GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-09-2013, 10:20   #481
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
A good way to explain this to people...

Go find the largest parking lot you can. Pick a car at random, and look at the vin#. What are the odds that you were going to find a car with that vin? Effectively zero.
Nice.

Although I think there are people who will be prone to miss the point completely and object on the grounds that cars are made, even though that doesn't have anything to do with the point being demonstrated. At least when the point is being made within the context of the current discussion.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-09-2013 at 10:21..
void * is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 11:35   #482
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, there is a lot of conjecture and biased examination of what is observable to be skeptical of both. Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat.
Earth is a statistical feat in the same sense. How many planets have we observed that have the needed environment to support life? The statistics say Earth is a rare gem. The idea is that a planet that is able to support life will grow life. Seems like a very natural concept to me.

Quote:
But then why today, when you can find building blocks of life all over the planet, with animals shedding cells and leaving DNA everywhere, and we are knee deep in building blocks for life, are we not witnessing abiogenesis in nature now?
I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps Earth's environment has changed to where that is no longer possible. Perhaps there is already life in any environment in which that reaction could take place and that life interferes with the formation of new life. In other words there may be sinple single celled organisms consuming materials that might otherwise be needed for the process. And because I don't know for sure doesn't mean smarter people than I haven't already found the answer to your question. But that still doesn't give it equal credence to Creationism. There is still so much more evidence supporting abiogenesis.

We know all life evolved from the simplest organisms. You agree with that right? I've seen you say you think Evolution is the correct description of how life progressed on this planet. Well... we also know that under the right conditions (the conditions of a pre-life Earth) RNA could form via the proper chemical reaction.

I agree there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing to connect the two. No one is saying it's a done deal yet.

But what dots has creationism connected? Any?

You're still not justifying how you can give equal credence to two concepts that have such grossly differing levels of evidence to support them.


Quote:
Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.
But without logical justification. Abiogenesis doesn't answer all questions. But creationism answers none. There is no real supporting evidence for creationism.

Quote:
The real interesting thing to think about, is that since there are strong feelings on both sides, and no real proof, why would either side trying to suppress the other and exclude the other possibility from even being taught, unless there was an agenda at work???
That statement is dishonest. There is real proof for abiogenesis and there is none for creationsism. One is actual science and the other is an attempt to twist science to support religion.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 12:32   #483
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,910


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Because there is some evidence for one side, but not the other. We've been over this.
So says you. I'm not convinced.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 12:40   #484
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,910


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
The carefully controlled conditions are to replicate what a pre-life earth environment would be like. Not the environment of a lab. That's why they're carefully controlled, as not to give results that don't answer the question at hand.

And yes, it does illustrate that it's possible for life to be created... by beings as simple as us. Doesn't require a deity. However... there still is no evidence that such a being has ever or does exist. As far as we know we are the only beings in the universe with the power attributed to God. But that's not surprising since man most likely invented the concept of God.
And of course we just know exactly what temperature, moisture content, humidity, and barometric pressure were then.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...n-terrestrial/

http://www.livescience.com/241-early...-suggests.html


No guess work at all there huh? I'm trying to think of the nicest way to ask this, but how reasonable do you really think it is to believe you have it all figured out?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 12:57   #485
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,910


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
I said "evidence to support the possibility", not "evidence of". What evidence is there to support the possibility of creationism?



OK, that makes it even more redundant - "Whichever way it happened is the way it happened." Is that what you're saying? Please tell me I'm still misunderstanding you.
It is what it is. It got this way precisely how it got this way. We are pretty good at describing what is, not so good at describing the moment it all started, or even if there was a start.

Describing with any detail, events that occurred hundreds of millions or billions of years ago is not an precise exersize.


Quote:
Reasonable speculation? Speculation based on a supernatural being, that there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of, is reasonable to you?
.

I see two problems with that. First, it may have been a rather normal appearing intelligence, after all, we are getting close to doing it, and we aren't all that super.

Second, if it were created, even using abilities we haven't even considered, that would be the nature of things, and not supernatural. Even the math behind BBT suggests a time when the normal laws of physics we observe today may not have applied.




Quote:
OK, it's not a good analogy for the beginning of life on this planet. However, creationism dictates that the beginning of life on this planet was initiated by a sentient creative being. It is an excellent analogy of belief in that sentient creative being.



Nope. I've never claimed I could. Can you show me how belief in a sentient creative being is *more* logical? At least we've got solid scientific framework for the possibility of abiogenesis.
It's not more logical. We all have opinions on what is MORE logical. I personally think firm belief in either of two poorly supported beliefs, even though one is likely correct is illogical. That's why I don't have a firm belief that life just happened or that it was made. I'll wait until something convincing comes along then decide. Until then I don't worry to much about what happened billions of years ago (other than on GTRI), as I have plenty to learn about and do in the present.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 13:08   #486
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,910


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Earth is a statistical feat in the same sense. How many planets have we observed that have the needed environment to support life? The statistics say Earth is a rare gem. The idea is that a planet that is able to support life will grow life. Seems like a very natural concept to me.



I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps Earth's environment has changed to where that is no longer possible. Perhaps there is already life in any environment in which that reaction could take place and that life interferes with the formation of new life. In other words there may be sinple single celled organisms consuming materials that might otherwise be needed for the process. And because I don't know for sure doesn't mean smarter people than I haven't already found the answer to your question. But that still doesn't give it equal credence to Creationism. There is still so much more evidence supporting abiogenesis.

We know all life evolved from the simplest organisms. You agree with that right? I've seen you say you think Evolution is the correct description of how life progressed on this planet. Well... we also know that under the right conditions (the conditions of a pre-life Earth) RNA could form via the proper chemical reaction.

I agree there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing to connect the two. No one is saying it's a done deal yet.

But what dots has creationism connected? Any?

You're still not justifying how you can give equal credence to two concepts that have such grossly differing levels of evidence to support them.




But without logical justification. Abiogenesis doesn't answer all questions. But creationism answers none. There is no real supporting evidence for creationism.



That statement is dishonest. There is real proof for abiogenesis and there is none for creationsism. One is actual science and the other is an attempt to twist science to support religion.
Just for a second, pretend you are conversing with a true middle of the road undecided agnostic on the creation vs. natural phenomena issue.

With atheists on one side of me, and theists on the other, either side trying to claim absolute knowledge and suppress the other is agenda driven.

It's possible it was made, it's possible it just happened under the right conditions. No reason not to admit that and just move on to spending more time learning about the present, that we are more sure about. Sure, we should keep looking, and when/if all the pieces fit and it's really proven, go with it then.

Besides, you've sorta already told me your hobby with other religious beliefs other than your own.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 13:33   #487
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So says you.
No. So says the evidence. There is evidence that under given natural conditions organic compounds can be synthesized from inorganic compounds, for example. There is no equivalent level of evidence for deities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm not convinced.
I doubt there's any evidence would convince you, given your other positions.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 13:36   #488
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And of course we just know exactly what temperature, moisture content, humidity, and barometric pressure were then.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...n-terrestrial/

http://www.livescience.com/241-early...-suggests.html


No guess work at all there huh? I'm trying to think of the nicest way to ask this, but how reasonable do you really think it is to believe you have it all figured out?
Probably at least as reasonable as it is for you to keep telling atheists they either believe or claim to have it all figured out.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 13:52   #489
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,910


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Probably at least as reasonable as it is for you to keep telling atheists they either believe or claim to have it all figured out.
Over a 99/1 surety rating would seem to indicate that.

No, I cannot read your mind over the Internet, I'm making my own subjective evaluation of the arguments and statements provided. If it wasn't clear before that it is only my opinion that is true, that some act awfully sure about what happened on a single day hundreds of millions of years ago.

I'm ok with not being certain of how that day went, and will probably spending more time deciding things about today.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
--Gunhaver
Don't let the guys quoted above contact your reps more than you.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 17:52   #490
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,950
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's only a fallacy if it's false. Given the possibility of natural phenomena creating very complex structures, where minor defects are incompatible with life, and an intelligence creating it, both are rather hard to believe. Recognizing the extrapolations and assumptions made on both sides of the issue, whether philosophers and logicians agree or not, it seems logical to withhold judgement until such time as enough evidence is present to decide. I also recognize that on both sides there is bias. Some Theists really want to believe they can prove life was designed and created. Some Atheists really want to prove that it was not created and just a natural phenomena.
You continue to stick with what is possible. Any of the myths listed below are possible. That's why what is taught in a science class should be based on what the evidence supports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Your example of an Unintelligent Designer is an example a lack of perfection is not a lack of inteligence. Just figuring out how difficult it is to make a cell work is very complex, figuring out how to make it replicate, differentiate within a mamal, the positive and negative feedback loops between relatively distant tissues within the body to handle small details that without which, it all stops working. I think you are trying to rule out a perfect design, and assuming a perfect designer must make a perfect design, and that you would understand the big picture much better. First, I make no assumptions about the characteristics of a possible designer, not even sure there is one let alone what the characteristics would be. The human body is very complex, homeostasis is a constant and active activity, it's very easy for one defect to stop it all from working pretty quick. To assume if there was a designer that the design isn't good enough is comical. After all, if there were a designer, the design has lasts millipns of years and led to you being able to complain about it. What would happen if animals did not grow up, grow old and die naturally, I see problems with that. We all get to die at least once. It is what it is. BTW: wouldn't arguing that it could not have been designed because the design is uninteligent also be an argument from incredulity?
I'm not arguing that life was not designed, merely pointing out that an Intelligent Designer (in the Christian I.D. sense) can be pretty well ruled out. Like you, I accept that a pretty dumb designer could be responsible for the current state of things. If somebody would care to present the evidence to make that case, I'd be glad to review it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It is what it is. It was probably either made or just a result of natural phenomena. Both possibilities are incredible. Was life made? Some say yes, some say no, I say maybe.

Can I ask if you've noticed how much information I have proposed putting in front of a science class?
Yes, more than the (lack of) evidence warrants.
  • Judeo-Christian: man from dirt, woman from his rib
  • Scientology: involves Lord Xenu, DC8-like spaceships, frozen aliens, volcanoes and hydrogen bombs
  • Japanese: elements appear in the form of an egg, and Izanami gives birth to the gods
  • Greek: Nyx, the bird, lays an egg that hatches into Eros, then the shell becomes Gaia and Uranus
  • Iroquois: Sky Woman fell from a floating island (actually pregnant and pushed by her husband) and gave birth to the world
  • Hindu (one version): Brahma created primal waters which grew into a golden egg which was split into heaven and earth
  • Chinook: great egg laid by the Thunderbird
  • African Bushmen: people and animals lived in harmony, then Great Master and Lord of All Life, Kaang, planted a tree that spread over it and dug a hole to bring up the people and animals
Keeping in mind that the Judeo-Christian explanation has no more evidence to support it than Scientology or any of the other stories, do all of these, and all other explanations, deserve mention in a science class?

As said before, if somebody wants to teach them in their home, in a Bible study class, in a private school science class, or even a public school mythology class I have no problem with that. If they want something taught (or even mentioned as an alternative explanation) in a public school science class, then they should have the evidence to back up the claims.

ETA: I'm not interested in proving there was no designer/creator, as I believe it would largely be a waste of time. As I've said numerous times, even if chemists could create life in the laboratory at will, that would not prove that there was not a designer/creator. At most it would demonstrate that one was not necessary.

-ArtificialGrape

Last edited by ArtificialGrape; 02-09-2013 at 17:55..
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 20:00   #491
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Just for a second, pretend you are conversing with a true middle of the road undecided agnostic on the creation vs. natural phenomena issue.

With atheists on one side of me, and theists on the other, either side trying to claim absolute knowledge and suppress the other is agenda driven.
Please provide evidence that the self identified atheists involved in this conversation are attempting to claim absolute knowledge.

If you can't - then why should we pretend that they are?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-09-2013 at 20:03..
void * is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 20:40   #492
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,687
Atheist do not claim absolute knowledge. The very principle of atheism is, I Don't Know.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by RC-RAMIE; 02-09-2013 at 20:41..
RC-RAMIE is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 00:43   #493
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So says you. I'm not convinced.
That would suggest that you either disregard a whole poop load of evidence for evolution (or even for abiogenesis if that's your only hangup) you consider a whole bunch of stuff to be evidence of creation that scientists don't consider to be evidence of creation. Which is it?
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 00:50   #494
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE View Post
Atheist do not claim absolute knowledge. The very principle of atheism is, I Don't Know.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
That's the very principle of agnosticism. The very principle of atheism is I Don't Care. We can say there is no god because we don't really GAF about the minuscule chance that one of the numerous stories that appear to have been pulled from someone's butt is actually the correct answer to a question also pulled from possibly the same butt. It's not not really a big leap for most.
Gunhaver is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:11   #495
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 20,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
That's the very principle of agnosticism. The very principle of atheism is I Don't Care. We can say there is no god because we don't really GAF about the minuscule chance that one of the numerous stories that appear to have been pulled from someone's butt is actually the correct answer to a question also pulled from possibly the same butt. It's not not really a big leap for most.
Though your first sentence is correct, the principle of atheism is THERE IS NO GOD. An absolute concept.
Theists are the other side of the coin... THERE IS A GOD. Again an absolute concept.
But both sides can be driven by emotions. And judging by this forum, some of the atheists here are on the edge of hysteria.



Religious Issues
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 08:26   #496
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Please provide evidence that the self identified atheists involved in this conversation are attempting to claim absolute knowledge.

If you can't - then why should we pretend that they are?
He has no evidence whatsoever. There is none. But he believes it, therefore it its solid enough to include in science class

Randy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 08:27..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 09:11   #497
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
That's the very principle of agnosticism. The very principle of atheism is I Don't Care. We can say there is no god because we don't really GAF about the minuscule chance that one of the numerous stories that appear to have been pulled from someone's butt is actually the correct answer to a question also pulled from possibly the same butt. It's not not really a big leap for most.
No your wrong. I care but as Atheist we don't know. If supporting evidence for a god ever came along I doubt there would be many Atheist left.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
RC-RAMIE is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 09:12   #498
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Though your first sentence is correct, the principle of atheism is THERE IS NO GOD. An absolute concept.
Theists are the other side of the coin... THERE IS A GOD. Again an absolute concept.
But both sides can be driven by emotions. And judging by this forum, some of the atheists here are on the edge of hysteria.



Religious Issues
No it's not, it's I don't believe your unsupported assertion of a god.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
RC-RAMIE is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 10:18   #499
Riverkilt
Senior Member
 
Riverkilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 333
It takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe there is some kind of a God.

If Creationists are correct then the platypus is proof that "God" is a committee.

When its "opinion" vs. fact...fact is gonna win every time.
__________________
"Get off my lawn."


Glock 42...somewhere you can't see
Riverkilt is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 11:06   #500
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 20,392


Quote:
Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE View Post
No it's not, it's I don't believe your unsupported assertion of a god.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Merriam-Webster
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


atheismnoun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless


Again, atheism's doctrine is absolute. Anything else put's one in the agnostic catagory.


Take Al's advice.
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,171
273 Members
898 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42