Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Fitter]

Okay troll boy, I read it. 2 sentences after the line you love to quote he writes

It’s not that this moment didn’t exist physically, or that something impossible happened, it’s just that the math we currently use can’t describe it.

. Why don't you include this sentence in your posts?

 

[Worm]

What on earth makes you think that I haven't read the article?

I would question that you have read it - you certainly don't seem to understand it.

 

[Paulhoff]

That is much much better, the Ignore Function is so nice.

Paul

 

[joobz]

Life has always existed and the universe has always existed. Unless, of course that you have evidence otherwise. If not our arguments are on the same plane.

Well, several inidividuals have presented the evidence that the universe hasn't always existed. You've dismissed the evidence, but never explained why, except for assertions that there is no evidence.

Regarding, life from life, You've said this but you have also admitted to the tenuous grasp we have on what life is in the first place. When we go down into the molecular biology and look at other "living/non-living" replicating systems (e.g., viruses, prions, self-replicating RNA...) life coming only from life is a rather nebulous statement.

 

[X]

I just read Phil stating that the math and physics do not work for the Big Bang theory.

YES! You are beginning to get it!

Now one last point to follow it up: Math and physics not working for an extreme-case event does not mean the event contradicts math and physics.

An analogy to illustrate a similar situation: Just because we lack the maths and physics to fully describe turbulent flow does not mean turbulent flow violates math and physics. In fact, engineers routinely make calculations using turbulent flow properties, but a precise description of turbulent flow is not available at this time.
By your line of reasoning, this is enough to completely abandon everything we know about not only turbulence, but all of fluid dynamics as well, simply because it cannot explain an extremely complex chaotic event.

But behold! By your own quote, you are beginning to understand this!

 

[joobz]

An analogy to illustrate a similar situation: Just because we lack the maths and physics to fully describe turbulent flow does not mean turbulent flow violates math and physics. In fact, engineers routinely make calculations using turbulent flow properties, but a precise description of turbulent flow is not available at this time.

Low Reynolds Number = easy exact solutions.
High reynolds Number = easy emprical relations
Moderate Reynolds Numbers = Profit.

 

[Paulhoff]

Extra Extra Extra, science does not know everything about life, all life has been canceled, good night, click.

Paul



buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[RandFan]

You are disregarding popular opinion which constitutes funding in a "Democracy".

So what if it does? It is beside the point. This is a silly side argument. Given that scientists are free to work on what they want the CT argument is bogus. End of story.

Libertarianism!!!

Libertarianism isn't nesassarily mutually exclusive from Liberal Democracy. But that's fine. In any society where individuals are free to persue any legal endevor your notion about CT doesn't stand and my point does.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You need to restate your proposition to something along the lines of: so far all we have evidence of is that life comes from life.

Fair enough. I did improperly phrase my statement which presents an idea which I do not hold.


The scientific evidence at this point shows that life only comes from life.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, several inidividuals have presented the evidence that the universe hasn't always existed.

This statement is untrue!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

YES! You are beginning to get it!

Now one last point to follow it up: Math and physics not working for an extreme-case event does not mean the event contradicts math and physics.

An analogy to illustrate a similar situation: Just because we lack the maths and physics to fully describe turbulent flow does not mean turbulent flow violates math and physics. In fact, engineers routinely make calculations using turbulent flow properties, but a precise description of turbulent flow is not available at this time.
By your line of reasoning, this is enough to completely abandon everything we know about not only turbulence, but all of fluid dynamics as well, simply because it cannot explain an extremely complex chaotic event.

But behold! By your own quote, you are beginning to understand this!

To get it to work we need new math and new physics.



Why didn't I think of that. Just rework all of science to fit my idea!!!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So what if it does? It is beside the point. This is a silly side argument. Given that scientists are free to work on what they want the CT argument is bogus. End of story.

Throwing CT in there is pissing on the table and you know it!

Are you honestly claiming that scientists in a liberal democracy have the resources to work on what ever they choose?

 

[quixotecoyote]

To get it to work we need new math and new physics.



Why didn't I think of that. Just rework all of science to fit my idea!!!

Extend, not rework.

It's funny how close you're coming to the right answer in your bull-headed determination to be wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well if you suddenly realized that what you had to believe in order to maintain your philosophical outlook was laughingly absurd, wouldn't you agree that that might be cause for you to change your mind.

From post 56:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3057629#post3057629

Well, I can infer from this post that you think the proposition that we all descended from one cell is laughably absurd, and that if people who accept evolution understood that this is what they were accepting, they would realize that evolution is laughably absurd.

I disagree. I know that's what evolution teaches, I agree with it, and I think most atheists and others who believe in evolution understand that as well. If you have anything beyond, "That's just my opinion" to back up your assertion from the OP, I would listen.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Fair enough. I did improperly phrase my statement which presents an idea which I do not hold.


The scientific evidence at this point shows that life only comes from life.

Nope, won't work. The scientific evidence shows life coming from life, a trivially true proposition. It doesn't show that life only comes from life.

 

[Paulhoff]

Extend, not rework.

It's funny how close you're coming to the right answer in your bull-headed determination to be wrong.

That is why I have him on my ignore list of one, he has an agenda, and that has nothing to do with learning, it only has to with pointing to straw-men.

Paul

 

[wollery]

Are you honestly claiming that scientists in a liberal democracy have the resources to work on what ever they choose?

Within certain ethical frameworks (such as research on human subjects), yes.

How else do you account for the publication of work by researchers like Robert Foot, or Mordehai Milgrom?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nope, won't work. The scientific evidence shows life coming from life, a trivially true proposition. It doesn't show that life only comes from life.

This is ridiculous.

Your proposition here is stating that anything which is not explicitly proven false is potentially true and within the realm of science.


You can not say that fairies do not exist because science has not shown that fairies do not exist!


This is just silly.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Within certain ethical frameworks (such as research on human subjects), yes.

How else do you account for the publication of work by researchers like Robert Foot, or Mordehai Milgrom?

In a Liberal Democracy it is all about WHO you know.

You are making my point, thanks.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is why I have him on my ignore list of one, he has an agenda...

Scary ideas ahead. Everyone put your fingers in your ears.

There be DRAGONS!!!