Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10462 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>How undignified for you to compare your superstition to Stalin.

This only serves to indicate just how threatened you feel.
Incredible! LOL
Khatru has picked a puppet for his avatar because he must be a ventriloquist all he does try and put words in other people's mouth.

Howdy Doody!

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10463 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have found Google very hepful in researching many of the basic questions you have.
I know how tedious it can be to plough through material, but there is a wealth of information on Google.
Try it sometime, lol.
In other words, you have no answer to my question.

Don't worry, there's no shame in your failure - I won't gloat.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10464 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>How humiliating it must be for atheists to admit in a public forum they are against the Bible they haven't read and know nothing about.

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”- Mark Twain
Dave advice.

You should heed it.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10465 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're also not observant enough to notice I haven't copied and pasted anything for about 10 days except for that Mark Twain quote I posted awhile ago about how much better off YOU would be to keep your mouth closed instead of opening it?
This one:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.- Mark Twain
Here's one you'll approve of:

"The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it."

-Mark Twain-

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10466 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that.
Another testament to how fraudsters are always caught out by the scientific community.
Nice to see you supporting that fact.
You have a comprehension problem, but we will forgive you. We've grown accustomed to how you get things backward.

It's amazing that you ever managed to understand how Noah and his family were right. But you did. Like I once said, you will always have a special place in my heart for that which no one else could ever fill.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10467 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one you'll approve of:
"The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it."
-Mark Twain-
Mark Twain should have followed his own advice in the quote I posted, where he said,It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

However the first part is correct - "the gods" (lol) offer no rewards. "The gods" offer nothing, lol.

I hope there is some chance Mark Twain met the one and only GOD before he passed on.

I hope you do too, but my guess is you won't.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10468 Jan 6, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>It not s "proof". It's basic application of probability.

From a population of 1 known (observed & measured) planet where life could possibly exist we have an observed and measured occurrence of 1 planet where life actually does exist.

In "1:1", the first 1 is the observed occurrences of a stated outcome and the second 1 is the sample size. Therefore probability theory dictates that on any planet where life could possibly exist as we know it, there is a 100% chance that life actually does exist.

As I have repeatedly told you, probability theory is meaningless with such a limited sample size. Your entire "odds are" argument is laughable.

I am truly sorry that this is apparently beyond your ability to understand.
So what you're saying is because we looked at one planet and it has life the Theory's of what happened to get that life is 1:1 regardless of your theory of how life got here.

Oh and we have looked at least 5 other planets and some moons and found no life so your 1:1 is incorrect.

"the second 1 is the sample size"

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10469 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you have no answer to my question.
Don't worry, there's no shame in your failure - I won't gloat.
To KJV:
(and) To Langoliers:

Please spoon feed poor Khatru, please change his (her?) diaper and please do all his (her?) research. Poor Khatru was never good at ploughing.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#10470 Jan 6, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Dave advice.

You should heed it.
Sage.

Not Dave.

Stupid smartphone.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10471 Jan 6, 2013
"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser explains.

This question really has two parts. First, how was matter able to get out of the big-bang singularity? After all, physicists describe a black hole singularity as a pit into which material flows but from which it cannot escape. Let us leave aside the fact that singularities are an idealization. The basic point is that the universe was born with a tendency to expand, which overcame the tendency of matter to collapse. According to relativity theory, space does not like to remain static; for all but the most special cases, it either expands or contracts. But why it initially chose the former is still a mystery.

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see.(A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)

The second part of the question is: Why didn¿t matter in the early universe collapse into black holes? After all, physicists say that if you squeeze matter to a high enough density, it will collapse into a black hole, and the density of matter in the early universe was extremely high. The answer is that black-hole formation actually depends on the variation in density from one place to another--and there was very little variation back then. Matter was spread out almost perfectly smoothly.

In fact, cosmologists usually turn the question around. The fact that the universe did not recollapse into a swarm of black holes is evidence that sharp density variations did not exist (or were extremely rare). This lack of sharp variations, in turn, is evidence for the inflationary model that most cosmologists today accept."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10472 Jan 6, 2013
"Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University, responds.

First of all, it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity. Our measurements can take us back only so far; ideas about the nature of the cosmos at the start of the big bang are mostly unproved conjecture.

Second of all, the concept of a black hole is only one type of solution to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, our best current theory of gravity. This reading of general relativity--known as the Schwarzschild solution--is thought to give an accurate description of the gravity near an isolated, nonrotating black hole, as well as the 'normal' gravity near the earth and throughout our solar system.

But other solutions to general relativity are known to exist, including ones that apply to a whole universe. These alternative solutions typically assume that the early universe was perfectly uniform so that there were no places for black holes to form, even if the density were so great that particles were "cheek by jowl." The most popular class of general relativity solutions applying to the entire cosmos are known as Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions. These formulations appear to describe correctly our expanding universe; that is, they demonstrate how objects not held together by local forces (such as the electromagnetism that bonds atoms in molecules or the gravity that keeps the earth intact) stream away from one another in a predictable manner.

Still, there is room in the theories for some of the matter in the universe to be hidden in black holes that might have formed from local, unusually dense regions in the very early universe. These black holes could conceivably contribute to the large amount of dark matter that exists in the universe. Astronomers are therefore diligently searching for these objects. In one scenario discussed by Jeremiah Ostriker of Princeton University and his collaborators, black holes as massive as one million times the mass of our sun might be common throughout the universe and still be nearly invisible. Although other black holes might come out of some big bang models involving quantum mechanics, a common expectation by cosmologists is that only elementary particles survived these early epochs of our universe."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10473 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>From your website:

"Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion”(man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys."

When it comes to science, I'll listen to the scientists.

You should too: you know that ju-ju and superstitious mumbo jumbo are not scientific.
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis"

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10474 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>To KJV:
(and) To Langoliers:

Please spoon feed poor Khatru, please change his (her?) diaper and please do all his (her?) research. Poor Khatru was never good at ploughing.
As Bill Cosby would say "brain damage!"

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10475 Jan 6, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
To KJV:
(and) To Langoliers:
Please spoon feed poor Khatru, please change his (her?) diaper and please do all his (her?) research. Poor Khatru was never good at ploughing.
You'll have to put that Bible down first.

At least you've stopped threatening us with eternal torture.

Looks like IANS mockery of your "scary chicken on a stick" works.

I'm sure you'll agree that he makes a good comparison between your ju-ju and that of a tribal witch-doctor.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10476 Jan 6, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis"
How strange.

You have the very same formatting problems that KJV has.

Wait a minute!

Could it be?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#10477 Jan 6, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to put that Bible down first.
At least you've stopped threatening us with eternal torture.
Looks like IANS mockery of your "scary chicken on a stick" works.
I'm sure you'll agree that he makes a good comparison between your ju-ju and that of a tribal witch-doctor.
"How can heaven and hell coexist? How can any sane and loving human being be happy in heaven knowing that millions of people, innocent or not, are being tortured for eternity? This heaven is a place void of empathy, an asylum for psychopaths. How is this heaven good?~ Anonymous
KJV

United States

#10478 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The probability that the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state and that life has evolved are both well over 99.9999%. The details are less well established, but even those are being elucidated every day.

YOU are the one that claimed a probability calculation. What the assumptions are for that calculation, what the dependencies are, etc, are ALL not given. Instead, independence of variables *known* to be dependent is assumed and that alone disqualifies the calculation.

A *real* calculation of the probabilities is way beyond anything *anyone* can do simply because we do not know the parameter space relevant or what affects the location of our universe within that space.
I like the way this guy put it so I'll quote him.

"OKThen

April 1, 2011
Ethan
You give a very good and balanced summary.
In particular, I agree when you say,“All the alternatives fail miserably, including Tired Light, Hoyle’s Steady-State Theory, and Alfven’s Plasma Cosmology.” I quibble only with the word “All”; but yes, the major alternative theories have failed miserably.
Nor am I even proposing the version of the cyclic model such as Penrose or Steinbardt propose.(See for example Apr 2011, Scientific American: The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? By Paul J. Steinhardt)
I agree that the big bang theory is a pragmatic framework within which a great many subtheories have been tested and continue to be tested. Nevertheless, I find the big bang theory inadequate.
The plethora of dogmatic statements of endorsements is the first problem. e.g.“there’s a 99.9% chance that the Big Bang was correct from when the Universe was a tiny fraction of a second old up to the present day”
Physics has much to understand before any theory of the universe can claim even 50% certainty. The unknowns include:
– dark matter
– dark energy
– inflation
– extra spatial dimensions
– the nature of time (e.g. F-theory)
– quantum gravity
– baryon asymmetry
– quantum vacuum (including phase changes & Unruh’s law)
– the life cycle of galaxies (including globular clusters & very old nearby stars)
– new insights from general relativity
– appropriate use of complexity of mathematical models
– problems with standard model of elementary particles
– the shape of our visible universe (perhaps a 3-sphere)
– might our visible universe really be anisotropic
Classical physics can’t predict the results of a planned automobile collision; hence the need for experiment (e.g. crash test dummies). Yet you are 99.9% confident in the big bang theory from “from when the Universe was a tiny fraction of a second old up to the present day”. Such belief is naive.
Without new experiment and observation, massive amounts of new evidence; there can not be resolution to any of the above open questions in physics. There is always conflicting evidence; otherwise why do science. Without new data; theory will be stuck in silos. Adherants of an 11-dimensional space time versus big bang theorist of an infinitely flat 4-d spacetime universe; etc."

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10479 Jan 6, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Say umm KK was not this discussion about your comment about "not changing is bad?" Then a list of items was posted showing something's are better left unchanged. Then some idiot pointed out that these thing do change which was then pointed out yes they do change but it does not do life on earth any favors in fact could easily wipe out life on earth, and now your response is
"We'll all be dead long before there is any catastrophe"
That's kind of off track from your statement "not changing is bad"
So in a few pages you now say don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us?
Lets get it straight.
You said "not changing is bad"
KJV said "not always, showing a few item that would most likely kill mankind if they changed"
You respond "don't worry we'll all be dead before one of those changes can kill us"
LOL
You skipped a lot of the stuff in between and ignored the entire meat of the discussion. Kudos on demonstrate you still don't know how to keep up.
KJV

United States

#10480 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Absolute proof is unavailable in the real world. It is restricted to mathematics. Bu tthe evidence supporting the Big Bang is such that we *know* that the universe has expanded from a hot, dense state. So the Big Bang is true.

[QUOTE]There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.

[QUOTE]There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero."

Life has changed over time. That alone shows evolution has happened. The particular mechanisms are still being discussed, but the fact is that species change over time.

[QUOTE]Now what was it that gets you off the zero?"

Actual evidence in the real world.

[QUOTE]http://www.reasons.org/ articles/articles/fulfilled-pr ophecy-evidence-for-the-reliab ility-of-the-bible
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
"

Except, of course, that there were no unambiguous prophesies made ahead of time.
"Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario

There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:

(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote:“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state”(1983, 40).

(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).

(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case."

https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
KJV

United States

#10481 Jan 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Absolute proof is unavailable in the real world. It is restricted to mathematics. Bu tthe evidence supporting the Big Bang is such that we *know* that the universe has expanded from a hot, dense state. So the Big Bang is true.

[QUOTE]There is no proof and no evidence of spontaneous life, again you're still at zero.

[QUOTE]There is no proof of the theory of evolution. Again you're still at zero."

Life has changed over time. That alone shows evolution has happened. The particular mechanisms are still being discussed, but the fact is that species change over time.

[QUOTE]Now what was it that gets you off the zero?"

Actual evidence in the real world.

[QUOTE]http://www.reasons.org/ articles/articles/fulfilled-pr ophecy-evidence-for-the-reliab ility-of-the-bible
"Hence, the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105."
"

Except, of course, that there were no unambiguous prophesies made ahead of time.
"One thing is certain: one is required to lay aside his “common sense” in order to accept the foregoing incomprehensible speculation. None of these materialistic theories has any credibility—biblically or scientifically. Some scientists should take a hint from the Scottish skeptic David Hume:“I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”(1932, 187).

Dr. Mart de Groot, who views the big bang concept as “a possible way of understanding the opening statement of the Bible,‘in the beginning God ...’,” admits that there is an objective difficulty to the theory. And it is this: even if the “primordial matter” exploded, he says, resulting in our present universe,“what is the origin or source of this matter?” He confesses that “probably the most serious shortcoming of the big bang is its inability to go back to the very beginning of time and space”(1999, 20-23). The theory has far more shortcomings than the matter of “matter commencement”!"

https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 24 min KiMare 233,129
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 4 hr Morse 2,615
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 4 hr SnuffAGlobalist 18
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Morse 23,260
$13.5m for jehovahs witness sex victim 8 hr P_Smith 2
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr P_Smith 9
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 11 hr Morse 1,455
More from around the web