his advocates become unhinged--and I mean, seriously, emotionally, upset--when the holes in his theory are pointed out to them. Creationists may have their faults, but you don't find them losing control of themselves in this ludicrous, disgraceful and embarassing fashion.

 

[Fruitloop]

That's 'cos the buttons on their cardigans would burst.