How reasonable are you? How factual? Absolute proof is not possible for scientists or Christians, but what about statistical probability? If you had a probability of one in a billion would that be enough? One in a trillion? Before I begin this discussion I think it worth while to come to some agreement as to what one can accept as a reasonable statistical number that would make something factual or unrealistically possible? I will take the highest, well reasoned number presented... ie it has to be based on the current population or all the human population to this point in history. You don't get to state infinity as that is absolute.
Thx, GBTG
Science works, prayer doesn't. EOF
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 01:46:49 PMIf you had a probability of one in a billion would that be enough? One in a trillion? Before I begin this discussion I think it worth while to come to some agreement as to what one can accept as a reasonable statistical number that would make something factual or unrealistically possible?
Probability of what?
Abiogenesis only has to happen once, then evolution takes over, even a one in a trillion chance is enough to win this genetic lottery.
How reasonable are you? And while you are at it, who are you? What are your thoughts/beliefs? Do you live under a bridge (a troll)? Do you go into somebodies house and ask these type of questions of somebody you've not met before?
Greetings!
lol... I was curious as to the nature of the responses I would get on this first post. My username is sufficient for my name, and I am a Christian that works in the academic science community. I understand that this puts me in the minority on a board such as this. I am curious though as to the factual reasoning or proven scientific (not theories) facts that have led you to the atheist conclusion? My intent here is purposeful as I am looking for insight as to the facts or statistical likelihood of your point of view being the most accurate?
Presumably these facts can be proven, therefore it should stand to reason that there is some quantitative analysis or probability that makes them facts. Hence my original question. In other words what statistical probability makes an argument, point of view, or observation a fact? I would like to have some consensus as to what is an acceptable probability of being impossible or so unlikely as to not be possible?
Regards, GBTG
r/iamverysmart
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 01:46:49 PM
How reasonable are you? How factual? Absolute proof is not possible for scientists or Christians, but what about statistical probability? If you had a probability of one in a billion would that be enough? One in a trillion? Before I begin this discussion I think it worth while to come to some agreement as to what one can accept as a reasonable statistical number that would make something factual or unrealistically possible? I will take the highest, well reasoned number presented... ie it has to be based on the current population or all the human population to this point in history. You don't get to state infinity as that is absolute.
Thx, GBTG
Are you getting heaven points for flogging this around the forums?
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 01:46:49 PM
How reasonable are you? How factual? Absolute proof is not possible for scientists or Christians, but what about statistical probability? If you had a probability of one in a billion would that be enough? One in a trillion? Before I begin this discussion I think it worth while to come to some agreement as to what one can accept as a reasonable statistical number that would make something factual or unrealistically possible? I will take the highest, well reasoned number presented... ie it has to be based on the current population or all the human population to this point in history. You don't get to state infinity as that is absolute.
Thx, GBTG
Big numbers (and small ones, for that matter) are irrelevant unto themselves. If abiogenesis through sentience is a one in a billion event, then based on the discovery that between 1/4 and 1/5 of the stars in the galaxy have planets in their habitable zones, we would expect roughly 60 other intelligent species in the Milky Way alone.
The problem is pegging a number to the chances of abiogenesis. We only have one datapoint: ourselves. And it's very difficult to draw conclusions from a single datapoint. If we get to Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Titan and find microbes there, that tells us life is very nearly inevitable, especially if it's found on Titan as transfer of material between Titan and Earth is sufficiently difficult as to be realistically impossible, and nearly as difficult from Europa and Ganymede. For Mars, we'd want to find something that's not based on our particular chemistry, because plenty of material has gone from Mars to the Earth and
vice versa.
Even so, with one data point, we can start assigning some sensible ranges. The total number of stars in the galaxy is 100-400 billion -- hell of an error bar, but that's what the current state of observations is. So the maximum number of stars that have planets in their habitable zones is 100 billion (25% of 400 billion) and the minimum is 20 billion (20% of 100 billion).
This lets us make an actual, if tentative estimate: the odds of intelligent life in a galaxy are statistically no worse than one in 100 billion simply because
we observe that we exist and there may be as many as roughly 100 billion other potentially habitable stars in our immediate (relatively speaking) vicinity. The odds
may be better than that, by a little or a lot, but
we have an observational reason to think they probably aren't much lower.
It's worth taking a moment here to note that the number of planets hosting life and the number of planets hosting
intelligent life are two completely different things. Right now I'm focusing on intelligent life. If we find independent life forms in our own solar system, even if they're no more complex than bacteria, however, we should be forced to conclude that life is easy to evolve out of natural chemical systems. The reason for this is because if we stick by our estimate above, we're asking a no-worse-than 1/100,000,000,000 chance to occur
twice independently in the same stellar system -- since life is a necessary precondition for intelligent life, we know the odds of life
must be no worse than the odds of intelligent life. That's not a 2/100,000,000,000 chance, that's a 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance or thereabouts. So if we find two (or more) independent strains of life in our solar system, we can conclude with some confidence that life --
not necessarily intelligent life -- is fairly common.
Now. Odds of the Genesis account specifically? Zero. In order for Genesis to be factually accurate, virtually
all of biology, chemistry
and physics have to be wrong. Odds of any external supernatural creator? Until the existence of one is demonstrated, we don't need that theory to explain what we see, so functionally zero. Call it ε.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 02:37:07 PM
Greetings!
lol... I was curious as to the nature of the responses I would get on this first post. My username is sufficient for my name, and I am a Christian that works in the academic science community. I understand that this puts me in the minority on a board such as this. I am curious though as to the factual reasoning or proven scientific (not theories) facts that have led you to the atheist conclusion? My intent here is purposeful as I am looking for insight as to the facts or statistical likelihood of your point of view being the most accurate?
Presumably these facts can be proven, therefore it should stand to reason that there is some quantitative analysis or probability that makes them facts. Hence my original question. In other words what statistical probability makes an argument, point of view, or observation a fact? I would like to have some consensus as to what is an acceptable probability of being impossible or so unlikely as to not be possible?
Regards, GBTG
Read the thread 'Jesus--fact or fiction'--it contains facts.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 02, 2017, 02:04:00 PM
Abiogenesis only has to happen once, then evolution takes over, even a one in a trillion chance is enough to win this genetic lottery.
And the fact that it probably happened more than once, after major disasters, is a strong indicator that life really is tenacious.
D.
Quote from: trdsf on November 02, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
Big numbers (and small ones, for that matter) are irrelevant unto themselves. If abiogenesis through sentience is a one in a billion event, then based on the discovery that between 1/4 and 1/5 of the stars in the galaxy have planets in their habitable zones, we would expect roughly 60 other intelligent species in the Milky Way alone.
The problem is pegging a number to the chances of abiogenesis. We only have one datapoint: ourselves. And it's very difficult to draw conclusions from a single datapoint. If we get to Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Titan and find microbes there, that tells us life is very nearly inevitable, especially if it's found on Titan as transfer of material between Titan and Earth is sufficiently difficult as to be realistically impossible, and nearly as difficult from Europa and Ganymede. For Mars, we'd want to find something that's not based on our particular chemistry, because plenty of material has gone from Mars to the Earth and vice versa.
Even so, with one data point, we can start assigning some sensible ranges. The total number of stars in the galaxy is 100-400 billion -- hell of an error bar, but that's what the current state of observations is. So the maximum number of stars that have planets in their habitable zones is 100 billion (25% of 400 billion) and the minimum is 20 billion (20% of 100 billion).
This lets us make an actual, if tentative estimate: the odds of intelligent life in a galaxy are statistically no worse than one in 100 billion simply because we observe that we exist and there may be as many as roughly 100 billion other potentially habitable stars in our immediate (relatively speaking) vicinity. The odds may be better than that, by a little or a lot, but we have an observational reason to think they probably aren't much lower.
It's worth taking a moment here to note that the number of planets hosting life and the number of planets hosting intelligent life are two completely different things. Right now I'm focusing on intelligent life. If we find independent life forms in our own solar system, even if they're no more complex than bacteria, however, we should be forced to conclude that life is easy to evolve out of natural chemical systems. The reason for this is because if we stick by our estimate above, we're asking a no-worse-than 1/100,000,000,000 chance to occur twice independently in the same stellar system -- since life is a necessary precondition for intelligent life, we know the odds of life must be no worse than the odds of intelligent life. That's not a 2/100,000,000,000 chance, that's a 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance or thereabouts. So if we find two (or more) independent strains of life in our solar system, we can conclude with some confidence that life -- not necessarily intelligent life -- is fairly common.
Now. Odds of the Genesis account specifically? Zero. In order for Genesis to be factually accurate, virtually all of biology, chemistry and physics have to be wrong. Odds of any external supernatural creator? Until the existence of one is demonstrated, we don't need that theory to explain what we see, so functionally zero. Call it ε.
Well stated, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, and the accompanying statistics! I believe that life is actually far more ubiquitous in the universe than that number. I fully expect that we should find copious amounts of life under the icy surface of Europa.
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity, or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Warm regards, GBTG
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Well stated, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, and the accompanying statistics! I believe that life is actually far more ubiquitous in the universe than that number. I fully expect that we should find copious amounts of life under the icy surface of Europa.
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Warm regards, GBTG
I dunno. I think you'd be better off asking that on a christian forum.
None of us think the bible accurate to begin with. And the same with Christianity.
If something is wrong, this additional fact would not encrease 'the wrongness' of the bible or the religion(s) it inspired. Wrong is wrong.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
The Bible makes the Bible inaccurate:
It's chock full of contradictions (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0) and errors of
history (http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm),
science (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors), etc., and so there's no reason at all to take it the least bit seriously.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity, or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Warm regards, GBTG
There is ample evidence that Christianity and Jesus are fictions--and that the bible is also a fiction. All three are based on much earlier traditions.
I specifically came to the religious section of an atheist forum for two reasons, the first being that there is one... If you don't want to participate or entertain a believer like myself why does this exist? Second, I came to this forum because, as far as I can tell atheists in general are more open minded than many religious people whom attend church every Sunday. As this is a religious topic the Bible is obviously going to come up.
The Bible is only as accurate as the understanding of the person reading said Bible allows. If one reads with presumptions and bias, wrong conclusions may be inferred though the information is accurate. I was extremely guilty of this as both a non-believer and now Christian.
What if the first book in the Bible Genesis, was or has been read incorrectly for many years. The catholic church and many biblical scholars had egg on their face due to Copernicus for the very same reason. What if the first book of Genesis in the Bible literally described in order these events?
1. Space (the vacuum of the universe)
2. Pre-Atomic particles (strings)
3. Polarities (+/-)
4. Nuclear fusion (light)
5. Gravity/Atmosphere
6. Seas (water for life[which predates our sun])
7. Land (planetesimals to form planets, water for life)
8. Genetics and plant life (inference for bacteria and simpler genetic structures)
9. The Sun, Moon, and all the stars (time).
10. Dinosaurs
11. Birds
12. Mammals (including both sexes of humans)
13. The three geological specification events
I can demonstrate each of these points, in order, in the book of Genesis, how is this possible? Aside from I am crazy jokes or that I am reading a 2-4k year old comic book implications! Does it seam plausible that this information should be described?
I know not the rules for posting a link and do not want violate any procedure out of respect, but I do have a blog on this topic. If you would like to read and critique my point of view you may go to thetruth.life and read the posts. We can then discuss the flaws here as you see them, aside from the information being present or represented from the Bible.
Regards, GBTG
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 01:46:49 PM
How reasonable are you? How factual? Absolute proof is not possible for scientists or Christians, but what about statistical probability? If you had a probability of one in a billion would that be enough? One in a trillion? Before I begin this discussion I think it worth while to come to some agreement as to what one can accept as a reasonable statistical number that would make something factual or unrealistically possible? I will take the highest, well reasoned number presented... ie it has to be based on the current population or all the human population to this point in history. You don't get to state infinity as that is absolute.
Thx, GBTG
All human thought is bullshit. So you can have reasonable bullshit, or irrational bullshit. But it smells the same. Proof applies only to math, but per Goedel, not completely even in math. Christianity is about a cultural milieu. Has nothing to do with rationality or science. Genesis is actually Jewish, borrowed from the Babylonians, borrowed in turn by them from the Sumerians. A series of mutating folk tales. What is the probability that a folk tale is science? Zero.
Same as politics, what is the probability that George Washington as a boy, chopped down a cherry tree? Zero.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Well stated, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, and the accompanying statistics! I believe that life is actually far more ubiquitous in the universe than that number. I fully expect that we should find copious amounts of life under the icy surface of Europa.
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity, or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Warm regards, GBTG
We don't need to meet Vulcans or Klingons, to know that ape man folk tales are wrong.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 02:37:07 PM
My username is sufficient for my name, and I am a Christian that works in the academic science community. I understand that this puts me in the minority on a board such as this. I am curious though as to the factual reasoning or proven scientific (not theories) facts that have led you to the atheist conclusion?
You work in the academic science community, yet you use "theory" as if it's a mere guess instead of a well-confirmed explanatory framework in which to put all the data of a scientific field. I'm curious why you say that you are looking for "facts" and not "theories."
The theory of evolution makes sense of the Linean taxonomy, the universitality of the genetic code, the distribution of ancient forms in the fossil record, the large swaths of shared anatomy, biochemistry, and biology amongst life forms, etc. It's a pattern absolutely conformant to the explanation that all of life on earth is descendent from a common root, where populations branch off to form the heirarchical structure of taxonomy, genetic commonalities, and the fossil record, and adapt to suit their respective environments. Special creation has no explanation for this pattern, at all.
Quote
My intent here is purposeful as I am looking for insight as to the facts or statistical likelihood of your point of view being the most accurate?
The theistic hypothesis has no explanatory power. None. Any possible set of observations is "consistent" with that of an omnipotent god's existence (assuming that we're not adhering to the biblical account â€" which is wrong on every level). Ergo, no observation can confirm a god's existence. This is a basic principle of epistomology; in order for an explanation to be taken seriously, there must be some risk. This is the essence of what is called "falsifiability." In order for a theory to be proven right, there must be some possible set of observations that proves it wrong. Evolution predicts that you will
not observe a large set of observations. Ergo, when you do find what evolution predicts, it is confirmation of it.
Quote
Presumably these facts can be proven, therefore it should stand to reason that there is some quantitative analysis or probability that makes them facts.
A theory
is what you would call a scientific fact. While all theory is tentative, well established and founded theories such as that of evolution have such strong evidential support that they are all but incontrovertable. Evolution dovetails neatly into the observations of paleontology, genetics, and unites all of biology. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution," said Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Quote
Hence my original question. In other words what statistical probability makes an argument, point of view, or observation a fact? I would like to have some consensus as to what is an acceptable probability of being impossible or so unlikely as to not be possible?
You're approaching the matter wrong. While I'm a great advocate of Bayesian probability and reasoning, the thresholds for each individual deciding that some idea holds merit is completely up to the individual, though people can tell if you're being cagey or stubborn. There is no agreed upon number. There is just a grand duke-out in the scientific literature, where after a number of bouts and tests the worthy theories prove their worth and the eviscerated corpses of the unworthy are swept off the proverbial mat.
Special creation had its chance to prove its worth, and its mangled corpse was swept into the dustbin of scientific history. Same with the biblical account of the creation of the universe, biblical medicine, intercessory prayer, ritual sacrifice and other ideas connected with theism all reduced to metaphorical piles of battered flesh and raw bone to be mopped up and disposed of. It's like seeing the students of a particular boxing coach lose again and again, and
badly; you begin to suspect that this particular coach has no value.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
I specifically came to the religious section of an atheist forum for two reasons, the first being that there is one... If you don't want to participate or entertain a believer like myself why does this exist? Second, I came to this forum because, as far as I can tell atheists in general are more open minded than many religious people whom attend church every Sunday. As this is a religious topic the Bible is obviously going to come up.
The Bible is only as accurate as the understanding of the person reading said Bible allows. If one reads with presumptions and bias, wrong conclusions may be inferred though the information is accurate. I was extremely guilty of this as both a non-believer and now Christian.
What if the first book in the Bible Genesis, was or has been read incorrectly for many years. The catholic church and many biblical scholars had egg on their face due to Copernicus for the very same reason. What if the first book of Genesis in the Bible literally described in order these events?
1. Space (the vacuum of the universe)
2. Pre-Atomic particles (strings)
3. Polarities (+/-)
4. Nuclear fusion (light)
5. Gravity/Atmosphere
6. Seas (water for life[which predates our sun])
7. Land (planetesimals to form planets, water for life)
8. Genetics and plant life (inference for bacteria and simpler genetic structures)
9. The Sun, Moon, and all the stars (time).
10. Dinosaurs
11. Birds
12. Mammals (including both sexes of humans)
13. The three geological specification events
I can demonstrate each of these points, in order, in the book of Genesis, how is this possible? Aside from I am crazy jokes or that I am reading a 2-4k year old comic book implications! Does it seam plausible that this information should be described?
I know not the rules for posting a link and do not want violate any procedure out of respect, but I do have a blog on this topic. If you would like to read and critique my point of view you may go to thetruth.life and read the posts. We can then discuss the flaws here as you see them, aside from the information being present or represented from the Bible.
Regards, GBTG
Yes, Genesis is read wrong by both laity and clergy ... by the pious and the impious. You have to be a poet, not an accountant, to understand it. It is a work of psychology and anthropology, not physics. I happen to be a mystic, a Kabbalist ... scripture makes sense to me, because I have a basis, other than ignorance, for appreciating it. Not all of it is equally good however. The drunk Jews who wrote it, were not equal to the task, even when sober. Study gnostics, mystics, sufis, kabbalists ... and poetry. Or study something other than scripture, rather than waste your time. Moby Dicky has many layers too ... and deals with Leviathan, an extra-Biblical character. And the name "Ahab" for the captain, is no accident either.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
The Bible is only as accurate as the understanding of the person reading said Bible allows.
If one reads with presumptions and bias, wrong conclusions may be inferred though the information is accurate.
ah, the often, yet so misunderstood case of "I understand the babble and you don't, allow me to tell you the truth of it". Damn man, we only get one of these types every 10 days......so, by my math.....# 367 and counting.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
What if the first book of Genesis in the Bible literally described in order these events?
1. Space (the vacuum of the universe)
2. Pre-Atomic particles (strings)
3. Polarities (+/-)
4. Nuclear fusion (light)
5. Gravity/Atmosphere
6. Seas (water for life[which predates our sun])
7. Land (planetesimals to form planets, water for life)
8. Genetics and plant life (inference for bacteria and simpler genetic structures)
9. The Sun, Moon, and all the stars (time).
10. Dinosaurs
11. Birds
12. Mammals (including both sexes of humans)
13. The three geological specification events
If it did, then it would be completely scientifically inaccurate. However, it doesn't, so it's irrelevant.
No, don't bother with the bullshit about how the meaning of Genesis depends on how it's read. That's just using the bible as a ventriloquist dummy. You can make the bible say anything you damn well please depending on your abuse of language, but given the era it was written in, Genesis was not meant to be any tricky match-the-day-with-the-cosmological-epoc puzzle game you're trying to play. The people who wrote the bible literally thought this is how the creation of everything played out. Trying to fit the biblical account to scientific determination of the origin of the universe, the earth, and life is a fool's errand.
I appreciate the insights to this point and will trouble you no longer. I have the answer to my questions. This was not in vein and you all have been profoundly more helpful than I could have hoped.
Warm regards, GBTG
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 08:53:46 PM
I appreciate the insights to this point and will trouble you no longer. I have the answer to my questions. This was not in vein and you all have been profoundly more helpful than I could have hoped.
Warm regards, GBTG
Warm regards back at you.
Later on dude...and "glory be to Gilgamesh" eh?
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
The Bible is only as accurate as the understanding of the person reading said Bible allows. If one reads with presumptions and bias, wrong conclusions may be inferred though the information is accurate. I was extremely guilty of this as both a non-believer and now Christian.
I would take some issue with this statement. First, which bible are you referring to? There are many, as I'm sure you are aware. And the one common element they have is that they do not agree one with the other. When was Genesis written? And what was the cosmology of those doing the writing?
I'd suggest the bible is only as accurate as what is written on the pages of said bible. If this is supposed to be the work of god, then our 'understandings' should have nothing to do with what is contained in whatever bible you are reading. I would think god could string together coherent sentences in all languages--not just Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek. But apparently not since the source documents are in those three languages.
Anyway, I regard the bible as simply fiction.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Well stated, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, and the accompanying statistics! I believe that life is actually far more ubiquitous in the universe than that number. I fully expect that we should find copious amounts of life under the icy surface of Europa.
I agree, I think life is quite a bit more common than one in a billion, but I haven't settled my thinking on how common I think intelligent life is. It's the problem of the single data point -- it may be that on a sufficiently clement world, intelligence always arises once life has gotten started, or it may be a rare development, and we have no data to suggest one way or the other. It's why I think missions to Mars, Europa, Ganymede and Titan are so important. If
any sort of life is on any of those worlds -- or (cosmic jackpot) all of them -- that strongly suggests life arises easily.
Back to what happens when you have big numbers in play: even if there's on average only one sentient species per galaxy, that means there are about two trillion sentient species in our universe.
Anyway, the question of ETI is a favorite one of mine to play with.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
Question two does life elsewhere make Christianity, or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Neither one needs extraterrestrial help in being demonstrated inaccurate. The vast majority of Christians are followers of Paul's theology and interpretations rather than of Jeshua bar-Joseph's teachings directly, so they're really Paulists rather than Christians to begin with, and the bible itself is shot through with contradictions, historical inaccuracies and logical impossibilities.
I can't recall off the top of my head any Old or New Testament verses that explicitly refer to life off this planet (or its absence). Probably the most relevant interpretationally, if other sentient life is found, is the whole idea of man being in god's image. An interesting situation relative to that is if we found extraterrestrial life that is completely different internally but very closely resembles our species externally.
I should note that this would
not prove a god exists, because it could equally well be explained by the existence of an older but still naturally occurring species that decided it wanted to populate the worlds with humanoids, and just took advantage of the biology already in place on those worlds. I would argue better explained that way, since that doesn't require positing anything outside the natural world.
If we found many worlds with simple life, and few with sentient life, and none of those sentient species resembled us except the broadest terms, I think that argues against any of the anthropomorphic gods of most Terrestrial religions. If a god is the creative force, why waste time creating worlds that have nothing capable of worship? Further, ETIs that don't resemble us
also don't resemble the biblical god (remember "created in god's image"), so why create them at all when that can
only lead to a theological second-class status?
If belief in a creator god is important to that god, at a bare minimum what we should see if and when we start contacting ETIs is that their religious experience (if any) should be roughly the same as ours. I strongly doubt that's what we'll find.
Let me turn the question around -- what if we start discovering other intelligences, and they are a) all different from each other structurally and biologically and b) have sufficiently similar religions that it is difficult to rule out a common source even though they developed in isolation from each other, and c) that religion does not resemble any Earth religion in any way, certainly none of the major ones, and none of the minor ones in any meaningful detail.
What would *that* mean for the human concept of god? Is that sufficient evidence that they're right and humans (believers and non-believers both) are wrong? That there's more than one god and they share the galaxy? That everybody's wrong except the non-believers?
I'll tell you right now that my own answer to this is, "Um. No clue."
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 02, 2017, 05:39:57 PM
And the fact that it probably happened more than once, after major disasters, is a strong indicator that life really is tenacious.
As near as we can tell, there was no second abiogenic event after any of the great extinction events -- life is sufficiently good at evolving its way into ecological niches that even after the Permian-Triassic event, where some 95% of marine and 70% of terrestrial species went extinct, that still left quite a bit of life, with a lot of abandoned ecological gaps just waiting to be filled. A second abiogenesis would mean a form of life not based on DNA as we currently know it, and to date, no one has found any Terrestrial organism that exists outside the DNA tree of life. Life as it arose on Earth is sufficiently resilient in and of itself that no re-start was needed.
Now, there were probably several abiogeneses in the earliest days of life, all competing with each other for ultimate dominance. We're descended from the one that reproduced better than the others, and probably 'ingested' (by way of chemically disassembling) their competition for raw material to make copies with.
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 06:14:35 PM
does life elsewhere make Christianity, or more specifically the Bible inaccurate?
Oh the irony!!! The Bible doesn’t say anything about life on other planets. Leave it to the theologists to create their own negation of the Bible out of whole cloth. If the universe was found to be full of life, there would still not be any contradiction with the Bible.
In the same vein. Neither a Christian can use the story of Jonah as a proof of god, nor can an atheist use it to prove the Bible is fiction. Getting swallowed by a fish and living to tell about it is not so rare that it can be called a miracle. Getting swallowed by a fish and living to tell about it is not so rare that an atheist can call it fiction. My guestimation is that it happens once every 20-30 years in places where people eat a lot of fish. There is a youtube video of a hairless Japanese man that survived.
Although finding life elsewhere would not negate the Bible, the errors and contradictions it contains on other subjects would.
Quote from: trdsf on November 03, 2017, 12:03:51 AM
As near as we can tell, there was no second abiogenic event after any of the great extinction events
Where do viruses fit in the picture?
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 02:37:07 PM
Greetings!
lol... I was curious as to the nature of the responses I would get on this first post. My username is sufficient for my name, and I am a Christian that works in the academic science community. I understand that this puts me in the minority on a board such as this. I am curious though as to the factual reasoning or proven scientific (not theories) facts that have led you to the atheist conclusion? My intent here is purposeful as I am looking for insight as to the facts or statistical likelihood of your point of view being the most accurate?
Presumably these facts can be proven, therefore it should stand to reason that there is some quantitative analysis or probability that makes them facts. Hence my original question. In other words what statistical probability makes an argument, point of view, or observation a fact? I would like to have some consensus as to what is an acceptable probability of being impossible or so unlikely as to not be possible?
Regards, GBTG
Are you looking for evidence of evolution? This website would be a good start: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
Also this one: http://talkorigins.org/
Also, I find it hard for someone who works in the science field to use the layman's definition of the term 'theory'. A scientific theory is an established body of knowledge about a certain subject, supported by observable facts, repeatable experiments, and logical reasoning. A theory in science is a formal explanation of some aspect of the natural world, tested and verified by careful observation and experimentation. A good theory is one that also produces accurate and useful predictions. The theory of evolution certainly fits these conditions.
Quote from: fencerider on November 03, 2017, 12:23:31 AM
Where do viruses fit in the picture?
Viruses are the remnants of the competition for eukaryotic life forms. They had to evolve into purely parasitic form (but then all of life "eats"). Eukaryotic life forms were originally hybrids of multiple life forms, that created a community, but more intimate than lichen. Life both competes and cooperates.
Quote from: trdsf on November 03, 2017, 12:03:51 AM
As near as we can tell, there was no second abiogenic event after any of the great extinction events -- life is sufficiently good at evolving its way into ecological niches that even after the Permian-Triassic event, where some 95% of marine and 70% of terrestrial species went extinct, that still left quite a bit of life, with a lot of abandoned ecological gaps just waiting to be filled. A second abiogenesis would mean a form of life not based on DNA as we currently know it, and to date, no one has found any Terrestrial organism that exists outside the DNA tree of life. Life as it arose on Earth is sufficiently resilient in and of itself that no re-start was needed.
Now, there were probably several abiogeneses in the earliest days of life, all competing with each other for ultimate dominance. We're descended from the one that reproduced better than the others, and probably 'ingested' (by way of chemically disassembling) their competition for raw material to make copies with.
They've found indicators of life before Theia hit us. Nothing could have survived that impact.
Quote from: fencerider on November 03, 2017, 12:23:31 AM
Where do viruses fit in the picture?
Viruses operate on DNA, or at least bits of it. So they're still part of our genetic heritage, not of a separate one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 03, 2017, 06:45:20 AM
They've found indicators of life before Theia hit us. Nothing could have survived that impact.
Ah, I thought you were talking about the known extinction events since our line began, not before.
Quote from: trdsf on November 03, 2017, 08:34:21 AM
Ah, I thought you were talking about the known extinction events since our line began, not before.
~3.99 billion years ago.
Great Be To God
Did I guess it?
Probability, facts, statistics, science, quantum theory. I'm losing interest. I just think the whole invisible God thingy floating around everywhere loving everyone is about the silliest nonsense you could come up with. Who cares? With or without a god, reality is what it is. Why not just deal with that?
So I suppose you don't believe Georgie boy chopped down the cherry tree then went to Mr Washington to say, "Oh father, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under the half a ton of garbage." Arlo only borrowed the line for artistic reasons..
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/6/66/Angry-guido-meme-generator-what-the-fuck-is-this-shit-4683a7.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150705131329&path-prefix=pl)
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 08:53:46 PM
I appreciate the insights to this point and will trouble you no longer. I have the answer to my questions. This was not in vein and you all have been profoundly more helpful than I could have hoped.
Warm regards, GBTG
Running away already, huh
Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2017, 10:21:36 AM
Probability, facts, statistics, science, quantum theory. I'm losing interest. I just think the whole invisible God thingy floating around everywhere loving everyone is about the silliest nonsense you could come up with. Who cares? With or without a god, reality is what it is. Why not just deal with that?
Why not just have arithmetic and stop with that? Why not just have Play-Do and stop with that. People always go beyond.
My reality is made up of human psychologies (primarily). There are animal psychologies, and plants are also alive (but are probably unconscious). What is mind? Does it matter? What is matter? Never mind! Reality isn't space/time/matter/energy ... those are human derived abstractions, mostly empirical, about whatever reality is. Naive realism of materialism is ... naive.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 03, 2017, 06:45:20 AM
They've found indicators of life before Theia hit us. Nothing could have survived that impact.
May I ask what indicators?
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PM
What if the first book in the Bible Genesis, was or has been read incorrectly for many years.
What if purple unicorns really did poop gold?
It's obvious from even a cursory reading that the book you are referring to was written with absolutely no knowledge about how the world works or where it came from. It is so far removed from reality that we can dismiss it as fantasy.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 04, 2017, 02:18:16 AM
What if purple unicorns really did poop gold?
It's obvious from even a cursory reading that the book you are referring to was written with absolutely no knowledge about how the world works or where it came from. It is so far removed from reality that we can dismiss it as fantasy.
Unreality abides in many minds. Sometimes I can't decide whether do be sad or just screaming crazy.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2017, 11:35:41 PM
May I ask what indicators?
Some kind of carbon. Didn't bookmark the article, it was on ScienceDaily's website.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2017, 12:56:10 PM
Why not just have arithmetic and stop with that? Why not just have Play-Do and stop with that. People always go beyond.
And some of the most important discoveries in math were made by those who went beyond arithmetic. I don't know what the next step is beyond Play-Do, but that's a purely nonsense comparison. Nonsense doesn't beckon such great men. Nothing can be derived from nonsense, just more nonsense. Your defense of nonsense is quite curious.
I did not run away lol. I wanted some insight about the transfer and perception of information, in a non theistic community. To that end my post had served its purpose. I am not easily offended, and I did ask for your opinion by seeking you all out. I also don't see any of these communications as a win/lose or ranking of intelligence.
- trdsf, I really appreciate your insights and posts.
In regard to "Theory" vs "Scientific Theory"
Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory? Specifically if all cells must come from a previous cell, which cannot be spontaneously generated, where did the first cell come from? How is this reproducible? Growing cells on an agar plate is not what I am talking about. I am talking about generating a biological cell. If we don't want to tackle or understand how life happened claiming Cell Theory would be a easy way to skirt the issue.
Well reasoned or not this is still an educated presumption no matter what powers of deduction used or how widely accepted or taught. As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis... From first hand experience a theory is only a theory until it can be reproduced then it becomes a scientific theory even if we don't fully understand why it works... How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.
Warm regards, GBTG (close but no cigar on the acronym)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171101160756.htm
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 04, 2017, 10:03:22 AM
Well reasoned or not this is still an educated presumption no matter what powers of deduction used or how widely accepted or taught. As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis... From first hand experience a theory is only a theory until it can be reproduced then it becomes a scientific theory even if we don't fully understand why it works... How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.
Who the fuck said you get to make up the rules?
GBTG, who gives a shit what those four letters mean? You do seem to be a bit of a smug asshole, 'setting' us up with some sort of test that only you know the rules for. If you have a legitimate question then tell us what that is. Guessing games are okay in a person to person social setting; but not on this board. If you want to play a game why not just say that? Your real goal seems to be to come onto an atheist board and see how riled up you can make your playthings. And then fairly soon you will simply vanish. You smugly think your 'beliefs' are based on real facts and are therefore superior to us heathens. I've known many, many like you. And you are simply tedious.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 04, 2017, 10:16:45 AM
GBTG, who gives a shit what those four letters mean? You do seem to be a bit of a smug asshole, 'setting' us up with some sort of test that only you know the rules for. If you have a legitimate question then tell us what that is. Guessing games are okay in a person to person social setting; but not on this board. If you want to play a game why not just say that? Your real goal seems to be to come onto an atheist board and see how riled up you can make your playthings. And then fairly soon you will simply vanish. You smugly think your 'beliefs' are based on real facts and are therefore superior to us heathens. I've known many, many like you. And you are simply tedious.
"Stair-stepping" is a Jesuit trick. Attorney's use it a lot. You try to erode the other person's position rather than prove your own. Dishonest, but hey, that's the religious for you.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory?
Buy a damn microscope. Come back after you've learned how to use the instrument.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 09:58:06 AMHow does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact? Simply stating that it has never been disproved is not the same thing.
The only people who ask this question are the ones who don't know anything about how science works. Before theories, there are hypotheses, which are tested by research. When the body of research becomes big enough, a theory can be formed to attempt to explain research as simply and accurately as possible. Theories do not become facts, they become models for how to understand the universe. When it comes to theories like evolution, the word "theory" doesn't mean that it's unconfirmed or unsubstantiated. Quite the opposite, predictions were made, and some of those predictions were confirmed by evidence in Darwin's lifetime. The theory of evolution is as close to a fact as you can get, and it has no competition.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
...
Please provide an example of how Cell Theory in scientific terms can be treated as a scientific theory? Specifically if all cells must come from a previous cell, which cannot be spontaneously generated, where did the first cell come from? How is this reproducible? Growing cells on an agar plate is not what I am talking about. I am talking about generating a biological cell. If we don't want to tackle or understand how life happened claiming Cell Theory would be a easy way to skirt the issue.
...
Cell Theory does not deal with the first origin of the cell. It involves explanations and predictions concerning living organisms after cells first arose on this planet. Your attempt to inject biogenesis or abiogenesis speculations or hypotheses into Cell Theory is misplaced.
In addition, Cell Theory, first formulated in the 19th century, has been adjusted and modified since then. Perhaps you should study it more than you have in the past.
Indeed, it is quite possible that humans will eventually design and form a cell from its component chemistry. If that occurs, the formation of those designed cells will obviously be excluded from Cell Theory, but those cells' offspring will not.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
...
As I do work in biomedical research I see many theories fail on a daily basis...
...
You may wish to use the word "hypotheses" instead of "theories" in the future. It will make your communication more accurate and less likely to fall into semantic confusion.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 09:58:06 AM
...
How does a theory then become a fact? Is the Theory of Relativity for example a fact?
...
Scientific theories do not become facts.
The ToR is not a fact.
Thank you all for the clarifications thus far. I want to apologize as I made a poor assumption in my earlier posts, is regard to what we might have in common. I incorrectly jumped right into the math pool with statistics or probability. Through our posts thus far can we agree on the following:
A hypothesis is made
A theory can be derived from this hypothesis
Scientific theories are testable and repeatable (testable typically means quantifiable in some understood measure, time, weight, volume, etc.)
Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.
Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?
Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.
Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.
Is this an acceptable starting point?
Regards, GBTG
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 04:07:32 PMGenesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.
Ah, the well-respected Goddidit theory. Stay scientific, Jerry.
QuoteAbiogenesis (Athiest belief)
By that logic, the Big Bang is a Jesuit theory.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 04:07:32 PM
Thank you all for the clarifications thus far. I want to apologize as I made a poor assumption in my earlier posts, is regard to what we might have in common. I incorrectly jumped right into the math pool with statistics or probability. Through our posts thus far can we agree on the following:
A hypothesis is made
A theory can be derived from this hypothesis
Scientific theories are testable and repeatable (testable typically means quantifiable in some understood measure, time, weight, volume, etc.)
Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.
Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?
Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.
Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.
Is this an acceptable starting point?
Regards, GBTG
Is this an acceptable starting point? No, not really. So, you want to have a group discussion? How is that supposed to work? You vs us? Well, 'us' is not a monolithic unit. We are all individuals--unlike christians--and don't have collective agreement on anything, other than we agree that god(s) don't exist.
You think Genesis is a reliable document to base the study of biology--or anything-- else on? Really? Sorry, misused a word 'think'? It appears you actually believe Genesis has any basis in fact. You don't really appear to think much--you seem to rely on your 'beliefs' to guide you. Okay. I don't do that. I don't have any beliefs. I make decisions based on facts and not 'beliefs'. So, as an atheist, do not tell me about 'beliefs'--I don't have any.
And Genesis is a fiction--Chapt. one is a different account of creation that Chapt. 2. They do not agree. But with your beliefs you can make them agree. Yeah--sure.
He just wants to lecture us. He gets Heaven Points for trying to convert the heathens.
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 04:07:32 PM
Life happened, as we and all that is living supports this observation.
Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?
Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.
Why would an omnipotent god need 'proper conditions' to create life?
Wouldn't such a being be able to create life under
any conditions?
'Proper conditions' are needed for life to arrise naturally (which is where the evidence points). The idea that life arose under 'proper conditions' points away from a deity being necessary.
QuoteAbiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.
Abiogenesis is not an 'atheist belief'. It s scientific hypothesis. Atheism has not tenants or dogman on the origins of life. Just that there is insufficient evidence to accept the premise that a god is responsible.
"Abiogenesis is the dividing line between chemistry and biology."
Quote from: GBTG on November 04, 2017, 04:07:32 PM
...
Where we begin to deviate in agreement is the origin of life?
Genesis (My belief), life occurs under the proper conditions, and is started by God.
Abiogenesis (Athiest belief), is the scientific hypothesis/theory that life occurs from inert matter under the proper conditions.
Is this an acceptable starting point?
Regards, GBTG
No, it is not an acceptable starting point. Your belief is what you claim it to be, which is fine. Projecting a different belief upon all atheists is problematic.
Here are better starting points:
1) Theism/Atheism issues:
You believe goddidit.
Atheists withhold belief in, do not have belief in and/or reject claims that gods exist, including the god(s) you believe in.
Some theists will claim knowledge that goddidit (gnostic theists). I'm not sure whether you are a gnostic theist. You may be an agnostic theist. Please clarify.
Some atheists will claim knowledge that gods do not exist (
gnostic atheists). Most here are not in that group. Most are agnostic atheists.
2) Origin of carbon based life on Earth issues:
I don't know, and neither do you. The jury is still out.
Current scientific investigation continues (involving many scientific hypotheses) and no scientific theory has been formulated regarding whether goddidit or natural emergence did it.
3) Probability issues:
Intellectually honest theists and atheists tend to defer to probability analysis to measure any truth claims they make.
Intellectually honest
theists and atheists are content with saying, "I don't know".And, BTW, you may wish to change the title of this thread you created. Biological evolution has nothing to do with the formation/creation of the universe or of life.
GBTG,
If you want to deal with facts, go to Jesus--Fact or Fiction thread. So far I've listed 41 facts dealing the historicity of Jesus.
Quote from: sdelsolray on November 04, 2017, 06:54:52 PMBiological evolution has nothing to do with the formation/creation of the universe or of life.
Yeah, that's the hallmark error of a creationist. They frequently confuse abiogenesis, evolution, and atheism.
I think the intent is to promote Christianity by "refuting" atheism/evolution/abiogenesis. But the result is invariably the Christian looking like an anti-scientific loon. They rarely realize that 1) they're connecting things that aren't connected 2) you can't refute over a century and a half of science with personal incredulity and bible verses.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 04, 2017, 07:15:25 PM
Yeah, that's the hallmark error of a creationist. They frequently confuse abiogenesis, evolution, and atheism.
I think the intent is to promote Christianity by "refuting" atheism/evolution/abiogenesis. But the result is invariably the Christian looking like an anti-scientific loon. They rarely realize that 1) they're connecting things that aren't connected 2) you can't refute over a century and a half of science with personal incredulity and bible verses.
Yes, poster GBGT is somewhat unclear and has shifted about what he wishes to discuss. Still, I'm going to wait and see how his dialog progresses. Granted, he's a Christian theist, no doubt full of beliefs common to that religion. But his beliefs don't count for much, and it will be interesting to see if he understands that and has something to offer beyond his religious dogma. He did try some science stuff earlier in the thread, and perhaps he will go down that trail more. We'll see.
Quote from: Simon Moon on November 04, 2017, 06:27:10 PM
Why would an omnipotent god need 'proper conditions' to create life?
And for that matter, why would he poof into existence all the ugly guts and brains and blood. In order to live, we have to swallow various edible foods if we are lucky enough to find them, and then our bodies turn that food into disgusting ungodly waste that we shit out of our asses in steamy smelly piles of toxic bacteria infested lumps. We contaminate each other with deadly viruses, and have to occasionally wash off all the filth that we collect from those 'proper conditions' in our environment.
Really? Talk about a god that tends to over-complicate things.
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
And for that matter, why would he poof into existence all the ugly guts and brains and blood. In order to live, we have to swallow various edible foods if we are lucky enough to find them, and then our bodies turn that food into disgusting ungodly waste that we shit out of our asses in steamy smelly piles of toxic bacteria infested lumps. We contaminate each other with deadly viruses, and have to occasionally wash off all the filth that we collect from those 'proper conditions' in our environment.
Really? Talk about a god that tends to over-complicate things.
And theists love to spout 'Thou Shalt Not Kill!' as a commandment. Yet their god created 'nature' and made it so creatures that he created for 'nature' have no choice but to kill if they wish to live. How stupid of a god is that????
Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2017, 08:47:18 AM
And some of the most important discoveries in math were made by those who went beyond arithmetic. I don't know what the next step is beyond Play-Do, but that's a purely nonsense comparison. Nonsense doesn't beckon such great men. Nothing can be derived from nonsense, just more nonsense. Your defense of nonsense is quite curious.
It was a rhetorical question, you weren't supposed to take it literally. I go beyond ... just not limited to materialism or rationalism.
And why the Spanish spelling of evolution?
Quote from: Simon Moon on November 04, 2017, 06:27:10 PM
Why would an omnipotent god need 'proper conditions' to create life?
Wouldn't such a being be able to create life under any conditions?
'Proper conditions' are needed for life to arrise naturally (which is where the evidence points). The idea that life arose under 'proper conditions' points away from a deity being necessary.
Abiogenesis is not an 'atheist belief'. It s scientific hypothesis. Atheism has not tenants or dogman on the origins of life. Just that there is insufficient evidence to accept the premise that a god is responsible.
I was just thinking that. If all the proper conditions are there, then what job is there for the gods to do?
Quote from: Jason78 on November 05, 2017, 09:13:42 AM
I was just thinking that. If all the proper conditions are there, then what job is there for the gods to do?
Right ... I don't need to go to work. All that I do, would happen spontaneously thru Quantum Mechanics ;-)
The problem with abiogenesis is that it is a hard problem ... what conditions? ... how many millions of years before statistics catches up? Not an empirical science, ever. But it is the only reasonable position to take. Hard problems (like consciousness) are hard for a reason, unlike simple things like Ohm's Law of electrical resistance.
"God works in mysterious ways," translates into "I don't know why something happens."
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2017, 10:50:39 AM
"God works in mysterious ways," translates into "I don't know why something happens."
G-d is an asshole, so what is mysterious about that? People say "G-d works in mysterious ways" because they don't want to admit G-d is an asshole. But as a projection of human assholes, how could G-d do anything different?
Quote from: SGOS on November 05, 2017, 10:50:39 AM
"God works in mysterious ways," translates into "I don't know why something happens."
But if you tell them that's a crap answer they start making shit up.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
But as a projection of human assholes, how could G-d do anything different?
How obvious yet so overlooked. But v/v the babble acknowledges it, "let us make man in our image".
Quote from: GBTG on November 02, 2017, 07:55:43 PMWhat if the first book in the Bible Genesis, was or has been read incorrectly for many years. The catholic church and many biblical scholars had egg on their face due to Copernicus for the very same reason. What if the first book of Genesis in the Bible literally described in order these events?
1. Space (the vacuum of the universe)
2. Pre-Atomic particles (strings)
3. Polarities (+/-)
4. Nuclear fusion (light)
5. Gravity/Atmosphere
6. Seas (water for life[which predates our sun])
7. Land (planetesimals to form planets, water for life)
8. Genetics and plant life (inference for bacteria and simpler genetic structures)
9. The Sun, Moon, and all the stars (time).
10. Dinosaurs
11. Birds
12. Mammals (including both sexes of humans)
13. The three geological specification events
Day 0: In the beginning, there was nothing but God and an infinite expanse of water.
Day 1: God created earth, light, and darkness. Through some convenient reinterpretation, some have claimed this to describe the Big Bang.
Day 2: God created a vault in the sky to separate the water on earth from the water in the sky. Literally, that's what it says. God pulled some water up and kept it up there with a sky vault, which opens up occasionally to make rain.
Day 3: God created vegetation.
Day 4: God put ALL of the stars of the universe on the sky vault. Then God created the sun and moon. Notice this was after the creation of vegetation. How did they survive without a sun for photosynthesis?
Day 5: God created sea life. The sea is where life began, yet the first Biblical account of creation says that the plants came first. He also created flying animals on this day. So rather than going from sea to land, then finally the sky, life evolved fish and birds simultaneously.
Day 6: God creates all of the animals that live on land.
Day 7: God's day off.
Through what twisted interpretations do you see this as an accurate chronological account of the development of the universe?
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
G-d is an asshole, so what is mysterious about that? People say "G-d works in mysterious ways" because they don't want to admit G-d is an asshole. But as a projection of human assholes, how could G-d do anything different?
Shouldn't that be G-d is an a-ole???
Brutus is an asshole, as god is. Both, you'll notice, are fictions. And so what, fiction is full of assholes.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 05, 2017, 06:18:18 PM
Shouldn't that be G-d is an a-ole???
Brutus is an asshole, as god is. Both, you'll notice, are fictions. And so what, fiction is full of assholes.
Julius Caesar would disagree. And Julius Caesar ... if he didn't regard himself as a demigod, considered himself descended from a goddess, Venus. And he was deified after his death by the one true "son of a god" ... Augustus Caesar. Unless you want to agree with me, that all history is ... of no more than entertainment value.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 05, 2017, 03:35:26 PM
But if you tell them that's a crap answer they start making shit up.
How is that different than what they were doing before you responded?
Quote from: aitm on November 05, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
How obvious yet so overlooked. But v/v the babble acknowledges it, "let us make man in our image".
How could it be otherwise? But like GIA posted ... if you want a better god, then imagine one ... but to do that, you have to project a better "you".
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 06:23:29 PM
Julius Caesar would disagree. And Julius Caesar ... if he didn't regard himself as a demigod, considered himself descended from a goddess, Venus. And he was deified after his death by the one true "son of a god" ... Augustus Caesar. Unless you want to agree with me, that all history is ... of no more than entertainment value.
You are overthinking this a bit--the Brutus I was referring to was Popeye's Brutus.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 06:25:54 PM
How could it be otherwise? But like GIA posted ... if you want a better god, then imagine one ... but to do that, you have to project a better "you".
I could imagine a better god. My imagining one doesn't mean one could exist. Though I might be interested...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 03:12:49 AM
I could imagine a better god. My imagining one doesn't mean one could exist. Though I might be interested...
Good. Then go forth and do likewise. Where have I heard that?
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:24:30 AM
Good. Then go forth and do likewise. Where have I heard that?
The imagination does not a reality make...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 03:12:49 AM
I could imagine a better god. My imagining one doesn't mean one could exist. Though I might be interested...
It's not at all hard to imagine a better god:
One who acts better than humans do.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 07, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
It's not at all hard to imagine a better god:
One who acts better than humans do.
I could joke and say the deity DOES act like we should, but that would be be a cheap shot (ba-da-boom).
But that IS sort of the theist's problem. They keep coming up with deities who have the morals of a cat in heat, the ethics of a lawyer, and the restraint of a 4 year old. As time passes, they mostly have to reduce their deity into nothingness to eliminate the flaws.
I expect that, in the future, a deity will become so vague as to vanish entirely (no more "why did god allow that evil event to happen"). And then we will finally be free of the idea.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 09:20:47 AM
The imagination does not a reality make...
All science and no art? Without art, there is no science ... the art of science is what scientists do.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 07, 2017, 09:54:21 AM
It's not at all hard to imagine a better god:
One who acts better than humans do.
Keep hoping that the Vulcans will replace the humans. The Ferengi or the Romulans or the Klingons are more likely.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 10:06:30 AM
I could joke and say the deity DOES act like we should, but that would be be a cheap shot (ba-da-boom).
But that IS sort of the theist's problem. They keep coming up with deities who have the morals of a cat in heat, the ethics of a lawyer, and the restraint of a 4 year old. As time passes, they mostly have to reduce their deity into nothingness to eliminate the flaws.
I expect that, in the future, a deity will become so vague as to vanish entirely (no more "why did god allow that evil event to happen"). And then we will finally be free of the idea.
This comes with the meme or memes ... language itself. The only way to escape it is to turn mute, like the human survivors on Planet of the Apes. Picking an ideal god, like just like a straw man argument, completely false.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 01:22:00 PM
This comes with the meme or memes ... language itself. The only way to escape it is to turn mute, like the human survivors on Planet of the Apes. Picking an ideal god, like just like a straw man argument, completely false.
A picky point perhaps, but the human survivors of The Planet Of the Apes did not exactly "turn" mute. That would suggest intent. The ones who survived were the least vocal ones, harder for the apes to find. Natural Selection suggests this trait would have been reinforced through generations.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 01:30:47 PM
A picky point perhaps, but the human survivors of The Planet Of the Apes did not exactly "turn" mute. That would suggest intent. The ones who survived were the least vocal ones, harder for the apes to find. Natural Selection suggests this trait would have been reinforced through generations.
Definitely progress, the future had not cell phones or email.
Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
G-d is an asshole, so what is mysterious about that? People say "G-d works in mysterious ways" because they don't want to admit G-d is an asshole.
Quote from: aitm on November 05, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
How obvious yet so overlooked. But v/v the babble acknowledges it, "let us make man in our image".
That explains why they call him hole-ee
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 01:30:47 PM
A picky point perhaps, but the human survivors of The Planet Of the Apes did not exactly "turn" mute. That would suggest intent. The ones who survived were the least vocal ones, harder for the apes to find. Natural Selection suggests this trait would have been reinforced through generations.
Wild animals vocalize.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 08, 2017, 08:07:37 PM
Wild animals vocalize.
I thought about that. The planet didn't seem to have any other animals on it. Well, the apes seemed vegetarian and the humans were hiding from them. And the humans were mostly pests who ate crops.
Large herd animals today vocalize to stay together, but some are quiet. Have you ever heard a possum or raccoon make a lot of noise?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 08, 2017, 08:07:37 PM
Wild animals vocalize.
Some do louder than others; All according to God's plan.
Quote from: SGOS on November 11, 2017, 08:31:37 AM
Some do louder than others; All according to God's plan.
The more you yell, the faster the lions find you. I am constantly amazed that prey animals make any noise at all.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 08:10:01 AM
I thought about that. The planet didn't seem to have any other animals on it. Well, the apes seemed vegetarian and the humans were hiding from them. And the humans were mostly pests who ate crops.
Large herd animals today vocalize to stay together, but some are quiet. Have you ever heard a possum or raccoon make a lot of noise?
There are no wild animals running around in the movie, yes. And yes, raccoons make a rattling chatter noise while possums most hiss loudly.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 11, 2017, 09:38:35 AM
There are no wild animals running around in the movie, yes. And yes, raccoons make a rattling chatter noise while possums most hiss loudly.
Thank you. I was never quite sure about that. Another major fail for bad sci fi movies! Matches the amazing but illogical brontosaurus stampede in the King Kong remake...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 08:43:27 AM
The more you yell, the faster the lions find you. I am constantly amazed that prey animals make any noise at all.
Birds are smart. The females are dull, quiet and hide. The males a brightly colored, call, and fly around. Males are expendable.
The people who make movies live inside big houses. Most never go outside to learn that there are animals out there. In a new movie that doesnt have animals in it they probably didnt think about it. In an older movie like Planet of the Apes animal-actor training wasn’t a big thing yet.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 11:12:17 AM
Birds are smart. The females are dull, quiet and hide. The males a brightly colored, call, and fly around. Males are expendable.
Exactly. If you want to reduce the deer population, you don't kill a few stags. You kill the does. There is always another stag around, but he can't produce fawns directly.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 11:30:23 AM
Exactly. If you want to reduce the deer population, you don't kill a few stags. You kill the does. There is always another stag around, but he can't produce fawns directly.
Yes, that is an advantage of being male ;-) Good thing stags aren't born with horns!
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 01:02:18 PM
Yes, that is an advantage of being male ;-) Good thing stags aren't born with horns!
OK, you are back to normal. Silly Me. Who would imagine a stag BORN with horns? Ouch!
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:05:30 PM
OK, you are back to normal. Silly Me. Who would imagine a stag BORN with horns? Ouch!
G-d seems pretty hard on females as it is ;-(
Why is this thread still continuing when the OP is probably halfway to Vegas right now?
Quote from: Jason78 on November 11, 2017, 07:12:37 PM
Why is this thread still continuing when the OP is probably halfway to Vegas right now?
You haf der better thread?
Chewtoy GBTG ran away.
Quote from: Jason78 on November 11, 2017, 07:12:37 PM
Why is this thread still continuing when the OP is probably halfway to Vegas right now?
It's demonstrating evolution by having evolved into a derailment. :D
Quote from: trdsf on November 12, 2017, 01:01:25 AM
It's demonstrating evolution by having evolved into a derailment. :D
Yep nothing like religion to evolve those finch beaks!
Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 05:32:39 AM
Yep nothing like religion to evolve those finch beaks!
Only matters if you are a finch.