Is the bible a fairy tale?

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 160)

Showing posts 3,181 - 3,200 of3,445
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3275
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
The Big Bang MYTH.
NOTHING EXPLODED AND CREATED EVERYTHING!!!
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
<quoted text>
SInce you didn't understand my reply, please don't misuse it like you do. I never said 'nothing' exploded. I said in *one* model, there simply was no 'time before the Big Bang'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3276
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
Since none of those are even remotely what is actually believed, you are simply lying once again.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3277
Jul 25, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
Atheists will never take part in your personal mental illness.

If you reject science, you need to come up with the evidence as to why we should as well.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3278
Jul 25, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Fact is science data claims everything started 13.7 billion years ago. When there was no time, matter, energy, space there was nothing so all that is came from nothing but science gets by this impossibility by stating the Big Bang doesn't deal with where it came from just that it blew up. How convenient!!
Ask your failed cult's leader where god came from, and watch them squirm.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3279
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your IQ went down 6 points, after all the schooling you got in topix alone. You still present the same idiotic garbage you did 6 months ago, some people never learn, you seem to be one of them.
Forget being smarter than a fifth grader, you can't tackle a second graders science.
He cannot tackle **any** science-- in science?

Learning is not only a good idea? It's a literal requirement to do proper science!

Literally.

If someone cannot learn? They cannot **ever** understand or do real science.

Ever.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3280
Jul 25, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Your IQ went down 6 points, after all the schooling you got in topix alone. You still present the same idiotic garbage you did 6 months ago, some people never learn, you seem to be one of them.
Forget being smarter than a fifth grader, you can't tackle a second graders science.
Why at this rate I'll hit your IQ level in 34 years.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3281
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>You must be "john" because every time you get your butt handed to you on a plate, you regurgitate another post of garbage (as if it were new) and think it is new and clever.
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3282
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>You must be "john" because every time you get your butt handed to you on a plate, you regurgitate another post of garbage (as if it were new) and think it is new and clever.
Part 2

But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”

This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”

Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”

Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”

Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.

That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3283
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>SInce you didn't understand my reply, please don't misuse it like you do. I never said 'nothing' exploded. I said in *one* model, there simply was no 'time before the Big Bang'.
You also said that when there was no time there was "nothing" "zippo!"

So in "one" model you do indeed have nothing exploding to create everything.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3284
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Since none of those are even remotely what is actually believed, you are simply lying once again.
Wrong.

You yourself said when there was no time there was "nothing" as one possibility. Here I'll refresh you short memory.

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>That is *one* of the possibilities, yes.
So there was nothing then there was this Big Bang and then there was everything.

Sounds like Myth 1 to me.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3285
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Why at this rate I'll hit your IQ level in 34 years.
You wont hit anything in 34 years, besides the bottom of the barrel.
I will be watching your wretched withering hideousness hit bottom from the Executive Suite.

“Putten the SIN ”

Since: Nov 08

back in Wisconsin

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3286
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Fact is science data claims everything started 13.7 billion years ago. When there was no time, matter, energy, space there was nothing so all that is came from nothing but science gets by this impossibility by stating the Big Bang doesn't deal with where it came from just that it blew up. How convenient!!
Its called ->honesty<- and ->humility<-, and most important *courage*. You should look up the terms :}

See science and scientists dont know all the answers, and what they do know isn't understood accurately 100%. They say and know this.

Grow some fucking balls and integrity and understand and deal with this.

Fact is they don't know what happened "before the big bang", and unlike you and your ilk there not into making shit up. If they do make shit up they at least test it, run it by other people and see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it doesnt work it gets thrown out.

Tell you what. When you have the balls and integrity to play by those rules, then you might be slightly qualified to be a skeptic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3287
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You also said that when there was no time there was "nothing" "zippo!"
So in "one" model you do indeed have nothing exploding to create everything.
There was nothing in the sense that there was not even existence. Such a time simply did not exist in that model.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3288
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
You yourself said when there was no time there was "nothing" as one possibility. Here I'll refresh you short memory.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying when there was no time there was nothing....Zipville.....elnodd o...goose Egg?
And time started "about" 13.7 billion years ago? Is that right?
<quoted text>
So there was nothing then there was this Big Bang and then there was everything.
Sounds like Myth 1 to me.
That's because you're so stupid you don't understand what I said. I said that in that model there was nothing, in the sense of not even existence 'before the Big Bang'. It was NOT a situation where there was 'nothing' at some point and at some later point that 'nothing' exploded.

The thing we repeatedly come up against here is you inability to understand a concept of a time with no prior time; Where existence is literally limited to a certain period into the past.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3289
Jul 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”
I know you won't understand this, but imagine a situation where a group of species are changing fairly quickly. Most of their genes are not changing at all, or only changing randomly. But a few are changing in ways that are relevant to the development of new species.

If you choose to study genes that are changing slowly or only by random variations (which can go revert to original), you will not get an accurate picture of the changes in the species themselves. The trees made from such genes are going to be useless in determining the relationships between the species. Because of the random effects dominating the 'signal', the trees can even be very different than the real evolutionary history.

What you *want* is genes that are relevant to the specific changes that small group of species is undergoing. Those are the genes that are changing in ways that reflect the relatedness of the different species. Those are the genes where random effects are not dominating the changes in the genes themselves.

So yes, if you want to get an accurate tree, it is good to select genes that are changing on the time scales you are trying to understand and that are relevant to the changes in the organisms.

The papers referred to by your link are looking at such effects and trying to understand them and to learn how to get the *correct* answers out of sometimes noisy data.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3290
Jul 26, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Ask your failed cult's leader where god came from, and watch them squirm.
You don't know much about Christianity do you?

You don't know much about anything do you?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3291
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You wont hit anything in 34 years, besides the bottom of the barrel.
I will be watching your wretched withering hideousness hit bottom from the Executive Suite.
Not.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3292
Jul 26, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You wont hit anything in 34 years, besides the bottom of the barrel.
I will be watching your wretched withering hideousness hit bottom from the Executive Suite.
Your frustration is showing.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3293
Jul 26, 2013
 
gotnatas wrote:
<quoted text>Its called ->honesty<- and ->humility<-, and most important *courage*. You should look up the terms :}

See science and scientists dont know all the answers, and what they do know isn't understood accurately 100%. They say and know this.

Grow some fucking balls and integrity and understand and deal with this.

Fact is they don't know what happened "before the big bang", and unlike you and your ilk there not into making shit up. If they do make shit up they at least test it, run it by other people and see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it doesnt work it gets thrown out.

Tell you what. When you have the balls and integrity to play by those rules, then you might be slightly qualified to be a skeptic.
gotnatas Where did Time come from?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3294
Jul 26, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>There was nothing in the sense that there was not even existence. Such a time simply did not exist in that model.
Yes Time did not even exist.
Nothing can exist with out Time.
Nothing can happen with out Time.
Nothing can change with out Time.

Yet Time appeared with out Time in this model. Interesting Myth you have.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,181 - 3,200 of3,445
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••