Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Delrick53

Why Do People Laugh At Creationists

is the title of a series (32 so far) of videos you can find on Youtube.

The man behind them goes under the name 'Thunderf00t'.

He is a scientist, and is probably the Youtube equivalent of Richard Forrest or Kiteman.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t     (the Why People Laugh At Creationists section  can be accessed via the menu on the left)

His main online opponent was VenomFangX, a creationist in the Huw/Bashful/HAL/Leroy mould, but unlike that motley crew, VFX has been banned by Youtube for lying about T'f00T online (the Beeb could learn something here)

Well worth watching, but the Sarah Palin videos are scary, especially when you consider she still has tens of millions of Christian supporters in the USA.
Delrick53

~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
It's old news Delrick,

It is actually an argument which cannot be PROVED.

No one knows for sure if there is water in space.
Yes they believe that water may have been found with probes and even spotted what they believe to be canyons. But they also say these could have been created by collisions.
Wish they would make their minds up.  faint.gif

If people want to mock each other then let them.
Water on mars or anywhere else has nothing to do with if God exists.
Nor does it disprove creation.

Love Lynne.xx


Don't know what your sources are Lynne, but I suggest you check out a genuine science one.

As far back as 2001 we knew that water was the third most common molecule out there, and our Solar Systems full of it.

Wasn't another dodgy Discovery Channel programme was it ? Like the one you can't remember the name of that proved that the Old Testament is all true ?

But there are 32 videos in the series, so keep going.

If you want to be terrified and amused at the same time, check the Sarah Palin ones. That woman's dumber than a bag of pebbles.
Delrick53

Lynne,

Who are 'they' ?

'They' wouldn't live in AIG land or somewhere saimilar perhaps ?
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

Quote:
Yes they believe that water may have been found with probes and even spotted what they believe to be canyons. But they also say these could have been created by collisions.
Wish they would make their minds up.

Why? Science is about enquiry, uncertainty, investigation, speculation and so on; gradually building a picture of how the universe might work using millions of different lines of reasoning, ideas and arguments.  Those theories that are best supported by the available evidence become adopted as the most likely to be true, subject to further discoveries and fresh information.

This is how science is supposed to work; “we have this evidence which makes us think that it might happen like this, but on the other hand if you consider it from this angle it might work like that” this is the kind of talk you will always hear in science.  Our knowledge is finite, so to claim absolute certainty on any subject is a self-deception.  Certainty is for children, idiots and religious people.

Quote:
Water on mars or anywhere else has nothing to do with if God exists.
Nor does it disprove creation.


No one can prove that God does not exist; I have never heard any scientist make such a claim or attempt such a pointless line of enquiry.  Christians have defined God as a kind of being that cannot be detected by ordinary naturalist means of measurement and analysis, so He is by definition totally outside the realms of scientific investigation.

As for creation, well there is no evidence to support biblical literalist creation (six days about ten thousand years ago) and plenty of evidence that seems to contradict the idea, so as theories go it's right there at the bottom of the heap, along with 'the universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of great age', 'this is all a computer simulation run by alien super-beings', 'the world was made from the corpse of Ymir the frost giant' and similar eccentric and extravagant fantasies.
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

As far as we know, comets are mostly made of ice. We know this from observation of the nature of light they reflect, and from the NASA Stardust mission, which flew a probe through the tail of a comet to collect data and material.

This fact has no impact upon the existence, or not, of God.  Things can be interesting and exciting even if they do not have anything to do with the existence, or not, of God.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Lynne,

As far as we know, comets are mostly made of ice. We know this from observation of the nature of light they reflect, and from the NASA Stardust mission, which flew a probe through the tail of a comet to collect data and material.

This fact has no impact upon the existence, or not, of God.  Things can be interesting and exciting even if they do not have anything to do with the existence, or not, of God.


Hi Puke,

I have no argument with the above or about many other things.

Love Lynne.xx  
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

Quote:
Perhaps scientist and the above all have something in common.
They all accept things on faith.

I have just told you that in science there is no such thing as a certainty, so how are scientists accepting anything on faith?  Science is a materialistic, naturalist tool of investigation and enquiry.  It doesn't have all the answers, and it doesn't claim to have all the answers, but it isn't a faith.

Many scientists certainly have faith of one kind or another, but if they are good scientists (and many of them are excellent) then their religious faith has nothing to do with their science, because science is limited only to materialistic, naturalistic investigation and enquiry, not religious ideas.

Quote:
If we cut to the chase. There is nothing to prove how we came into existence.


Science is not about proof, it is about looking at the evidence and constructing a theory that is best supported by the evidence.  No scientific theory can ever be absolutely one hundred percent proven beyond all doubt; even the best ones are just the most likely explanations based on the available evidence.

Quote:
Till evidence exists either way, then the above arguments are really speculation.


There is evidence for a universe forming in ways other than those described in genesis, for an earth that is billions of years old and for the evolution of species over many millions of years.  There is no evidence to support six-day creation, a young earth and special creationism, in fact the evidence seems to contradict such ideas.

If one is true to science, then the theory that is best supported by the evidence is the preferred theory, but proof and certainty are not relevant terms in this kind of enquiry.  In science, evidence leads to theories, not to proofs.
Delrick53

~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
Delrick53 wrote:
~xx~ Jesus' Lady... ~xx~ wrote:
It's old news Delrick,

It is actually an argument which cannot be PROVED.

No one knows for sure if there is water in space.
Yes they believe that water may have been found with probes and even spotted what they believe to be canyons. But they also say these could have been created by collisions.
Wish they would make their minds up.  faint.gif

If people want to mock each other then let them.
Water on mars or anywhere else has nothing to do with if God exists.
Nor does it disprove creation.

Love Lynne.xx


Don't know what your sources are Lynne, but I suggest you check out a genuine science one.

As far back as 2001 we knew that water was the third most common molecule out there, and our Solar Systems full of it.

Wasn't another dodgy Discovery Channel programme was it ? Like the one you can't remember the name of that proved that the Old Testament is all true ?

But there are 32 videos in the series, so keep going.

If you want to be terrified and amused at the same time, check the Sarah Palin ones. That woman's dumber than a bag of pebbles.


Hard as it might be to believe Delrick,

I do not believe everything I am told.
For one thing, I have no solid evidence that I can see, feel or touch about water in space. No eye has actually seen it.
However that does not prove creation or God to be existent or non-existent.
I did some study about the water in space and it was scientifically based.
But all that study did, was leave me asking this question.

"How and I mean 'how' and 'what' impact does water in space have on creation or God?

So please tell me why you believe it does have any impact on either belief for earth.

I will try and look through the other videos as you have asked.
But if they are the same as the others then really no evidence is held within them that affects the real issue about creation or God.

Love Lynne.xx



Morning Lynne,

Don't forget the OP and the title.

You claim that you don't know everything (no-one does), and that you still ask questions (like the rest of us).

But there are many, and you're one of them, who claim an absolute certainty with regard to 'creation'. Guess what ? These people aren't scientists or those who believe them.

On T'f00t's site you'll find a discussion between him and the super-creationist Ray Comfort.

I was embarrassed listening to it. T'f00t is a super-smart, rational, freethinking man. Comfort is ........ just dumb. So dumb it was obvious that he had no idea what T'f00t was talking about. His only responses - the bible says so - because it's in scripture - in fact all those things that confirm the title of this thread.

Where do the Comforts of this world come from ? Someone, may have been Puke, posted a link at the Beeb showing the disgraceful indoctrination of small children by creationist adults (if it was you Puke, could you post it here please ?).

Teaching ignorance like that as truth is child abuse. It's where religious hatred comes from. That hatred becomes violence, then war, and we see that happening all over our planet right now.

In Afghanistan the Taleban go into battle after praying to Allah. US troops go into battle after praying to their god. Both believe that the opposition is satanic, and must be destroyed. I've seen the videos of these pre-battle prayers, and the results.

And if you look at the influence that creationists have with both sides, you shouldn't laugh.
Pukon_the_Treen

Lynne,

Quote:
It is more faith than christianity uses. Easy to explain.
Christianity relies on an outward sign of faith which is not left to the natural or science to be able to explain. Christ for instance...healing the sick, raising the dead and even preaching the truth about God and revealing who the real God was to mankind.
He signs and his wonders were unexplainable by all accounts in natural
phenomenon and in Scientific phenomenon.


Sorry Lynne but this is garbled nonsense.  Science is just a tool for investigating the natural world, what exactly do you think science requires you to have a faith in?

Take this for example:

We have investigated the radioactive decay of potassium 40 to argon 40, and we know it has a half life of 1.3 billion years. The basic upshot of this is that if we find a rock where half the potassium 40 as converted to argon 40 we know it's 1.3 billion years old.  This method has been used to date rocks to 3.8 billion years old.

Note this is not proof; science is not about proof, it's about looking a the evidence and coming up with a theory that fits the evidence.  If by this technique we find rocks which seem to be 3.8 billion years old, then the most likely theory is that the earth is at least that old, maybe older.  This is the explanation which best fits the available evidence.

How is stating “I think this is probably the case because this theory best fits the available  evidence” a position of faith surpassing a religious world view?
Quote:

I don't use the word 'ohenomenon' lightly, either.
You see it takes more faith to believe in Science and it requires a bigger risk if you are wrong.


No I don't see this at all, because what you wrote makes very little logical or grammatical sense.  What risk?  If a scientist is wrong about something then he or she may lose a bit of prestige, but as long as they behaved in an ethical rational way and didn't rig the experiment, mislead people or leap to unfounded conclusions then they will still be respected.

Quote:
Note how you add "if they are good scientist" you are not qualified to make that judgement.


I know about the philosophy of science and I know that it deals only with naturalistic and materialistic investigation of the world (it's old name was natural philosophy).  Religious faith operates outside these parameters, so while many scientists are religious, when they do their science they must keep to the limited parameters of naturalistic and materialistic investigation, otherwise they are not doing science, they are doing something else.

It's not me that decides this, it's built in to the whole definition of the discipline.  I'll stress again that very few scientists believe that  naturalistic and materialistic investigation is the only way to make sense of the world, it's just the way they must operate when they are going to do science.

Quote:
Science is negated on the existence of God.
Tell me why you think that is, Puke?


I'm not sure what you mean. The existence or not of God is not something that science can comment upon, because (as I have already explained) science limits itself to only investigating the naturalistic materialistic physical universe, and believers insist that God is not limited to a naturalistic materialistic reality.

Scientists don't have to believe that the naturalistic materialistic physical universe is all that there is, but they have to limit their reasoning and investigations to that arena while they are doing science. If they start making supernatural assumptions (“non-Newtonian fluids do not have a constant viscosity because it's a mysterious miracle”) then they are no longer doing science.
Quote:

Science is not about proof, it is about looking at the evidence

That is not correct.


It is correct.  Sorry, but unless you accept this basic premise then there is little point talking to you about the subject, because you haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to argue against.
Quote:

It is about looking at what exists and man putting his own spin on it.  


It's true that man inevitably takes an objective fact (like leaves falling off a tree in autumn for example) and puts a subjective interpretation on it (the tree in autumn can mean nostalgia, sadness, peace, death), but in the pursuit of more objective information, science tries to limit this by setting up control experiments, limiting the outside influences, repeating the experiments, limiting itself to raw data, a solid structure of test and analysis, and finally a pretty ruthless system of peer review to pick over it for flaws.

This process is totally inappropriate and useless if you wish to write a poem about a tree in autumn, but it is appropriate if you wish to work out why the leave fall off some trees in autumn.

Quote:
If there was evidence there would be proof.
But looking at what exists and forming theories is not evidence or proof.


The fact is that if I push a rock off a table it will fall to the ground.  On it's own this tells us nothing, but with a few other experiments and measurements it can become evidence supporting the theory of gravity, which can be used to make accurate predictions about many things, including for example, the orbits of planets.  The rock falling off the table is not proof for the theory of gravity, it is evidence which can be used to support the theory of gravity.  Science does not deal in proof.  I'm sorry to keep stressing this, but if you don't understand this then you really don't understand what science actually is and there is no point discussing it.

Quote:
Tell me why they need the above and tell me how knowing what is in outerspace is going to make a difference to what is on the earth?
Tell me what you can do about the earth or the powers which exist around us. Can you harness control of the earth to stop earthquakes?
Are you going to be able to stop tidal waves? Will the waters still flow if the sun gets closer? Could you stop the sun getting closer if everything changed?


We investigate things out of curiosity, but also to improve life for us here on earth.  By studying and measuring earthquakes we can learn when and where there are likely to occur, and so prepare for them better. We can learn how they damage buildings and create more resistant structures.  Surely you are not so divorced from reality that you are unaware of the improvements in health, medicine, engineering, sanitation, communication, transport and so on that science has provided just in the last couple of hundred years?

Quote:
There is no evidence... Not even available evidence.
It is all manmade based upon theories.

There is evidence. Man investigates the evidence and uses it support his theories about how things might work. Man then uses the theories to make predictions and create all these cool and useful things we create. If you don't like that, then eschew clothes, food, wine, sanitation and shelter, and bugger off and live up a tree somewhere, eating your food while it is still wriggling.

Quote:
Prove the earth is billions of years old...

You cannot, because there is no proof. Zilch you accept on faith what the Scientist teach but no one can prove it. It requires more faith than Christianity.


As I have laboriously explained, there is no proof, but there is evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

You may choose to ignore the evidence and reject the theories, that is your prerogative, but if you want the challenge the theories scientifically then you need to come up with some evidence that supports your alternative theory.

Quote:
The statement you made is untrue. Do you want to show us the evidence?
You have repeated theories but none which can be proved.
As I said, it requires more faith to believe in science.


There is evidence to support the theory of an old earth and evolution by natural selection.  I can post links and point you in the direction of some excellent book and papers on the subject if you like.  There is no evidence to support a young earth and six day creation. This is a fact.

If for some bizarre reason, you wish to do as many of these new American-style fundamentalists seem to want to do; to present a young earth and six-day creation as a scientific theory rather than as a religious myth, then you need some actual evidence to support that notion. Not proof; science doesn't deal in proof, just some evidence in support of the theory.

Quote:
Where as to the believer, the proof of Christianity is that it does as it says it will.
Do you not find it strange that you require more faith than Christians?


Christianity is not science, it's a religion, so terms like proof and faith are probably appropriate.  Science deals with evidence and theories; proof and faith are not relevant or useful concepts.

Quote:
I know there is no proof and was really just asking you to show proof to add weight to that fact. So no expecting you to give proof or even answer to the fact.


I have already said that science doesn't deal in proof, so that fact that there is none should hardly be a surprise to either of us. There is evidence in support of the theory though; feel free to address that evidence, explain other ways in which it could be interpreted and offer up your own evidence in support of your theory (whatever that is).

Or just admit that religion and faith have nothing to do with science and the scientific method.
Dave B

Some scientists aren't, despite the letters they have after their name.

In an interview with New Scientist the YEC geophysicist John Blaumgardner, when asked about radiometric dating of rocks, said that God must have adjusted time at various points in the Earth's history to account for this. He simply could not accept the evidence that countered his beliefs despite everything he had learned and discovered that confirmed the theory. But it made him the darling of the ID and Creationalist camps of course.
Leonard James

Dave B wrote:
Some scientists aren't, despite the letters they have after their name.

In an interview with New Scientist the YEC geophysicist John Blaumgardner, when asked about radiometric dating of rocks, said that God must have adjusted time at various points in the Earth's history to account for this. He simply could not accept the evidence that countered his beliefs despite everything he had learned and discovered that confirmed the theory. But it made him the darling of the ID and Creationalist camps of course.

They probably paid him to say it!  
Dave B

Here is a quote from an interview with John Baumgardner:
Quote:
It was only in the Christian world that science developed


http://www.rae.org/believe.html

OK, that does depend on how you define science, the currently methodology did originate in the Christian world, though one could claim that Christianity as a religion did a lot to suppress science where it went against dogma.

But mathematics and other "sciences" were well established before Christianity ever got started if my memory serves me right. The Greeks and Indians had a bit of a hand in it as well.

Religious doctrine has probably been one of the biggest barriers to science going. When I mentioned some Arabic scientific discoveries to a Sunni Arab he said that they were worthless. because the discoverers had been Shi'ite.

The Christians were not much better in history, it is only lately that the more sensible ones have had to accept that science is usually right. But there seem to be a great number of less sensible Christians still living in the Middle Ages.
Delrick53

Dave B wrote:
Here is a quote from an interview with John Baumgardner:
Quote:
It was only in the Christian world that science developed


http://www.rae.org/believe.html

OK, that does depend on how you define science, the currently methodology did originate in the Christian world, though one could claim that Christianity as a religion did a lot to suppress science where it went against dogma.

But mathematics and other "sciences" were well established before Christianity ever got started if my memory serves me right. The Greeks and Indians had a bit of a hand in it as well.

Religious doctrine has probably been one of the biggest barriers to science going. When I mentioned some Arabic scientific discoveries to a Sunni Arab he said that they were worthless. because the discoverers had been Shi'ite.

The Christians were not much better in history, it is only lately that the more sensible ones have had to accept that science is usually right. But there seem to be a great number of less sensible Christians still living in the Middle Ages.


Dave,

The actual historical evidence shows absolutely that Christianity in Europe prevented medical and scientific research and education for 800 years. We actually went backwards.
All the advances made by Roman and Greek civilisations were declared heretical.
Millions of books and documents were destroyed, and only bible based teaching was allowed (in monasteries).

We see the history of those dark ages littered with enlightened 'clergymen', but if you look closer, those 'clergymen' are that in name only. Only the clergy received an education (unless you were very wealthy of course).

Similar in many ways to those parents who claim a faith simply to get their kids into a particular school - so it's nothing new.
SceptiKarl

I'm trying to understand why anyone tries to have a comverstion with Lynne. She's completely incoherent, and she has goalposts, not just that are moved, but which are virtual, - popping in and out of existence every few nano seconds!
Farmer Geddon

I blame Lexi.. If Lexi hadn't have had a head-fit at the beginning of the year, then all the proof that Lynne is a loon wouldn't have miraculously disappeared!!

In fact - I'm starting to suspect that Lexi is in fact = Lynne???


0002.giif
Lexilogio

I think Mathematics did start in India.
Maths really flourished with the Islamic culture too.

I think it would be fair to say that Christianity has had a love / hate relationship with Science. There were monks who were scientists - such as Gregor Mendel.

But equally, there is the persecution of those like Gallileo.
cyberman

Actually, when Lynne said

"Water on mars or anywhere else has nothing to do with if God exists."

she was absolutely correct.
IvyOwl

SceptiKarl wrote:
I'm trying to understand why anyone tries to have a comverstion with Lynne. She's completely incoherent, and she has goalposts, not just that are moved, but which are virtual, - popping in and out of existence every few nano seconds!


That's a good description of a post from Lynne. I used to try to unravel them but never suceeded.

Lexi leant over backwards to be fair to her (in fact even showing some favourtism ..... well she deleted one of my posts in response to her which I considered mild to what she had posted to me!). If Sassy hadn't overstepped a mark she'd still be here.

I suspect that in real life she's kind hearted and caring but probably just as verbose.

IvyOwl
cyberman

SceptiKarl wrote:
I'm trying to understand why anyone tries to have a comverstion with Lynne. She's completely incoherent, and she has goalposts, not just that are moved, but which are virtual, - popping in and out of existence every few nano seconds!


Considering your frantic dodging and diving to avoid a question on another thread, I am open-mouthed at your double standards, Karl. Incredible.
SceptiKarl

cyberman:

Quote:
Considering your frantic dodging and diving to avoid a question on another thread, I am open-mouthed at your double standards, Karl. Incredible.


If you are referring to the question about taxation, and Jesus' attitude, you will find that I have answered your question. The fact that you don't like my answer is your problem. (Pope Infallible thread on Christian Chat, for those who don't know). Typical that cyberman picks a thread on another topic and leaves a slur about me there!

As for "dodging and diving", well that's just not true. Now what was that Commandment...?

If I don't respond to cyberman's posts immediately, he thinks I'm dodging him. However as I visit this site about 2- 3 times week, I do my best to keep up with the responses. Some of us have better things to do than find fault with other posters. Their ideas are fair game however! I believe cyberman's defence of his belief in the supernatural, consists of attacking the personalities of those that don't agree with him.

As for the evidence of the existence of the Almighty Jesus, well now that's something else entirely! Far better to attack SceptiKarl, or Dawkins or Hitchens or anyone else who has a bad word to say about the darling mother church, the RCC!

I think "sniping" is the tactic of choice for Samuel Vimes and cyberman. They both know that the threat of hell means nothing to people like me.

As for "double standards", perhaps cyberman can advise me whether "an eye for an eye" is  better or worse than turning "the other cheek"?
cyberman

SceptiKarl wrote:

As for "double standards", perhaps cyberman can advise me whether "an eye for an eye" is  better or worse than turning "the other cheek"?


Jesus was explicitly against "an eye for an eye" and was explicitly in favour of "turn the other cheek".

Why do you think this represents double standards?

(Now, will he answer the question - or will he go off on a tangent and then claim to have answered it....?)
SceptiKarl

cyberman:

Quote:
Jesus was explicitly against "an eye for an eye" and was explicitly in favour of "turn the other cheek".

Why do you think this represents double standards?


Because one part of your holy book tells me one thing and another tells me something else!  I would have thought that the inerrant word of God would have been unambiguous, but apparently not. Cherry picking time again.

So here's my cherry. Jesus threatens me, and my like with the "lake of fire" for the mere act of not believing in HIM.

cyberman, is it just, that I should be boiled for eternity for not believing in HIM?

Plain answer, no messing about with evasions! Please put your specs on if necessary to see the keyboard!

(Please don't give some pissquick answer like "I don't believe in hell", because the RCC certainly does).

Should I be boiled for eternity?
SceptiKarl

cyberman:

Quote:
(Now, will he answer the question - or will he go off on a tangent and then claim to have answered it....?)


No tangent mate!

Your RCC kept the secrets of the Bible hidden from its "faithful" as long as it possibly could. For about 1000 years! Unfortunately for the RCC, advances in real knowledge and technology asserted themselves and the RCC has been back pedalling ever since, - dare I mention Galileo?

Oh dear, poor Galileo, - it onlty took the RCC some 300 odd years, and quite a few popes to admit that they had got it wrong! There were really sunspots, and the Earth really did orbit the sun. Such an admission to make! And it only took until the 1990s! The current Pope, Holy Joe, thinks that Galileo was treated justly!

Well I think otherwise.
The Boyg

SceptiKarl wrote:
Jesus threatens me, and my like with the "lake of fire" for the mere act of not believing in HIM.


When and where did Jesus threaten you Karl?
cyberman

SceptiKarl wrote:

cyberman, is it just, that I should be boiled for eternity for not believing in HIM?

Plain answer, no messing about with evasions! Please put your specs on if necessary to see the keyboard!

(Please don't give some pissquick answer like "I don't believe in hell", because the RCC certainly does).

Should I be boiled for eternity?


No you shouldn't.

What the fuck does pissquick mean?

I am not the one who evades answering questions, Karl - that is you.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum