Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[Hokulele]

Posted by DOC
Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

DOC: This is very true, ever hear of a guy named Einstein.

That is not the part of the quote that is wrong.

Posted by DOC
Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.

DOC: This is true, if it is wrong what were the natural forces that caused the Big Bang.

That was already covered in the bit from me you quoted in your OP.

Posted by DOC
So then I guess you believe we should trash science because it is based on the concept of cause and effect.

DOC: I still maintain useful science is based on the concept of cause and effect. For example just observing bacteria under a microscope is worthless without understanding the cause and effect those bacteria might have on other life. And of course medical research is nothing but cause and effect.

And you are still wrong.

Posted by DOC
Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.

DOC: This is true, if not what is the "leading" theory of abiogenesis and your source.

Look! A new statement full of scientific wrongness. Please look up the difference between abiogensis and evolution.

Posted by DOC
Our calender is based on the birth of Christ.

DOC: Ever hear of AD, BC (before Christ)

Ever hear of Wednesday, January, and leap years? And if the modern calendar is based on the actual* birth, why isn't it currently 2012 or 2014?


*"Actual" as in agreed-upon. There is no historical record of an actual birth date.

Posted by DOC
pi mason,

rho mason,

virtual W basons,

DOC: I didn't know listing terms that most people don't understand could be incorrect. Unless you believe most atheists understand the above words.

I didn't know that listing terms that do not exist constituted correctness.

 

[Mark Felt]

DOC: This is very true, ever hear of a guy named Einstein.

It's also incredibly irrelevant.

DOC: This is true, if it is wrong what were the natural forces that caused the Big Bang. Remember time, space, and matter, didn't even exist yet.

We don't know. What's your point?

DOC: I still maintain useful science is based on the concept of cause and effect. For example just observing bacteria under a microscope is worthless without understanding the cause and effect those bacteria might have on other life. And of course medical research is nothing but cause and effect.

Look up the decay of atoms.

DOC: This is true, if not what is the "leading" theory of abiogenesis and your source.

It's irrelevant. Abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with one another. They stand on their own merits.

DOC: Ever hear of AD, BC (before Christ)

Odins Day, Thors Day, Freyas Day, Sun Day.

DOC: I didn't know listing terms that most people don't understand could be incorrect. Unless you believe most atheists understand the above words.

It's irrelevant. What does it impact? What does it matter?

 

[DOC]

It's also incredibly irrelevant.

DOC: It is relevant when people say it is wrong when it isn't.


We don't know. What's your point?

DOC: If no natural forces existed then the Big Bang was caused by something outside of natural {aka supernatural}


Look up the decay of atoms.

DOC: I already know the universe will eventually burn out according to science.


It's irrelevant. Abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with one another. They stand on their own merits.

DOC: Abiogenesis is sort of an evolution. the evolution from nonliving material to living material. It involves change just like Darwinian evolution involves change.


Odins Day, Thors Day, Freyas Day, Sun Day.

DOC: Bottom line is AD and BC (Before Christ) was used much longer than the current C.E. system.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC: I already know the universe will eventually burn out according to science.

Yay! Another wrong science statement. What does this have to do with the decay of atoms?

DOC: Abiogenesis is sort of an evolution. the evolution from nonliving material to living material. It involves change just like Darwinian evolution involves change.

And another one!

DOC: Bottom line is AD and BC (Before Christ) was used much longer than the current C.E. system.

Which has nothing to do with the point being made by Mark.

 

[Mark Felt]

DOC: It is relevant when people say it is wrong when it isn't.

Except that there are scientists who don't think that the universe had a definite beginning, so, yes, you're wrong. And Einstein didn't live to be 100. So, yes, you're wrong.

DOC: If no natural forces existed then the Big Bang was caused by something outside of natural {aka supernatural}

That's a false dichotomy. That we don't know what the forces which caused the universe to come into existence were(if we posit the BB theory as correct) doesn't mean that there weren't any, or that they involved a creator.

DOC: I already know the universe will eventually burn out according to science.

That's not why I asked you to look up the decay of atoms. There is no known cause for why atoms decay. Does this cause scientists to riot in the streets? No.

DOC: Abiogenesis is sort of an evolution. the evolution from nonliving material to living material. It involves change just like Darwinian evolution involves change.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two entirely seperate theories. One explores the origin of life, and one explores what happens to life once it's come into existence. Neither depends on the other. If we found proof later today that life came into existence because a god willed it to be so, this wouldn't affect the theory of Evolution in the slightest.

DOC: Bottom line is AD and BC (Before Christ) was used much longer than the current C.E. system.

Odins Day, Thors Day, Freyas Day, Sun Day. Or do you deny that this is the derivation of more than half of the names of the days of the week? Or that we start the year in january thanks to Roman custom? Or that Christmas happens on the winter solstice?

 

[DOC]

DOC: I already know the universe will eventually burn out according to science.

Yay! Another wrong science statement.

No you are wrong, science says the universe will eventually burn out.

 

[DOC]

And Einstein didn't live to be 100.

I never said he did, so why imply I did?

 

[DOC]

That's not why I asked you to look up the decay of atoms. There is no known cause for why atoms decay.

Do you have a source that there is no known cause for the decay of atoms.

 

[Mark Felt]

No you are wrong, science says the universe will eventually burn out.

I'm trying to find a definition for "burn out". I can't find one.

You obviously don't understand heat death. I'd like you to state that you didn't understand heat death. See what I did there?

I never said he did, so why imply I did?

If Einstein was a scientist who lived 100 years ago, and scientists who lived 100 years ago now believe that the universe had a definite beginning, then Einstein obviously lived to be... how old?

Or are you admitting that the sentence is bizarre?

 

[DOC]

If Einstein was a scientist who lived 100 years ago, and scientists who lived 100 years ago now believe that the universe had a definite beginning, then Einstein obviously lived to be... how old?

The phrase above "and scientists who lived 100 years ago "now" believe that the universe had a definite beginning" is your wording not mine. Your implication that I thought Einstein live to be 100 was incorrect. The word "now" was added by you.

 

[Mark Felt]

Do you have a source that there is no known cause for the decay of atoms.

Much of Quantam Mechanics.

 

[DOC]

I'm trying to find a definition for "burn out". I can't find one.

You obviously don't understand heat death. I'd like you to state that you didn't understand heat death. See what I did there?

If scientists can say stars will burn out then I should be able to say it also. If I don't understand heat death then scientists who use the term "burn out" must also not understand it.

ETA And do you have a source that says we don't know why atoms decay like you stated.

 

[Mark Felt]

The phrase above "and scientists who lived 100 years ago "now" believe that the universe had a definite beginning" is your wording not mine. Your implication that I thought Einstein live to be 100 was incorrect. The word "now" was added by you.

Posted by DOC
Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

Emphasis added.

 

[Mark Felt]

If scientists can say stars will burn out then I should be able to say it also. If I don't understand heat death then scientists who use the term "burn out" must also not understand it.

ETA And do you have a source that says we don't know why atoms decay like you stated.

So... Stars = Universe. You don't see how you screwed up?

[A law of Cause and effect has] no justification other than common, everyday experience. In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops down to a lower level and emits a photon.. we find no cause of that event. Victor Stenger

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm

 

[Hokulele]

No you are wrong, science says the universe will eventually burn out.

Provide your source for this statement.

 

[DOC]

Provide your source for this statement.

This PhD. says the universe will burn out. If he can say it I should be able to say it without being attacked.

http://www.drtruth.org/Infinity2b.html

 

[Mark Felt]

This PhD. says the universe will burn out. If he can say it I should be able to say it without being attacked.

http://www.drtruth.org/Infinity2b.html

He also says that every event has a cause. He's incorrect.

 

[Hokulele]

This PhD. says the universe will burn out. If he can say it I should be able to say it without being attacked.

Do you understand the difference between an analogy and a scientific theory?

Just like a bonfire, the universe eventually burns out.

(His bolding.)


ETA: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Here is Dr. Truth's method for determining "truth".

1. We will suppose that ordinary common sense reasoning is sufficient to reach important conclusions.

For example: If I let go of a ball and it falls each time, and this happens many times; then it is reasonable to suppose that the next time I let go, it will fall again as it did before. This is the supposition that natural law is generally unchanged over the short time intervals of human experience.

http://www.drtruth.org/Truthtesting.html

 

[DOC]

Emphasis added.

Posted by DOC
Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.


OK, I now see I did use the word "now" above but anyone with a 9th grade education should realize I meant "they" to mean current scientists.

 

[Mark Felt]

So, are you going to admit that you didn't understand, among other things, Heat Death, the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution, Cause and Effect, what Science is, the origin of the calander currently in use?

I would like you to state that you didn't understand these, since you asked joobz to do the same(despite his actually doing so) for some stupidly high number of pages.

OK, I now see I did use the word "now" above but anyone with a 9th grade education should realize I meant "they" to mean current scientists.

From context, yes. Not from your grammar.