The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Dr McBeefington3,287 pages

I've got one picture that disproves evolution

Also this

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Except science doesn't explain how we got here. Evolution doesn't do that. It doesn't explain how something as complex as life came about in the first place.

Luckily, science and evolution are words that do not refer to the same thing. Science is a methodology for ensuring that conclusions we reach are supported by evidence. Evolution describes the change in heritable population characteristics over time. The word you're looking for is abiogenesis and there are some fascinating books aimed at laypeople, which I'd be happy to refer you to. But basically, any supernaturalistic argument attacking evolution based on the origin of the populations it works on misses its target in three ways: (1)Evolution being wrong does not "invalidate" the naturalistic worldview (2)The origin of life is not a component of the theory of Evolution, but rather of an entirely different scientific discipline (3)There is good evidence and a robust theory explaining the origin of life, so as a matter of fact there isn't any room to posit a supernatural origin of life.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And the Big Bang theory doesn't explain how the Universe is in such perfect order.

You'll have to define order, but I think I've seen this argument before and have a succinct response. Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Or what there was before the Universe? Or what began the Big Bang?

And where did that come from?


These arguments apply to God as well; Where did God come from?

But more importantly, the models of the big bang do not require anything to be "before" the big bang because time was not a dimension until the expansion of the singularity. The question is nonsense, like trying to point at corners on a sphere.

(Actually I read a really interesting (layman's) explanation of exactly this issue where they show that time is basically a property of motion; "before the big bang" there were not things to move around so time wasn't a thing. It's on Lesswrong.com but I think dinosaur comics linked it recently. I'll find the link if you ask me to.)

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

When did Time start? How did time start? Time goes on for infinity doesn't it?

See above; these questions are like asking Einstein "when does the narwhal bacon." Gibberish.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

So actually science doesn't explain much at all.

Whilst belief in God makes most the answers to the above questions pretty simple.


I'd be careful about rooting my belief in the temporary inability to explain something. There was a time when we couldn't explain thunder, and thus was born Thor.

The number of things that we can explain is constantly growing, which means the need to use God to answer those questions is constantly shrinking. If your faith is meaningful to you, don't force God into gaps in our understanding which will surely close at some point.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Nothing wrong with that, except Evolution hardly explains much. Evolution starts at the point when there are already alive and complex organisms around.

This is like saying "A boat will hardly take you anywhere at all. All of the movie theaters are on land." Evolution is very good at explaining the things which it predicts. (Specifically, we can and have observed change in population characteristics over time in response to selection pressures.)

You are criticizing a baker for using things like flour instead of growing them from scratch, even though there's a perfect explanation of where the flour came from. (Again, this is fascinating stuff, like self-replicating molecules using mineral-lattices as enzymes. I'm happy to point you to some resources.)

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Ah but Miller and Urey began and designed the experiment. So who began and designed the Evolution of Life and of the Universe? 😛

I planted a seed in a garden. That doesn't mean no plants have ever grown without human intervention.

Humans are good at imagining why someone would do something. We had to be to survive tribal life. One side affect is that we're also very good at imagining that everything is caused by a person, even if nobody was involved at all.

Ultimately, though, I'll reiterate my point about results. When it comes right down to it, I'm going to side with the worldview that is effective at modeling the real world. We know it's effective because we see companies making billions on the assumption that evolution is true. If it were false, the world would look much different from the way it does today.

I would rather believe in theories made by man, supported by evidence, than a man-made deity who is said to have created everything.

Just because we cannot explain something, we cannot just say. 'It must be God'.

Just because we cannot explain something, we cannot just say. 'It must be God'

And just because we can explain something, we cannot just say "this prove god doesn't exist".

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And just because we [b]can explain something, we cannot just say "this prove god doesn't exist". [/B]

So can we agree that the number of things that we can explain has little to no relationship with the existence of God?

We can agree that we don't know and there's no way to prove either or.

Wonderful!

Now all that's left is to learn to express our reasons for believing as we do without trying to force others to accept the same conclusion.

Suddenly, world peace.

Originally posted by Zampanó
But basically, any supernaturalistic argument attacking evolution based on the origin of the populations it works on misses its target in three ways: (1)Evolution being wrong does not "invalidate" the naturalistic worldview (2)The origin of life is not a component of the theory of Evolution, but rather of an entirely different scientific discipline (3)There is good evidence and a robust theory explaining the origin of life, so as a matter of fact there isn't any room to posit a supernatural origin of life.

Okkayyy, not quite sure why you quoted me on this, considering I never actually attacked evolution and to counter your 3 points:

1) I never claimed it did.
2) I never said it was.
3) This I have yet to hear. Since you've just claimed there's Good Evidence to it, Im sure you won't mind detailing some of that "good" evidence. Because you seem to be claiming the method in which life started has been proven.

Originally posted by Zampanó

These arguments apply to God as well; Where did God come from?

But more importantly, the models of the big bang do not require anything to be "before" the big bang because time was not a dimension until the expansion of the singularity. The question is nonsense, like trying to point at corners on a sphere.

These arguments don't apply to God. You seem to misunderstand what people mean by the concept of God. Here:

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
It's not a cop-out, it's what we believe.

The fact is everything we know of in this Universe, has a beginning and an end. Everything depends on other things.

So it's not a cop out to believe the only way it could have all started is if there is a Source to the Universe that has no beginning or end, that exists outside of the laws of this Universe, from where everything came into play.

We call that Source- God.

Originally posted by Zampanó

(Actually I read a really interesting (layman's) explanation of exactly this issue where they show that time is basically a property of motion; "before the big bang" there were not things to move around so time wasn't a thing. It's on Lesswrong.com but I think dinosaur comics linked it recently. I'll find the link if you ask me to.)

Doesn't really convince me. What exactly does time have to do with motion. Motion of things is How "We" measure time passing. We'd have no way to measure time if nothing moved or changed.

It doesn't mean time has stopped. It still carrying on for how long there is no motion.. Get my point?

Originally posted by Zampanó
I'd be careful about rooting my belief in the temporary inability to explain something. There was a time when we couldn't explain thunder, and thus was born Thor.

You're making a lot of assumptions on where my beliefs root from. I would stop doing that if I were you. If you would like to ask me why I believe in what I do feel free to PM me but don't just make such huge assumptions.

I was just pointing out the Concept of God, and how Evolution does not explain how we are here.

Originally posted by Zampanó
The number of things that we can explain is constantly growing, which means the need to use God to answer those questions is constantly shrinking. If your faith is meaningful to you, don't force God into gaps in our understanding which will surely close at some point.

Whoaaa when did I force God into your gaps of knowledge. You've seriously jumped to huge conclusions about me and the points I was making, just because I've admitted to believing in God.

You need to chill out on this issue, and stop making so many assumptions about someone just because they mentioned God, and implied Science is a long long way from explaining everything.

Originally posted by Zampanó
You are criticizing a baker for using things like flour instead of growing them from scratch, even though there's a perfect explanation of where the flour came from. (Again, this is fascinating stuff, like self-replicating molecules using mineral-lattices as enzymes. I'm happy to point you to some resources.)

I planted a seed in a garden. That doesn't mean no plants have ever grown without human intervention.

The seed came from a tree/plant itself. The baker was born from other people. The Flour also comes from wheat grains.

Everything we do know of comes from something. Is dependant on other things. The whole Universe operates like this and works in such perfect order. The Moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, and how perfect the forces are holding them together.

I read somewhere that if the Earth was just a little off orbit it would spin out of control.

Is that not amazing to you. Amazing that we're all still here. Amazing that we came to be here in the first place. No I don't personally buy into the whole "it's all random" theory.

The Force between the Moon and the Earth does not seem Random to me at all.

Life and the Universe is far more complex than a car, or a space craft or a television. And yet you know when you see these things that they are not accidents. Because of their purposeful complex designs.

So forgive me for not just blindly accepting that everything in this Universe is completely random, and just happened simply because scientists say so, and you know they're so clever nowadays learning more and more every day.

Originally posted by Zampanó

(A more damning indictment of morality found within the Old Testament, specifically, is that it endorses or dictates slavery in many different places, while our own sense of morality is disgusted by the idea of slavery at all.

Yeah we're so moral nowadays. We hate slavery. Probably because we don't need it. We have much smarter ways of enslaving the masses now.

I hate it when people act like we're all so moral nowadays in comparison to the past.

You have to read historic texts in context (just like we try to put all star wars fights in their contexts).

Im not 100% sure on the whole how the Old Testament addresse's slaves. So someone else would have to address that. But I know my Religion gave many rights to slaves, and encouraged freeing them. But at the same time it did not outright condemn the concept.

Any Religion that did that would have been damn foolish. What do you think all those slaves would have done? Claimed benefits?

Servants are still everywhere in Asia. They're not very different to slaves. But they get a home, food, and get to have families and yes even be happy.

Do you honestly think disallowing servants would do those people any favours? Most of them would become beggars on the street if that happened.

Beggars actually wait/hope for the opportunity to become servants!

Originally posted by Zampanó
Christopher Hitchens has a detailed examination of the Israelites treatment of the Caananites but I can't remember the details and refuse to get references for an online debate anymore.)

I'm not sure if his examination is from the Torah itself or historical texts. But assuming it's the latter, I hate it when people make parallels between an Ideology and the actions of it's supposed followers. Which Christopher Hitchens does all the damn time!

Just because Israelites did that does not mean God condoned what they were doing.

God didn't condone them worshipping a fake cow when Moses went away to collect the 10 commandments. So what makes you/Hitchens think their faith and God condones anything/everything they did??

And with all due respect how many wars and immoral acts have been committed in the causes of Capitalism, Marxism, Communism and even in the name of Democracy.

That doesn't mean the ideals of those ideologies were inherently bad.

Originally posted by Zampanó
Wonderful!

Now all that's left is to learn to express our reasons for believing as we do without trying to force others to accept the same conclusion.

Suddenly, world peace.

This has always been my point about the preachy religious and the preachy anti-religious. As I've said repeatedly, I find both groups insufferable.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Okkayyy, not quite sure why you quoted me on this, considering I never actually attacked evolution and to counter your 3 points:

1) I never claimed it did. yay
2) I never said it was. yay
3) This I have yet to hear. Since you've just claimed there's Good Evidence to it, Im sure you won't mind detailing some of that "good" evidence. Because you seem to be claiming the method in which life started has been proven.


Speaking as a layman, I hope you'll take my explanations with a grain of salt. Basically, as I remember from my research several years ago, there are a few avenues under investigation. The one I looked at in the most detail was the observation that RNA/DNA (and other self-replicating molecules) occur in easily repeatable patterns that exactly match the distance between layers in certain mineral crystallizations. The implication, then, was that early complex organic molecules interacted with these minerals in predictable ways (which allow for interesting experimentation). The book I'm thinking of was Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (which is an introductory point; there is certainly more information available than just one pop-science book).


These arguments don't apply to God. You seem to misunderstand what people[b]I
mean by the concept of God. Here:
[/b]
Be careful when you dictate what the word "god" means; there are as many definitions as there are people. Given your protestations, I suspect that the deist "First cause" would be a more fitting description that the theist "personal god" that I attributed to you. I apologize if I misrepresented your views.

Doesn't really convince me. What exactly does time have to do with motion. Motion of things is How "We" measure time passing. We'd have no way to measure time if nothing moved or changed.

It doesn't mean time has stopped. It still carrying on for how long there is no motion.. Get my point?

From the essay I mentioned:

Ready for the next big simplification in physics?

Here it is:

We don't need the t.

It's redundant.


(link)
But even if we're looking at some "objective time" dimension, it is still nonsensical to talk about time before the big bang. Just as 3 dimensional space had yet to develop, the dimension of time had not yet coalesced from the singularity. Time did not exist.


You're making a lot of assumptions on where my beliefs root from. I would stop doing that if I were you. If you would like to ask me why I believe in what I do feel free to PM me but don't just make such huge assumptions.

I'm going to say something dismissive now, and you might take it as an insult. I promise that it isn't meant as one.

In my experience, everyone thinks their beliefs are mostly unique. They are quick to point out how they differ from some major mode of thought. Many people are eager to talk about their positions. However, there are really not all that many different positions to take. Having argued online extensively, I've come to be able to predict fairly reliably what line of argument will be drawn up in response to any given rhetorical gambit. Certain lines from Dawkins often bring out the Cosmological argument, for example.

This degree of predictability has led me to conclude that while there are many flavors of each opinion, the substantive logic behind each platform is mostly constant (and therefore interchangable).


I was just pointing out the Concept of God, and how Evolution does not explain how we are here.

This is going to be insulting and I hope you are insulted:
This is more of a non-sequitur than Family Guy's Peter/Chicken fight scenes.


Whoaaa when did I force God into your gaps of knowledge. You've seriously jumped to huge conclusions about me and the points I was making, just because I've admitted to believing in God.

You need to chill out on this issue, and stop making so many assumptions about someone just because they mentioned God, and implied Science is a long long way from explaining everything.


Well,
you:
So actually science doesn't explain much at all.

Whilst belief in God makes most the answers to the above questions pretty simple.


You say "science is incomplete" and "the god-hypothesis is complete" and you use the word "whilst" which implies some sort of relationship between the two. I want you to understand that the completeness or incompleteness of the naturalistic explanation of the universe has no bearing on the truth value of the god-hypothesis.


<snip>[goldilocks argument]</snip>

Is that not amazing to you. Amazing that we're all still here. Amazing that we came to be here in the first place. No I don't personally buy into the whole "it's all random" theory.

The Force between the Moon and the Earth does not seem Random to me at all.

Life and the Universe is far more complex than a car, or a space craft or a television. And yet you know when you see these things that they are not accidents. Because of their purposeful complex designs.

[/b]
And here is where my internet age becomes a handicap; an invitation from a pretty girl to go eat is going to trump finishing this post. have a link to the relevant wikipedia page instead.


So forgive me for not just blindly accepting that everything in this Universe is completely random, and just happened simply because scientists say so, and you know they're so clever nowadays learning more and more every day.

And again, handicap is coming into play, I have a date with a cute guy tonight so I could maybe have another vaguely condescending and obliquely confrontational reply by Thursday, but really:

idgaf about this topic. It's easy to write volumes because science is fun but when the topic moves to reestablishing the concept of scientific epistemology (AGAIN) then I get very irate very quickly. Because it's simple and boring and the only way I will be entertained is by insulting the other person until they snap.

and i like you so lets not do that

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Just because Israelites did that does not mean God condoned what they were doing.

God didn't condone them worshipping a fake cow when Moses went away to collect the 10 commandments. So what makes you/Hitchens think their faith and God condones anything/everything they did??


Well, the repeated assertions that they are God's "Chosen People" and the fact that it was done at the command of his prophet might be a place to start looking. And much of the bible is couched in the form of oral history. I'm not condemning the parts that say "this happened" but rather the disgusting, vile, abominable things that god says to do (or does himself). E.g. "oh hay ima kill all the kids in egypt" [/oversimplification]


And with all due respect how many wars and immoral acts have been committed in the causes of Capitalism, Marxism, Communism and even in the name of Democracy.

That doesn't mean the ideals of those ideologies were inherently bad.


With all due respect, how many of those ideologies claim do be inspired by the source and cause of objective good in the universe as guides to right action?

You're equivocating and I don't want to talk to you about this anymore so even the "vaguely condescending and obliquely confrontational reply" is off the table. This issue is closed between the two of us.

DS if you get a rabbinical opinion on what I think I'm remembering as the "slaughter of the Caananites" then I'd love to hear the party line.

well this place hasnt changed at all. 😐

No, but you have, fatty.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, but you have, fatty.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really? Perhaps we should look at the barbarianism of various cultures before monotheism came about? You're Monday Morning quarterbacking after thousands of years of data. And your point becomes moot when you realize how the entire German nation followed the insanity of one man and his genocidal campaign.

You keep referring to Hitler.
Are you saying that, if he was religious, he wouldn't do what he did? In fact how religious he was is still arguable.

Marriage is about more than just love. If your partner doesn't 100% support and believe in your goals, morals and attitude towards life in general, then expect a shaky marriage.

Agree. But goals, morals and attitude towards life are formed not necessary by religion but people themselves.
Every religion teaches essentially the same morals, if we don't count discouragement from marrying "non-believers". Most differences are so trivial that they can't be noticed in day to day life.
Yes, if those two would start date and get married, it would mean that they are not religious anymore. Yet, they would still face violent response from their parents and others. You believe by choice, not by force.
The most negative side of religions is that it divides people.

The Christians and Muslims cancelled each other out.
So you agree that religion is the cause of that?

I believe Stalin himself was responsible for more deaths than any religious outing put together.
Stalin was evil and had access to immense resources. Hitler was Catholic but was he any better?
If someone is evil by nature, religion won't change him. Religion guides you but it doesn't make you a better person, it all depends on your personality.
Historically and nowadays there are as many religious atrocities as non-religious, if not more.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I read somewhere that if the Earth was just a little off orbit it would spin out of control.

Is that not amazing to you. Amazing that we're all still here. Amazing that we came to be here in the first place. No I don't personally buy into the whole "it's all random" theory.

Considering that theres about 6 sextillion planets in the visible universe and that we can only observe about 1/2,000,000 of the visible universe in any direction, its not that amazing.

The odds were on our sides.

Originally posted by Arhael
You keep referring to Hitler.
Are you saying that, if he was religious, he wouldn't do what he did? In fact how religious he was is still arguable.

Actually I don't keep referring to hitler, but Stalin. People still debate whether he was religious or anti religious so I'd rather hold off on that. But no, I'm not saying what you're asking me. It's a response to the common logic of "look how many deaths religion has caused".

So you agree that religion is the cause of that?

Not so much religion as those who bastardized their religion for their own selfish goals. If you look at the crusades, everybody had an agenda and they translated their respective bibles whichever way gave them leverage.

Neph:

Indeed. Plus he points out our orbit which is honestly not amazing at all considering the earth formed from the same swirling gases that the sun formed for.... I mean there are countless objects in orbit around solely our Sun clearly it's not that miraculous of an event.

Beefy:

I agree. Most "religious" wars seem to be about gold, land, or power and religion was used simply as a justification for the often unprovoked attacks.