• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Hokulele said:
Do you understand the difference between an analogy and a scientific theory?
Click to expand...

So scientists can use analogies but I can't. But then again I realize for some people in here the # 1 priority is to try to make me look bad in any way possible.

And in answer to your question, Yes.
 
DOC said:
So scientists can use analogies but I can't.
Click to expand...


Anyone can use an analogy. If you plan to do so, make sure it is clear that you are doing so. Look at your original statement and your defense of that statement.

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

DOC said:
No you are wrong, science says the universe will eventually burn out.
Click to expand...

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


So once again you are wrong. Science does not say the "universe will burn out", eventually or otherwise.

If you are now claiming you were using an analogy the whole time, rather than explicitly stating what you believed to be scientific theory, then please describe heat death and how it might possibly apply to the universe as we know it.

(BTW, stars do not "burn out" either. Nor do they "burn". That is another analogy.)

But then again I realize for some people in here the # 1 priority is to try to make me look bad in any way possible.
Click to expand...


You may want to stop helping.

And in answer to your question, Yes.
Click to expand...


Good. Now in your own words, what are the current scientific theories regarding any end to the universe. If you plan to use an analogy, make that clear.
 
Hokulele said:
ETA: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Here is Dr. Truth's method for determining "truth".
Click to expand...
This bit also had me laughing.

C. The Universe is Not the First Cause, God is!

Therefore, the universe is not the self-existent first cause of all other things. There must be some other first cause, which is the cause of everything, including the universe, and which continues to be the first cause of everything that happens today. And we assert that it is reasonable (by the ordinary definition of the word) to call this first cause of all things God. Therefore, there is a God who/that made the universe.
Click to expand...


There must be a first cause. I assume god exists. I say that first cause is god. Therefore god created the universe.

I wonder who could possibly argue with that logic.
Perhaps, the turtles?
 
Last edited:
Mark Felt said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, DOC has ignored this point.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is common practice in debates to provide the benefit of the doubt to the people that are being debated. However, such courtesy is only maintained when both parties practice it. Since you do not extend the same level of courtesy in your arguments, it is not surprising that it isn't provided to you.


I could provide evidence of your lack of providing "benefit of the doubt". However, I suggest we start fresh and simply accept this critique. If you are willing to. I promise to extend such courtesies if you promise to return them in kind.

In fact, I would ask all participants in this thread to make this agreement to encourage a healthy discussion.
 
joobz said:
Yes, it is common practice in debates to provide the benefit of the doubt to the people that are being debated. However, such courtesy is only maintained when both parties practice it. Since you do not extend the same level of courtesy in your arguments, it is not surprising that it isn't provided to you.


I could provide evidence of your lack of providing "benefit of the doubt". However, I suggest we start fresh and simply accept this critique. If you are willing to. I promise to extend such courtesies if you promise to return them in kind.

In fact, I would ask all participants in this thread to make this agreement to encourage a healthy discussion.
Click to expand...


To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, I can see the counter-argument as being more compelling. In a thread dedicated to exactly what science is saying, wouldn't it make more sense to hold people accountable for their errors? Rather than agreeing to offer the benefit of the doubt, I would recommend that posters who are shown to be in error (grammatically or factually) accept the fact.

Sadly, both agreements would seem to be doomed to a breaking of trust from what I have seen in this and other related threads.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And anyone with a ninth-grade education should realize that a pronoun refers to the nearest noun immediately preceding it.

Hokulele said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not to mention February, March, April, May, June, July and August. Then there are those months that are merely named after where in the year they fall: September, October, November, December (or actually where they used to fall in the Roman year; December, for example, is no longer the 10th month.)

Anyhow, not much godly there.
 
volatile said:
Doc - I will buy you both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Simon Singh's Big Bang if you promise to read them and review them here. Would you do that? Take the time to learn about the things you so lazily decry?
Click to expand...
Volatile, thought you'd like to know one lurker has gone out and bought "Big Bang". I learned more in the first 2 chapters than I have for a very long and am looking forward to finding the time to finish it. Thank you for the recommendation.
 
Hokulele said:
To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, I can see the counter-argument as being more compelling. In a thread dedicated to exactly what science is saying, wouldn't it make more sense to hold people accountable for their errors? Rather than agreeing to offer the benefit of the doubt, I would recommend that posters who are shown to be in error (grammatically or factually) accept the fact.

Sadly, both agreements would seem to be doomed to a breaking of trust from what I have seen in this and other related threads.
Click to expand...
I do not see why it isn't possible to have it both ways.

To in the same response:
1.) Correct the person's statement if it contains a factual error.
and
2.) Address the point as though the argument was presented with the correction in place.
 
joobz said:
I do not see why it isn't possible to have it both ways.

To in the same response:
1.) Correct the person's statement if it contains a factual error.
and
2.) Address the point as though the argument was presented with the correction in place.
Click to expand...


I agree in general, and other than the repeated mason/meson thing, I have been pretty much ignoring spelling/grammar errors.

The trouble with your point 2 is that many of the arguments presented here are dependent on a factual error. How can one address an argument that doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:
Fitter said:
Volatile, thought you'd like to know one lurker has gone out and bought "Big Bang". I learned more in the first 2 chapters than I have for a very long and am looking forward to finding the time to finish it. Thank you for the recommendation.
Click to expand...
As it turns out, I saw it in a bookstore last weekend and picked it up too. I'm pretty well-read already, so it's not full of stuff I didn't already know in some form or another, but it's a very good explanation of some quite difficult topics.
 
Hokulele said:
I agree in general, and other than the repeated mason/meson thing, I have been pretty much ignoring spelling/grammar errors.
Click to expand...
As do I. I think it is clear that most of the time this happens. Indeed, I think DOC has missed the fact that everyone's pendantry here has been in retaliation to DOC's.

Hokulele said:
The trouble with your point 2 is that many of the arguments presented here are dependent on a factual error. How can one address an argument that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
well, of course in those situations, such a thing is not possible and the person who made the error must correct his/her argument appropriately.

Case in point: What I just did.:D
 
joobz said:
As do I. I think it is clear that most of the time this happens. Indeed, I think DOC has missed the fact that everyone's pendantry here has been in retaliation to DOC's.


well, of course in those situations, such a thing is not possible and the person who made the error must correct his/her argument appropriately.

Case in point: What I just did.:D
Click to expand...


Excellent. :)

Hmm, you will have to wait a couple of hours before I can toast you with an appropriate bourbon.
 
arthwollipot said:
As it turns out, I saw it in a bookstore last weekend and picked it up too. I'm pretty well-read already, so it's not full of stuff I didn't already know in some form or another, but it's a very good explanation of some quite difficult topics.
Click to expand...
based upon your's and fitter's rec, I'll pick it up soon as well.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

There it is again. Where is it that you believe Genesis describes the beginning of the universe? It starts off with the creation of the heaven, that is the firmament, and the earth, but neither of those qualify as the universe. I asked this earlier, but you just responded by providing scriptural support for a point that wasn't in contention. Weird.

Where does Genesis say anything about the beginning of the universe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom