Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by magnifier661, Jan 25, 2012.

Moderators: 7

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
  7. Strenuus
Page 52 of 54
  1. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    No because even if I used the latest evolved simplest mole; it would be 400 components. Way less than 100.

    I am going with the latest theory on Abiogenesis; which is a 60 component mole. This isn't even 1 with the DNA programed to activate life either. That's an entirely different improbability.

    But yeah get back to work buddy. I got things to do as well. Thanks for another great debate.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1021
  2. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,275
    Likes Received:
    43,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to play devil's advocate--the video mentioned the odds of XY as 50%, the odds of XYZ as 16%, etc. But what about the possibility of natural attraction increasing the odds?

    For instance, what if components X & Y are naturally (randomly) predisposed to combine in an XY formation, such that the odds of that combination are 99% rather than 50%; and they the XY combination has a natural tendency to add component Z at the end, such that the odds of XYZ are 98% rather than 16%.

    Is it possible that the combination probabilities are improved by chemical attractions which naturally lead to the combinations that lead to life?
     
    PtldPlatypus, Feb 2, 2012
    #1022
  3. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Absolutely, and you make a great point. But it also can increase the odds as well. For example: The chemical attraction to Hydrogen to Oxygen is great; but H2O is not a free radical; but OH is a free radical. H and O are free-radicals as well. So H2O, by itself isn't as random. But let's say you have 10 components of water (h2o) and some amazing thing happened and the molecules were separated. There would be literally thousands of different combinations; especially in the presence of energy and other atomic components.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1023
  4. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Wanted to brign up another Nobel Prize winner of Chemistry - Richard Smalley

    His exact quotes:

    But hey; if you think Nobel Prize Winners are a joke; then be my guest...
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1024
  5. RR7

    RR7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    18,358
    Likes Received:
    12,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another nice strawman there. If anyone disagrees with his position, they're in no way discrediting the work he did as a chemist, or saying as a chemist he is a joke, but you've created that odd strawman of if you disagree with creationism, then you think nobel prize winners are a joke.
     
    RR7, Feb 2, 2012
    #1025
  6. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Naw, that isn't the point RR7. The fact that many in here believe that creationists; can't work in the field of science; or that people believing in God are delusional. Obviously there are many in this world that aren't delusional and believe in God.

    And remember his quote about reading "Who is Adam?", then using his chemist background made him change his mind.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1026
  7. RR7

    RR7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    18,358
    Likes Received:
    12,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody in here has said creationists can't work in the field of science. There have been many listed. Where do you come up with this? Nobody is saying you are delusional for your belief. Just that many of us have a different belief. And you're the one calling us delusional. If I run quotes from atheist nobel prize winners, does that mean you think they're a joke? You seem to evolve your argument around things you are making up. Yep, there are creationists that are scientists. Brilliant minds. Good for them.
     
    RR7, Feb 2, 2012
    #1027
  8. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Would you like me to quote some that did? You can read through "philosophical question". You can see it there.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1028
  9. crowTrobot

    crowTrobot die comcast

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,597
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63

    ask denny about al gore : )

    smalley's comments are absolutely a joke. nobel prizes for chemistry are not awards for objective rational thinking about religious subjects.
     
    crowTrobot, Feb 2, 2012
    #1029
  10. RR7

    RR7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    18,358
    Likes Received:
    12,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sure, maybe I missed it. I don't feel that's been anyone's contention, but i guess i could have been wrong.
     
    RR7, Feb 2, 2012
    #1030
  11. crowTrobot

    crowTrobot die comcast

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,597
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63

    you'll only find comments about YEC's, which smalley is not, so don't waste your time.
     
    crowTrobot, Feb 2, 2012
    #1031
  12. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Wow u are aware that chemistry is used in almost everything in science. Mathematics as well.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1032
  13. RR7

    RR7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    18,358
    Likes Received:
    12,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what does that have to do with what he said?
     
    RR7, Feb 2, 2012
    #1033
  14. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Seriously don't know?
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1034
  15. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Well from the current response you will know one of the people.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1035
  16. RR7

    RR7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    18,358
    Likes Received:
    12,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no clue. he said Smalley wasn't a YEC (young earth creationist, I believe), and you mentioned chemistry and math being involved in science. I don't know how that relates at all.
     
    RR7, Feb 2, 2012
    #1036
  17. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Ah I see what YEC stands for. Unfortunately that wasn't why the comment was stated in philosophical question. Had nothing to do with YEC. That's why I was confused.
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1037
  18. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,976
    Likes Received:
    10,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    When science gets politicized, it's bad news. That's subject of many other threads tho.
     
    Denny Crane, Feb 2, 2012
    #1038
  19. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    I got it crow. So I wasn't aware of the acronym of YEC. :D So you believe that "creationists" are in modern science then? Just no "Young Earth Creationists"?
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1039
  20. magnifier661

    magnifier661 B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    59,328
    Likes Received:
    5,588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Cracking fools in the skull
    Location:
    Lancaster, California
    Are we talking about his invention of the internet? :P
     
    magnifier661, Feb 2, 2012
    #1040
Page 52 of 54

Share This Page