Detecting design

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
SkepticReport
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Post by SkepticReport » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:05 pm

Ahkmet wrote:The uncertainty principle doesn't cause the fluctuations, it is a description of the process.


To be more precise, it allows for the fluctuations.

Ahkmet wrote:I'm not sure that we can assign a cause to these fluctuations, just as we cannot precisely assign a cause to the seemingly random but statistically predictable release of gamma rays from radioactive nuclei. I don't think that it is clear that these sorts of events have a cause, per se. It may, in fact, be that this idea of "everything" has a cause is simply a fuzzy wash over the macro world.


It could be interesting to know what was behind the question. Is it argued that there is a non-natural explanation?

Ahkmet
Poster
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:03 pm

Post by Ahkmet » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:17 pm

Good point. I suspect there was as do you, but a non-natural explanation is really lame. Now we have reduced God from being the totality of existence to watchmaker of the universe to designer of bacterial flagella and vertebrate clotting systems to cause of radioactive decay. His stock just seems to keep falling and falling........

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:49 am

Ahkmet wrote:Good point. I suspect there was as do you, but a non-natural explanation is really lame. Now we have reduced God from being the totality of existence to watchmaker of the universe to designer of bacterial flagella and vertebrate clotting systems to cause of radioactive decay. His stock just seems to keep falling and falling........


Maybe to you but atheist are still in the minority. Not a good arugment to prove God but just to point out most people on the earth believe in a God or gods.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:57 am

HungryforTruth wrote:
Ahkmet wrote:Good point. I suspect there was as do you, but a non-natural explanation is really lame. Now we have reduced God from being the totality of existence to watchmaker of the universe to designer of bacterial flagella and vertebrate clotting systems to cause of radioactive decay. His stock just seems to keep falling and falling........


Maybe to you but atheist are still in the minority. Not a good arugment to prove God but just to point out most people on the earth believe in a God or gods.


Millions of flies on a pile of {!#%@} does not make the pile any less {!#%@}. Fortunately, I have never heard of athiests affirming their belief through violence, can't say the same about God, though. Violence seems to be the first and last resort of the really faithful.

Atheism is learned, Religion is brainwashed. Atheism is reason, religion is excuse. Atheism watches the road ahead, Religion follows the other lemmings.

Atheism is brought on by yourself, relgion is trying to be like everyone else.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

Ahkmet
Poster
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:03 pm

Post by Ahkmet » Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:23 pm

Maybe to you but atheist are still in the minority. Not a good arugment to prove God but just to point out most people on the earth believe in a God or gods.


Nay-na-nay-na-nay-na is not an argument.

User avatar
UseYourNoodle
Regular Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: reality

Post by UseYourNoodle » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:40 pm

HungryforTruth wrote:
Ahkmet wrote:Good point. I suspect there was as do you, but a non-natural explanation is really lame. Now we have reduced God from being the totality of existence to watchmaker of the universe to designer of bacterial flagella and vertebrate clotting systems to cause of radioactive decay. His stock just seems to keep falling and falling........


Maybe to you but atheist are still in the minority. Not a good arugment to prove God but just to point out most people on the earth believe in a God or gods.



The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money so long as you have got it. EDWIN WAY TEALE

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:08 am

Thorn wrote:
HungryforTruth wrote:
Ahkmet wrote:Good point. I suspect there was as do you, but a non-natural explanation is really lame. Now we have reduced God from being the totality of existence to watchmaker of the universe to designer of bacterial flagella and vertebrate clotting systems to cause of radioactive decay. His stock just seems to keep falling and falling........


Maybe to you but atheist are still in the minority. Not a good arugment to prove God but just to point out most people on the earth believe in a God or gods.


Millions of flies on a pile of {!#%@} does not make the pile any less {!#%@}. Fortunately, I have never heard of athiests affirming their belief through violence, can't say the same about God, though. Violence seems to be the first and last resort of the really faithful.

Atheism is learned, Religion is brainwashed. Atheism is reason, religion is excuse. Atheism watches the road ahead, Religion follows the other lemmings.

Atheism is brought on by yourself, relgion is trying to be like everyone else.


That is a dumb statement atheism doesn't kill people. What about communism? I believe millions died and are still dieing from that. Just a bad argument.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:32 am

That is a dumb statement atheism doesn't kill people. What about communism? I believe millions died and are still dieing from that. Just a bad argument.


Point? I fail to see your argument. Religion is responsible for more murder than anything throughout history.

Find me one evidence of a Crusade of Atheism, or a Atheism induced Suicide Bomber?

You can't? Oh, I see...
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:39 am

Thorn wrote:
That is a dumb statement atheism doesn't kill people. What about communism? I believe millions died and are still dieing from that. Just a bad argument.


Point? I fail to see your argument. Religion is responsible for more murder than anything throughout history.

Find me one evidence of a Crusade of Atheism, or a Atheism induced Suicide Bomber?

You can't? Oh, I see...


Communism has killed more people then you could ever imagine. Communism is firmly based on atheism. Maybe you do a little more research. Anyways the conflicts you attribute to religion were actually more political if anything.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:42 am

HungryforTruth wrote:
Thorn wrote:
That is a dumb statement atheism doesn't kill people. What about communism? I believe millions died and are still dieing from that. Just a bad argument.


Point? I fail to see your argument. Religion is responsible for more murder than anything throughout history.

Find me one evidence of a Crusade of Atheism, or a Atheism induced Suicide Bomber?

You can't? Oh, I see...


Communism has killed more people then you could ever imagine. Communism is firmly based on atheism. Maybe you do a little more research. Anyways the conflicts you attribute to religion were actually more political if anything.


/sigh...logical fallacy.

Read, learn, and shut up.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:47 am

Thorn wrote:
HungryforTruth wrote:
Thorn wrote:
That is a dumb statement atheism doesn't kill people. What about communism? I believe millions died and are still dieing from that. Just a bad argument.


Point? I fail to see your argument. Religion is responsible for more murder than anything throughout history.

Find me one evidence of a Crusade of Atheism, or a Atheism induced Suicide Bomber?

You can't? Oh, I see...


Communism has killed more people then you could ever imagine. Communism is firmly based on atheism. Maybe you do a little more research. Anyways the conflicts you attribute to religion were actually more political if anything.


/sigh...logical fallacy.

Read, learn, and shut up.


How weren't they political?

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:49 am

Doctor X wrote:"Communism"--which is not a monolithic entity--was not and is not atheistic. They simply worship the dictator and kill in his name.

Not that I expect HungryforFaith to know his history since he does not know his Bible.

--J.D.


He doesn't seem to know much, really. Of course, if he does happen to get something he can't "Well, what aabout THIS crack?" He avoids the question entirely.

Look at the "Bible school" thread. Think he's choking on his words?
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:53 am

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:04 am

And the troll falls dead silent, but unfortunately, probably not dead, yet.

*prepares his Bat of Logic for the next inning*
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:25 am

Doctor X wrote:"Communism"--which is not a monolithic entity--was not and is not atheistic. They simply worship the dictator and kill in his name.

Not that I expect HungryforFaith to know his history since he does not know his Bible.

--J.D.


I am surprised someone so full of themselves like you would make this mistake. You always seem to have the answers. Marxism/Leninism (communism)
Theology=Atheism
Philosophy=Dialectical Materialism
Ethics= Proteltariat Morality
Biology= Darwinian/Punctuated Evolution
Psycology= Behavorism
Sociology= Abolition of home, church, and state Law: Positive Law Politics= New World Order (New Civilization)
Economics= Socialism
History=Historical Materialism

To say it is not atheistic is probably the dumbest post I have seen from you. You should read the book "The Battle for Truth" by David A. Noebel. It goes through comparing the beliefs of Secular Humanism, the above, Cosmic Humanist, and Christianity. You would learn a couple things but I don't expect you to read.
Last edited by HungryforTruth on Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:26 am

Thorn wrote:And the troll falls dead silent, but unfortunately, probably not dead, yet.

*prepares his Bat of Logic for the next inning*


Actually I have a life outside the computer. Kind of funny you think you won the battle because like I was posting earlier you just give one word answers and don't explain them.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:31 am

You have failed to answer any of my questions, and I simply wait to see a retort before I continue on.

I still await your disproval of the carbon dating, and bible quotes.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:33 am

Still waiting for your answer to religious relevancy to it, as there have been much less successful societies that were based on a theocracy.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:43 am

And when I Googled "Communism Atheism"...

I actually got very little relevancies comparing one's failure to the existance of the other.

Might want to google something yourself, before you tell someone to google it.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:30 am

Thorn wrote:And when I Googled "Communism Atheism"...

I actually got very little relevancies comparing one's failure to the existance of the other.

Might want to google something yourself, before you tell someone to google it.


The communist comment was to X not you and in that post I have already gave you my response to your misquoted Bible verses. And you never answered my question of how we now the dating method is accurate.

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:18 am

Doctor X wrote:
Thorn wrote:He doesn't seem to know much, really.


He has only himself to blame. He has been given plenty of references to correct his ignorance.

He avoids the question entirely.

Look at the "Bible school" thread. Think he's choking on his words?


Seems to be. At least he seems to have given up on the Flood Myth.

--J.D.


First off read the post above yours and that explains those but why would I continue to debate with you on the flood myths when your mind is already 100% made up.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:31 am

I provided my evidence for the dating, and you ignored it. Once again...
Wikipedia wrote:Measurements are traditionally made by counting the radioactive decay of individual carbon atoms by gas proportional counting or by liquid scintillation counting, but this is relatively insensitive and subject to relatively large statistical uncertainties for small samples (below about 1g carbon). If there is little carbon-14 to begin with, a half-life that long means that very few of the atoms will decay while their detection is attempted (4 atoms/s) /mol just after death, hence e.g. 1 (atom/s)/mol after 10,000 years). Sensitivity has since been greatly increased by the use of accelerator-based mass-spectrometric (AMS) techniques, where all the 14C atoms can be counted directly, rather than only those decaying during the counting interval allotted for each analysis. The AMS technique allows one to date samples containing only a few milligrams of carbon.


Counter it, or accept it.

...debate with you on the flood myths when your mind is already 100% made up.


Kettle, meet pot, he's a little racist, but believes mirrors lie to him.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:51 pm

Doctor X wrote:I will take that as a concession that he cannot debate the Flood Myth.

Pity. I rather wanted to see how he handled 2,780-odd psi.

In the heavy rain.

--J.D.


Where did you pull your equation from? Is this the only evidence you have to disprove the flood myths?

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:24 pm

I doubt it. There are probably as many as there are raindrops.

In the rain.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:28 am

Doctor X wrote:The tactic is this: he pretends there is doubt by demanding one keep an "open mind" about nonsense. To which the appropriate reply is "show us the evidence for such a doubt. We have veritable shit-loads against it."

He then buries his head in the sand.

The rain will seep through, though. . . .

--J.D.


I have reason to doubt your equation since you could have just made it up. I believe that is fair enough. I noticed your tactic is not to answer my questions when they are asked.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:54 am

Prove where he faults, and we shall talk.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

Silly Green Monkey
Poster
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Silly Green Monkey » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:07 pm

That's one of the nice things about math, equations can be created to account for all factors involved---and still be correct.
Normal is just a stereotype.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:36 pm

Unless you were busy reading a bible during class hours.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:08 pm

Thorn wrote:Prove where he faults, and we shall talk.


Isn't the burden of proof on him for making his assertion? Is it wrong for me to ask him where he got it from?

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:26 pm

He did prove it, with a mathematical equation. The part of proving the equation wrong is on you.

You say it isn't right, we say prove it. You are the one making the claim now, boy.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:36 am

Thorn wrote:He did prove it, with a mathematical equation. The part of proving the equation wrong is on you.

You say it isn't right, we say prove it. You are the one making the claim now, boy.


I questioning where he got the numbers from etc. I could make up a long math equation and say it proves something.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:52 am

And we would look at, and prove it says nothing, just as you should if you want your argument against it to be valid. We are aware the burden of proof is shifted on the one making the claim, but when the claim is supported, the burden of disproof is on the skeptic. If it faults, tell us where it faults. You are the skeptic of his equation, the burden of proof is on your claim.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould

HungryforTruth
Poster
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:57 am

Post by HungryforTruth » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:52 am

Doctor X wrote:He is indeed fortunate that I did not read the texts strictly, which would require enough water to cover Mt. Everest.

Perhaps having the pressure of a number of high-end firehoses concentrated on every inch of your body for forty days and night assist in cleaning an Ark. Certainly, when it smashes to teeny weenie bits, the problem of shoveling {!#%@} proves minor in comparison.

In the rain.

--J.D.


I take it by your response you don't have any proof for your equation. Don't bother to reply unless you support where you got your variables.

Silly Green Monkey
Poster
Posts: 177
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Silly Green Monkey » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:03 pm

The variables should be obvious.

Time--forty days and forty nights, from the Bible

Depth--covers the mountains, from the Bible

Water weight---chemistry book

Anything else?
Normal is just a stereotype.

User avatar
Thorn
Regular Poster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:07 pm
Location: In your side.

Post by Thorn » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:26 pm

But...god made the water lighter, and the mountains lower, and the time shorter...but I thought God made time longer, what with the 6 days creation thing...oh, pests, didn't Jesus dying on the cross convince you? Why nitpick for DETAILS!

*Hits Monkey and X with a Bible*

My school teacher was a jewish carpenter.
"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
-S.J. Gould