Jump to content

Clodhopper

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    495

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Clodhopper

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    Mythos Ruler:

    Well, Yieul's explanation of logic is problematic, agreed, but only as has been interpreted in this thread.
    Not only is it problematic, but it is illogical.
    Logic iin and of itself is a human construct. It is simply a tool with which to understand the universe and the world around us. The fact that logic is "immaterial" means nothing in the same way as I could say, "the concept of time is immaterial."
    So... not only has logic only appeared in humans, but only 10,000 years ago? No no, you see, not only do you not have evidence that logic is only a human construct, but without logic, we have no Lwas of Mathematics, Science, or Physics! Thus proving that nothing of what is taught in evolution can be relied upon until humans arrive on the scene. And what's this? "The fact that logic is 'immaterial' ..." Atheists aren't allowed immaterial, Mythos.
    As if the answer to such an absurd out-of-left-field question had any bearing on the discussion. But, sure, I'll bite, but only if you answer the question first.
    This isn't a game, Mythos. We both know your only possible answer, and I also know the same problems with your answer, because it's the same as the last one given for logic. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Mithrandil:

    Although this does not have anything to do with your last post, it has to do with a religion: If Yiuel is agnostic, meaning he does not care if there is a God or not, what is he doing participating in this disscussion?

    EDIT:

    Good post Uppy! Rep up.

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Klaas:

    Clod, you're answering one part of a sentence while disregarding the rest they're writing.
    If you'll notice, I covered the most important issues (besides the origin of life; we already dealt with that). Evolution is not observed today, nor is the origin of life observed or proven, much less having evidence for it anyway.
    Science has many sources while religion only one: the Bible.

    This, Klaas, is a straw man fallacy. You are setting up a false scenario and then attacking it. You have not provided any decent defence for evolution, nor any decent attack on Creationism. You keep claiming that religion has only one source: the Bible, and yet I can tell you that many religions have their own holy book other than the Bible. This being said, I think that about covers it.

    Anyway this discussion ends here for me because we both have our opinion and will both stick to it.
    Don't tell me that you're basically saying, "No matter what you say I'll still believe what I want too."

    Eken:

    That's about the most progress I've seen this entire debate.
    No, Eken, that is very bad. It's not a reasonable argument.

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Yiuel:

    I cannot be entirely sure, as I cannot proove the inexistence of something. But I can be fairly sure because I can repeat this experience. When ever I join two objects, it never became a group of three objects. This is why I saked you my last question : If you know of such occurence, please tell me.

    I have not heard of such an occurrence, but, that does not stop it from occurring. :)
    Would probably be a great read to know how all of this happens.
    How all this happens... hmmm... I'm not sure anybody knows...
    Why the contrary of your belief is impossible?
    That's what we're discussing.
    That the Universe itself has no cause,
    It does, but only in Creationism.
    that it is the Creator's Creator that has no Creator.
    I believe you meant to say, "that it is the Creator who has no Creator." This being rearranged, I can say, once again, that it's not hard to believe.
    Ugly fact?
    Yep.
    My view on evolution is so broad? What do you mean? I have stated that to me, it was merely the "process in time in which life transforms through a number of processes (mutation and selection and variation thereof) leading to different kinds (whether phyloi, spiecies, communities)". Yet, it describes thousands (millions?, billions?) of situations and examples, from the appearance of the chordea kind to the distinction between two communities.
    Yep, it is. Every little change that occurs is, "evolution." Not only that, but I have noticed that none of your examples even suggest speciation.

    BTW, here's some more stuff to read: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a1.html

    Klaas:

    Well if that is so there's no point in doing this discussion anyway.
    Untruth! The fact is, that's not the only site you can get your info off of, and if you think it is, then that's not good. Plus, you need to ask why I would say something like that. The site is not a reliable source for scientific evidence. "Examples?" You might say? Here:

    1.

    Funny how there isn't any evidence for their claims.

    2.

    This is a biggie. There are only two models, but many variations of them!

    3.

    The problems this piece has are too many to account for. They say, "Science, science, science," and yet they ignore facts that are very important. On top of all that, I have some quotes from evolutionists that say evolution is a religion.

    4.

    Lets take this quote here:

    Evolution is not based on fragmentary fossils.

    I mean, please, people, what do the fossils of Lucy look like? Certainly not excellent.

    And this one:

    A tooth, for example, can show generally what kind of food an animal ate

    Do we know what giant fruit bats eat? Or pandas? Certainly not meat.

    5.

    All these "new species" still stay within their kind. If you will notice, the mosquitoes stay mosquitoes, all the birds stay birds, and all the mice stay mice. Just like I said. Not only that, but it is absurd to think that a new species of mosquito is a result of evolution, just as a new breed of dog is absurd to think of as a result of evolution.

    6.

    This is interesting... or is it just their misunderstandings of how the eye works? Probably the latter, I'd guess. You see, they fallaciously overlook the origin and complexity of the simplest light sensitive spot. Let’s take a look at a small part of what is necessary for it: When light strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II , the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-metahodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

    Also, a transparent layer is far harder to obtain than researchers think. The best explanation for the cornea’s transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesn’t vary over distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content. In fact, the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate “attenuation of photon intensity” to “shadow of a predator is responsible” to “I must take evasive measures,” and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value.

    7.

    They also tend to slip in to the "millions of years" thing. Where in the world do they get this?

    ---

    So there's a few. I don't have time to name more, and that's not the subject of this debate, anyway.

    Are there contradictions in the Bible?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Klaas:

    Well, why are you asking this? Are you trying to have a debate or is it rather like Mythos said?

    I'm asking this so you guys can list your cantradictions in the Bible, and (if I can), will clear them up. Mythos has no idea what I have to help me, or if I have anything to help me at all. Even if I did have help, what bearing does that have on this argument? After all, it's not cheating. Anyway, it's absurd to suggest that having help is not fair.

    Soldierofmany:

    An it also helps to read in context, as would help with the "who killed Saul" "contradiction", and to know the geography of the land (would help in the "how did Judas die" "contradiction.

    Mithrandil:

    (what's the english term?)

    Apostles.

    And, where are these two accounts found?

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Yiuel:

    This is what we would call the Matrix dilemma, or the "Brain in a machine". We don't know if our feelings are real or artificially induced. The only thing we know, is that we feel those things, whatever we feel. Is it real, is it fake? I came to answer that it could be both at the same time (my Universe Game). The only thing we have to know for such dilemma to be relevant is that if we have a reality beyond this reality. (In the Matrix, all people have a reality beyond their virtual reality. This might not be the case for us in this Universe.)

    If we do have a reality beyond this one, we can be said to be trapped and abused somehow. Or maybe we got sick and to save us, we were but in jars and continue to "live" in this reality. If we do not, yet that this Universe is a mere computation (a possibility), it is irrelevant to our existence, as our only existence is here, our unique reality.

    So for all you know, everything might be immaterial.

    One postulate of science is that elements (quarks and the combination thereof) did not change at all since the beginning of the Universe. If they don't change, then, if you but one kind of quark and another together, you'll always get the same result.

    The only two things that change are the distribution of matter and energy, and their relation.

    You are speaking about something of which you have no idea about. Quite frankly, why do you think that quarks don't change?

    Must I remind how much people all self-defined Christians have killed, especially among themselves, in the name or religion (Constantinopolos and the Crusades, The Reformation, Colonies, North Ireland)...
    Ah, it's the old "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy, eh? But anyway, although I'm not Catholic, that little sentence didn't answer the question, all it did is try to justify other "incedents."

    Klaas:

    (But this doesn't stop me to say that it is bad, to me and to the human kind...)
    Why is it bad? What is bad?
    So for us and those people who've been killed it's pure evil if Stalin killed 20,000 people (in fact it was several millions). For Stalin probably not.

    So why is it pure evil?

    Mithrandil:

    He didn't do it because he felt like it.
    And you know this... how? We can also go to Hitler, and Mao Tse-Tung.
    This site isn't only ridiculous (offcourse one can guess his so-said religion, there are arab markings next to him that would, even unnoticed, change your conclusion)
    That has no bearing on this disscussion.
    but it is also a hate-bearing site.
    What's wrong with hate?
    Oh, and when I said "you don't believe what's in the bible, do you?" I especially ment "You don't believe what's in Genesis, do you?" To the non-knowing, Genesis is the first book of the bible, and it tells about the creation of the world... by God.
    Ok, why shouldn't I believe Genisis?

    *Oh, by the way, you could try scrolling down the page for a list of terrorist attacks since 9/11. :)

    And again, someone please send a PM about how to solve this annoying QUOTE problem

    PM sent

    Atheism vs. Theism

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Everybody:

    Face it: this is a feeble hypothesis that falls apart in further study:

    1. You cannot prove that that is what logic is. You cannot even provide evidence.

    2. If you say that logic is just interaction between cells, everything might also be interaction between cells, (i.e. your house, car, whatever) thereby making everything immaterial. In fact, there might not even be any cells, or anything, but you might be just conciousness somewhere, maybe even nowhere.

    3. Plus, you’re telling me that in a billion years of evolution, there is no change in logic?

    Mithrandil:

    Good and Evil don't exist. It's so relative, that we should discard it. Good doesn't exist, since nowone ever is pure good, nowone will do everything good. Evil doesn't exist as well, because nowone will have joy in hurting other people. There's always an interest involved.

    Tell me: Is it bad if Stalin killed 20,000 of his own people?

    I don't believe that. Terrorists act because they believe in something, being that the regime that they try to terrorise is a wrong one, is destroying the world and especially their world. To them, their targets are evil.

    The Religion of Peace

    Yiuel:

    I really don’t think that there’s anything to say about this.

×
×
  • Create New...