The universe had a beginning.

[ThinClient]

Actually its obvious that TC and CT are just trolling these subjects.....

They have added no proof to back up anything they say is false.....
They are making up the rules of evidence as they go....
If they can`t disprove something they say it is the other person who has to come up with proof!

You can't prove a negative. How many times do we have to say it? You're the one making the positive claims that god exists, that the universe had a creator, that christ was divine, etc.

FUCKING PROVE IT, or shut the fuck up and know that you're WRONG!

Yet -- Thin Client just admitted he was a troll.....
After all he has his mind made up already.
Basically he is here to have an argument!


Thin Client claims to be an ex-pastor which I find laughable at best!!

I didn't admit I was a troll you simple minded buffoon. I and others like me who respect you enough to make an effort to save you from a life of oppression and bigotry and ignorance and irrational thought are your lifeline.

 

[Carfax83]

Evolution is random mutation and natural selection. The former is random, the latter is not.

Natural selection only determines which traits get passed a long to future generations, it has no bearing on the mechanism itself, which as you note, is random..

Also, random mutation in concert with natural selection require lots of Time according to neo Darwinism (slight successive changes occuring over large periods of time and all that) but there are known cases of evolution occuring instaneously.

Pretty remarkable for a supposedly "random process."

Please rigorously define "specificity" as it relates to biological organisms and tell us how you measure it.

If I have to explain the context and meaning of specificity as it relates to this conversation, then you're well out of your depth.

Please crawl back into your hidey hole and let the adults continue the conversation :whiste:

 

[Carfax83]

Well, apart from the ones that your choosing to exclude.

Such as? Please inform me...

 

[ThinClient]

well said...if I may also add...

Who made up the rules....
It would appear as if all the rules have been made up to be lopsided in favor of the atheists without them needing to prove or disprove a damn thing!!

Look at it this way. The rules were created so that bogus conclusions would be weeded out as more evidence is brought to the table that relates to an existing conclusion.

If a tiny bit of evidence is produced and a conclusion drawn from it because the evidence was scrutinized and found to be valid, then fine. If the evidence was found to be bogus, then the conclusion is therefore bogus and invalid.

If an existing conclusion based on previously scrutinized valid evidence is challenged by new evidence that is scrutinized and ALSO found to be valid, then the conclusion must be re-evaluated using both pieces of valid evidence. The conclusion is what must change.

If there is zero evidence in the first place, no conclusion can be drawn and any magical made-up bullshit is irrelevant and, as history has repeatedly proven to man, is most likely incorrect as we will eventually find evidence to support the contrary of what man's simple and stupid brain makes up to fill the holes (read: god of the gaps).

I don't understand why you tards don't get something so simple. This is how the entire concept of evidence and proof and hypothesis and theory and law and truth work.

It seems like religiotards have a conclusion, that god exists or that christ was divine or that the bible is the inspired word of god, but cling to that conclusion despite there being zero evidence. When evidence is found to the contrary (like DNA in the fossil record proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no first human EVER and that man has been on this planet in the current form for hundreds of thousands of years and not 6000 years), religious sheep vehemently deny the evidence because it does not fit their religious agenda.

Does this seem rational to you? If not, then why the fuck do you believe in bronze age myths that stem from a holy book that makes claims that have been disproven? If that DOES seem rational to you, what in the actual fuck?

 

[stormkroe]

...except for those that understand the reality of the evidence (or have at least bothered to read the whole thread).

So you don't agree with the majority of scientists or the observation of light?

On a side note, it amuses me the way people seem to think that writing a word in all capital letters somehow bolsters the truth of whatever claim they're making. It is a phenomenon I notice particularly of Christian theists, and even more notably of the creationist types. In fact it almost always seems to coincide with a contentious point for which the Christian claimant has very little to no supporting evidence or argumentation.
Funny, that.

Or it's another way to convey emphasis through text? Maybe you're an italics kinda guy?

When was this?

13.7 billion years ago. Try to understand that no matter how much you shout, you can't argue against this. You're simply on the wrong side of science here.

It seems you wouldn't know much about what logic is, then. In order for reasoning to be logical, the propositions that describe it must be coherent.

Perhaps you've forgotten your past failure to comprehend the logic in causality, or maybe you just stubbornly cling to your assertions because admitting you were wrong is something you fear more than death. One of us clearly had a problem with logic. The other one is handsome.

What meaningful "info" has "passed" from your direction to ours?

Perfect example of your overall contribution to AT forums, 'what value is there in things I don't agree with or understand?'

There aren't "portions" of evolution. There is just evolution. It is a scientific fact, thru and thru.

Wow, just imagine how much better you would have felt if you had capitalized the word 'fact'?
Here, again, is a subject that you've probably read a little about and think you've got it mastered. The phrase 'scientific fact thru and thru' is VERY sophomoric. Talk to people like Zinfamous, who actually works in the field, and you'll see that there are areas of evolution that are far from settled. The harder you stretch your psuedo-intellectuallism, the more see through it becomes.

Oh, this one I gotta hear. Please, do tell me all about it.

I might be wrong (<---- humility, give it a try sometime), but I'm pretty sure you've been down this road before. I've got an easier idea: why don't you tell us what you think is wrong with the Genesis account, and I'll pull the straw out of your little man.

Painting the target around the arrow -- a fallacy that seems to forever elude the simple minds of Christians. Such a pity.

Wow, this is huge logic fail even for you. I'll try your MO, 'misunderstanding on purpose -- a fallacy that seems to forever elude intelligent posters like Sandorski and Eskimospy. Such an honorable quality.'

 

[Carfax83]

Put it this way: if you want to show that the universe did not always exist, you'd need to show us when there was no universe.

I asked you first. Has the Universe always existed, and if so, please provide evidence..

Also, you've apparently never heard of Singularity. The Universe (as we know it) did not exist until the Singularity rapidly expanded.

No, it isn't a code, it never was as code, and it never will be a code. It's a collection of physical objects in space and time, something a code is not. You are entirely hypnotized by the metaphor because you want so badly for it to bolster your argument, but you can't change the facts.

Fuck you you fucking fuck. I asked you to provide a CREDIBLE source that says genetic code is NOT a code, and instead you give me your brain dead scientifically inaccurate jibber jabber.

I repeat: molecules are not codes. Codes are language. Language is an abstraction, not physical matter.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Information is separate from matter and energy.

Information is encoded in the sequence of bases in DNA and RNA. Language is a code, which can be encoded on physical matter such as paper, a hard drive, a CD-ROM etcetera..

Just like DNA you fucktard!

Horsefeathers.

If what I said is horsefeathers, how do you explain the fact that children resemble their parents and grandparents? Or that cats differ drastically from fishes. Obviously traits and attributes are being passed down through generations, but if DNA does not contain information as you say, how is this being accomplished?

I'm not just claiming it isn't a code. I explained precisely why it isn't a code, and your only rebuttal has amounted to "but these guys use the word 'code' so it's a code." No, they are using a metaphor because it is convenient, like I already said. A code is message formed in a language, with rules of grammar and syntax. DNA is a collection of molecules.

Frankly I don't give a fuck. If you don't fucking provide a credible source in your response that claims the genetic code is NOT a code, then I am putting you on ignore as you're basically just trolling.

 

[Carfax83]

Another great book to read is "Why I Became an Atheist." I found it to be a great summary of a majority of arguments one could pose towards Christianity or most deity-based religions.

Funny you should mention this, as there's another great book titled, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," written by Anthony Flew, world famous philosopher and former atheist..

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you don't agree with the majority of scientists or the observation of light?

I don't agree that you understand the evidence. You're invited to take a swing at proving me wrong, however.

{snip}

13.7 billion years ago.

No, it wasn't. Have you forgotten what you wrote? I suppose it might be difficult to remember gibberish, but they are your words. Here, I'll re-post them:

Put plainly, before time existed, there was no such thing as 'before', so no creator creator is required.

I want to know when "before time existed" was. This place where "there was no such thing as 'before'". When did this place exist? It can't be 13.7 billion years ago. That was when time existed. So when was it?

Try to understand that no matter how much you shout, you can't argue against this. You're simply on the wrong side of science here.

I'm not sure which science you mean. If you're talking about science in this universe then you're sadly mistaken.

Perhaps you've forgotten your past failure to comprehend the logic in causality, or maybe you just stubbornly cling to your assertions because admitting you were wrong is something you fear more than death.

It is impossible for me to forget things that never happened.

One of us clearly had a problem with logic. The other one is handsome.

Thank you so kindly. Believe me, I am a big hit with the ladies.

Perfect example of your overall contribution to AT forums, 'what value is there in things I don't agree with or understand?'

I notice a distinct lack of an answer to my question.

Wow, just imagine how much better you would have felt if you had capitalized the word 'fact'?

Why would I do that? Are you still under the illusion that capital letters increase the truth values of the statements that contain them?

Here, again, is a subject that you've probably read a little about and think you've got it mastered. The phrase 'scientific fact thru and thru' is VERY sophomoric.

No, it is quite accurate.

Talk to people like Zinfamous, who actually works in the field, and you'll see that there are areas of evolution that are far from settled.

You misunderstand me. Evolution is wholly a fact. The way things evolved is still being discovered, but that they evolved is not in question.

The harder you stretch your psuedo-intellectuallism, the more see through it becomes.

It's not my problem that you aren't astute enough to discern the obvious distinctions.

I might be wrong (<---- humility, give it a try sometime), but I'm pretty sure you've been down this road before. I've got an easier idea: why don't you tell us what you think is wrong with the Genesis account, and I'll pull the straw out of your little man.

I'm not sure what you mean. You made the claim. You substantiate it. Or are you now retracting it because you got called on it?

Wow, this is huge logic fail even for you. I'll try your MO, 'misunderstanding on purpose -- a fallacy that seems to forever elude intelligent posters like Sandorski and Eskimospy. Such an honorable quality.'

I very much doubt you understand the significance of the fallacy I'm talking about.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I and others like me who respect you enough to make an effort to save you from a life of oppression and bigotry and ignorance and irrational thought are your lifeline.

Muslims also respect atheists enough to save atheists from their life of oppression, bigotry, ignorance, and irrational thought.

 

[stormkroe]

Fuck you you fucking fuck. I asked you to provide a CREDIBLE source that says genetic code is NOT a code, and instead you give me your brain dead scientifically inaccurate jibber jabber.



You have no idea what you're talking about. Information is separate from matter and energy.

Information is encoded in the sequence of bases in DNA and RNA. Language is a code, which can be encoded on physical matter such as paper, a hard drive, a CD-ROM etcetera..

Just like DNA you fucktard!

Don't bother getting upset with him. You've got him backed into a corner where he's tasting his own foot in front of his AT peers. He will argue semantics on the fact that DNA isn't a code in the same way a CD-R isn't a code but rather a medium for the information at the expense of civil and progressing conversation.

 

[Exophase]

Muslims also respect atheists enough to save atheists from their life of oppression, bigotry, ignorance, and irrational thought.

That's a very twisted and disturbing thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[ThinClient]

Muslims also respect atheists enough to save atheists from their life of oppression, bigotry, ignorance, and irrational thought.

Nope, they just kill them.

 

[Exophase]

Nope, they just kill them.

That's what he was getting at.

I guess not believing in God, no matter how intellectually sincere that may be, is worse than killing people for not believing in God.

 

[ThinClient]

That's what he was getting at.

I guess not believing in God, no matter how intellectually sincere that may be, is worse than killing people for not believing in God.

Of course. He's already wished me dead and called me Satan repeatedly. His bible that he loves so much commands Christians to kill unbelievers. He truly believes this is a morally and ethically righteous act.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I asked you first. Has the Universe always existed, and if so, please provide evidence..

I do not know of any time when the universe did not exist. Do you? In actuality, I'm not convinced that it is possible for the universe not to exist, and it would seem most of our experimental evidence would concur.

Also, you've apparently never heard of Singularity. The Universe (as we know it) did not exist until the Singularity rapidly expanded.

Well, there's the universe, and there's the universe (as we know it), and there's the universe 100 years ago, and there's the universe tomorrow, and there's the universe 1000 years from now, etc...

I'm just talking about the universe. That's why I said "universe," since it seems you couldn't have guessed.

Fuck you you fucking fuck. I asked you to provide a CREDIBLE source that says genetic code is NOT a code, and instead you give me your brain dead scientifically inaccurate jibber jabber.

I don't need a source. My argument is plain as day, and it stands on its own. It has not escaped my notice that you are loathe to engage the argument itself, instead harping about this "credible source"** nonsense like it means anything at all.

What is "scienticfically inaccurate" about what I've said? Please, do tell.

**) Note the use of not only CAPS but BOLD CAPS here. I swear, you Christians are too funny.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Information is separate from matter and energy.

Did I say differently?

Information is encoded in the sequence of bases in DNA and RNA.

You're question begging.

Language is a code, which can be encoded on physical matter such as paper, a hard drive, a CD-ROM etcetera..

Just like DNA you fucktard!

But the paper, the hard drive, the CD-ROM and the DNA are not a code. They are physical objects with mass and extension in space. The states of these physical objects are objectively meaningless. The "information" is just abstractions of the states of those objects. They are meanings we give them, not properties of the objects.

If what I said is horsefeathers, how do you explain the fact that children resemble their parents and grandparents? Or that cats differ drastically from fishes. Obviously traits and attributes are being passed down through generations, but if DNA does not contain information as you say, how is this being accomplished?

It's being accomplished through heredity, obviously. What point do you think you are making here?

Frankly I don't give a fuck. If you don't fucking provide a credible source in your response that claims the genetic code is NOT a code, then I am putting you on ignore as you're basically just trolling.

It isn't a matter of authority. It's a matter of fact and reason. If you like, you can read a more thorough explanation of the facts here, however.

 

[ThinClient]

Cerpin Taxt, are you pulling a SixOne?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I dump out a huge bucket of pennies on to the floor, and then leaving them flat, I slide them all end to end and record the sides which face up, in sequence:

H = Heads, T = Tails

HHTTHTHHTHHTTTHHTTHHTHTHHHTHTHTHTHHTHHTTTHTTTHTHHTHTHTHTTTTTHTHTHTHHTHHT

Look! A code! God is talking to us!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin Taxt, are you pulling a SixOne?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Such as? Please inform me...

But I named it specifically, and you snipped it out of my post without even acknowledging it. Now you're gonna pretend like you still don't know?

For shame...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Natural selection only determines which traits get passed a long to future generations, it has no bearing on the mechanism itself, which as you note, is random..

Um, you don't understand. They are both -- together -- the mechanism of evolution. You're not talking about evolution if you're not talking about both mutation and selection.

Also, random mutation in concert with natural selection require lots of Time according to neo Darwinism (slight successive changes occuring over large periods of time and all that) but there are known cases of evolution occuring instaneously.

Pretty remarkable for a supposedly "random process."

What's remarkable about it? Is there something about evolution that you think should preclude this from happening?

If I have to explain the context and meaning of specificity as it relates to this conversation, then you're well out of your depth.

That's what I'd expect someone who can't rigorously define "specificity" to say if he was desperately trying not to embarrass himself. The fact is, you can't define it because you have no idea what it means.

 

[ThinClient]

But I named it specifically, and you snipped it out of my post without even acknowledging it. Now you're gonna pretend like you still don't know?

For shame...

Yes, you're pulling a SixOne.

Just shut the fuck up with your stupid replies and give him a short, honest, sincere reply that isn't playing games.

You guys are wasting time and energy arguing pointless bullshit.

Both of you!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, you're pulling a SixOne.

Just shut the fuck up with your stupid replies and give him a short, honest, sincere reply that isn't playing games.

You guys are wasting time and energy arguing pointless bullshit.

Both of you!

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing I've said has been dishonest or insincere. I address every salient point so that nothing goes unaddressed or unrefuted. If this is not satisfactory for you, you can call 1-800-EAT-SHIT and file a complaint.

 

[ThinClient]

You're beating around the bush for the sake of argument. Instead of speaking plainly, you reply with nothing short of "nuh uh." and leave it at that.

Just stop arguing about pointless stupid shit.

You were doing great countering the religiotards, now two great posters are bickering between themselves when they should be simply joining forces.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just because I and others prepared while you are not does not mean that I am a troll. It means that I and others are the ones throwing you the life saving float with a rope attached so that you aren't lost in the sea of willful ignorance and bronze age myth.

You can hardly call being prepared by saying that what somebody else has said is wrong, yet offering to basis for what was said being wrong...

Also being wrong in whose eyes.....talk about a lack of education....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You're beating around the bush for the sake of argument. Instead of speaking plainly, you reply with nothing short of "nuh uh." and leave it at that.

Just stop arguing about pointless stupid shit.

You were doing great countering the religiotards, now two great posters are bickering between themselves when they should be simply joining forces.

Ok, whatever you're talking about, I'm just gonna keep on doing this my way, the same way I've done it for (all too many) years.

Best regards.