Telling lies for God

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:42 pm

First topic message reminder :

Creationism and ID, how much of this idiocy is simple delusion, and how much is outright mendacity? The more I have read the ravings of creationists the more I am inclined to doubt that they sincerely believe everything they are claiming. I mean that some of it is so obviously and ludicrously false, and requires denial of so many facts and so much evidence that I suspect they are deliberately lying. Further, I suspect they genuinely believe that a lie to help proselytise their chosen deity is regarded as a "good lie", and therefore not really a lie at all, but just a pragmatic approach to "fighting the good fight".

A little blunt sometimes, but this punchy article raises some interesting points about theistic debates, and the ludicrous old chestnut that "all beliefs ought to be respected". I have always maintained that what should be respected is the right to believe, not the belief itself, which in any intelligent rational society must surely be judged on the merits of its claims and evidence. Here's a taster, and a link....

"The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's bullshit!"

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

How many egregiously dishonest acts, and duplicities have theists and established religions justified in this fashion throughout human history I wonder? After all, in the pursuit of truth a lie is about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:45 am

It seems Polyglide's "library" is a secure facility. Or perhaps he'd neither read nor understood the post before his? The testimony of a peer reviewed scientist explaining why his claims are execrable nonsense, yet he repeated them anyway, and right after I'd posted it. Hilarious.......

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:58 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You should be well aware that the manner I look at evolution is from the source of life.

Many times I have stated that evolution takes place when circumstances change and not by natural selection but by unnatural selection.

A hammer may be necessary to hammer home that which is written rather than what you think is inferred

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:47 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You should be well aware that the manner I look at evolution is from the source of life.

Many times I have stated that evolution takes place when circumstances change and not by natural selection but by unnatural selection.

A hammer may be necessary to hammer home that which is written rather than what you think is inferred

You haven't even the most basic grasp of either evolution or the scientific process. That's been obvious to everyone from the start. However your claim was that there was evidence against evolution.

You seem unable and/or unwilling to understand what the consequences of this would be. Even though I've spelled it out again and again.

How you view it is no more relevant to it's validity as a scientific fact than how you personally feel calculus or relativity should be interpreted.

PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
FALSIFICATION
TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS
EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE EVIDENCE.
NOBEL PRIZE WINNING WORK

this all means nothing to you, which is why you don't understand how hilariously stupid your claims are.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:50 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You should be well aware that the manner I look at evolution is from the source of life.

Many times I have stated that evolution takes place when circumstances change and not by natural selection but by unnatural selection.

A hammer may be necessary to hammer home that which is written rather than what you think is inferred

So what you're claiming is evidence is not peer reviewed, and therefore not scientific evidence at all then.

Well quelle surprise.

by polyglide Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:21 am

Dr, Sheldon,
I would honestly prefer to discuss any matter in a way that does not include attempting to ridicule.

I have no objection to a scientifically established fact when it has been subjected to null hypotheses.

However, most that meet that criteria do not make any difference to how I feel regarding the origin of life and all the laws of nature etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:05 pm

You're the one who constantly uses ad hominem, not me. I focus any ridicule on the discussion itself, if it's warranted.

You claimed there was evidence that contradicted evolution in favour of creation. What you prefer is irrelevant, either such evidence exists or not.

If it existed you'd be able to cite the peer reviewed journals it was published in. You'd be able to name the scientists who'd discovered it and received the Nobel prize.

It would be the biggest news story, well.... ever.

Now can you do any of that?

Of course you can't as your claim is referring to creationist pseudo science and propaganda. There is no scientific evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution by natural selection. It's either wishful thinking or rank dishonesty on the part of the creationist lobby.

by polyglide Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:35 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You miss the point again.

I have bred animals for over 70 years, I have selective bred for certain qualities, including colour and structure etc;

There is no problem in doing so.

Darwin is correct to the extent that if matters change in an animals habitat than the animal has to adapt.

If that is evolution fine.

The latest of Darwins theory was a bird that had a soft beak among those that had a variety of beaks from soft to hard could no longer crack the nuts on which they fed and the birds that followed all had hard beaks.

Of course they did, just as if food became scarce and only the fastest could get there in time to eat, the slowest would die out, that is not a theory it is common sense, as is all Darwin's theories.

You still have not given me the eight backward stages of the butterflies life which confirms it evolved from something else.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:54 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You miss the point again.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No I haven't, you just don't understand evolution, the scientific process, or what constitutes scientific evidence, this is not my fault of course, but hardly surprising as you have already claimed to be 100% certain that you're right.

I have bred animals for over 70 years, I have selective bred for certain qualities, including colour and structure etc; There is no problem in doing so. Darwin is correct to the extent that if matters change in an animals habitat than the animal has to adapt. If that is evolution fine.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Evolution if you understood even the most basic facts about it, occurs over vast time-scales, your lifetime is not long enough for the changes you're describing to occur. This is very basic stuff, did you not know this?

The latest of Darwins theory was a bird that had a soft beak among those that had a variety of beaks from soft to hard could no longer crack the nuts on which they fed and the birds that followed all had hard beaks. Of course they did, just as if food became scarce and only the fastest could get there in time to eat, the slowest would die out, that is not a theory it is common sense, as is all Darwin's theories.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I can never tell if you're being serious.What is it you're claiming here?

You still have not given me the eight backward stages of the butterflies life which confirms it evolved from something else.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I and several others have answered this numerous times, and offered the best works in this scientific field for you to educate yourself. So I'm not answering this again, every time you repeat it all you do is show how utterly dishonest and clueless you are.

1. Show just one peer reviewed piece of evidence for your claims?
2. Explain why if your claims falsify Darwinian evolution by natural section you haven't won a Nobel prize?
3. Explain after answering 2 why the entire scientific world is unaware of your paradigm shifting discovery?
4. Explain why even the Christian churches have had to acknowledge what you claim isn't true?

The answer is your making bizarre subjective assumptions that any evolutionary scientist or biologist would laugh at.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:20 pm

I think summing up the lack of intellectual curiosity we so regularly see displayed on here and elsewhere by the faithful, is best left to St Augustine's view from the fourth century, and it prevailed for a long time.

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn "

It seems from his posts polyglide is an ardent student of Augustine's blinkered dogma.

"

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:33 pm

Perhaps it would be edifying to take a look at what such scientific curiosity has brought us, to better understand the entrenched blinkered dogmatic opposition Polyglide's posts so amply display.

"Among other things we have learned that our planet is a minute speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense (polyglide take note), sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical test, are often cruelly falsified."

Stephen Pinker

by stuart torr Thu Apr 16, 2015 9:07 pm

Polyglide why do you want the stages of the butterfly backwards? it is just as easy to have them normally and read them backwards is it not? one presumes you have them in front of you so you can disagree have you not?
Egg, caterpillar, 1st instar then2nd 3rd 4th 5th ones,then pupa,then butterfly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:20 am

It's another piece of creationist propaganda, the now well known almost clichéd but totally spurious argument of irreducible complexity.

It's been answered more than once by more than one poster. Poly however doesn't like scientific facts, preferring the 100% certainty his faith in bronze age superstition gives him. He also doesn't understand the rigorous methods that science employs or what this means when not one shred evidence for creationism has ever been peer reviewed.

He doesn't want to understand it either.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:34 am

Polyglide's stocking up his loyalty points for a guaranteed entrance into the heavenly kingdom.

What is polyglide's vision of heaven? What will he do there ad nauseum for eternity, I wonder. I'd really like to know what the christian vision of heaven is, what does it look like, who will be there, are there animals, what is your purpose there?

by polyglide Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:24 am

snowyflake,
I do not believe heaven to be anything other than the earth as God originally intended it to be.

I can visualise nothing better than the whole land mass being reunited and transformed into a paradise of both plant and animal life.

As dipicted in the Garden of Eden.

I am well aware of all the contradictions to this, the actual make up of the earth the possibility of it running out of time in respect of it's make up etc;

Then you have to consider that if God created the earth he can also ensure it's continuation and change it into what was intended and all that that entails etc;.

by polyglide Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:34 am

snowyflake,
First of all you have to decide for yourself the source of life in all it's forms.

If you log on to the means of calculating odds you will find that those relative to evolution playing any part in the creation of life, are not only many thousands times greater than those accepted by those who understand the working out of odds as impossible but beyond comprehension.

So you do not have to calculate any odds regarding a creator because that is the only alternative to a disproved theory that is not only accepted as improbable but impossible.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:49 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
First of all you have to decide for yourself the source of life in all it's forms.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you're suggesting everyone just pick any explanation they fancy regardless of whether they can evidence it or not, that's ridiculous.

If you log on to the means of calculating odds you will find that those relative to evolution playing any part in the creation of life, are not only many thousands times greater than those accepted by those who understand the working out of odds as impossible but beyond comprehension.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Evolution has never made any claims about the origins of life. So the statistics you're making up, without actually evidencing them of course, are as pointless as they are erroneous. Still it's always hilarious to see you start with an un-evidenced claim about the odds for something, only for you to end by stating they can't be calculated. The stupidity of making a claim based on un-evidenced odds you admit you can't even calculate is possibly beyond calculating though?

Still I'm prepared to give you a chance to produce the calculations, and reference the person who produced them, so we can all laugh heartily at someone wasting their calculating the odds for something that no one has ever claimed happened, since not one person has ever claimed evolution caused life to originate on this planet.

So you do not have to calculate any odds regarding a creator because that is the only alternative to a disproved theory that is not only accepted as improbable but impossible.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It certainly does not have to be limited to two explanations, but you've not offered any since evolution was never offered as explanation for the origins of life as you've been told numerous times, and goddidit offers no explanation that can be evidenced beyond the bare claim itself. Anyway since you've previously denied that evolution is disproved but are now claiming yet again that evolution is disproved? Could you please:

1. Name the person(s) who falsified it?
2. Explain why they haven't received their Nobel prize?
3. Explain why the world of science is unaware of this massive paradigm altering news?
4. Explain why it's not been mentioned, anywhere, and would of course be world news, catapulting the person responsible to massive fame at least as big as Darwin himself?
5. And lastly link the peer reviewed publication that carried the evidence for all this?

I'm guessing my questions will be met with the usual deafening silence, or some oblique reference to me not understanding something which you never actually get around to defining, whilst an equally vague reference is made to "scientists" on the internet who don't believe in evolution, again without a single reference or piece of evidence. Your post is an utter joke man, for goodness sake let it be, you're making yourself appear a complete idiot.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:59 pm

Whilst we know through scientific research etc Sheldon, believers will not take a look at this kind of material will they, only to scotch it i'm afraid, so it is like banging ones head against a brick wall is it not?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:34 pm

stuart torr wrote:Whilst we know through scientific research etc Sheldon, believers will not take a look at this kind of material will they, only to scotch it i'm afraid, so it is like banging ones head against a brick wall is it not?

There are theists who are scientifically literate stu, and they'd be horrified at the stupidity of most polyglide's comments. Though how they square their beliefs with scientific facts about the universe and evolution I don't know, but they at least don't deal in bare faced lies about evolution in the manner the creationist lobby do.

by stuart torr Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:39 pm

Well Sheldon, polyglide is only interested in the man in the sky, not the men with the knowledge like the scientists.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:32 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
stuart torr wrote:Whilst we know through scientific research etc Sheldon, believers will not take a look at this kind of material will they, only to scotch it i'm afraid, so it is like banging ones head against a brick wall is it not?

There are theists who are scientifically literate stu, and they'd be horrified at the stupidity of most polyglide's comments. Though how they square their beliefs with scientific facts about the universe and evolution I don't know, but they at least don't deal in bare faced lies about evolution in the manner the creationist lobby do.

It's been my experience that those scientists who believe in god do not overlap their beliefs with their scientific knowledge. I think on some level they know what they believe is rubbish but there is some kind of comfort they get from it. I work with scientists and during my career I've met 4 or 5 Christians and I work with many muslims who are devout. They keep the 2 ideas separate. I think a lot of it has to do with tradition, family acceptance and the idea that it makes them good people.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:03 pm

snowyflake wrote:

It's been my experience that those scientists who believe in god do not overlap their beliefs with their scientific knowledge. I think on some level they know what they believe is rubbish but there is some kind of comfort they get from it. I work with scientists and during my career I've met 4 or 5 Christians and I work with many muslims who are devout. They keep the 2 ideas separate. I think a lot of it has to do with tradition, family acceptance and the idea that it makes them good people.

Cultural norms and families can produce an awful lot of pressure both directly and indirectly on people to conform to certain ideas. Religion is all pervasive of course staring it's indoctrination as it does from the cradle. You enter the world in a religious ceremony without any choice and leave it in much the same way. Very few people choose a secular funeral, even if they aren't theists. I have asked my wife to honour my wishes and make sure that there is no religious aspect to my own funeral whatsoever, hopefully she'll honour my wishes.

I'd imagine any scientist worthy of the name would have to modify their beliefs were scientific evidence made it necessary, as anyone who did the opposite could hardly be called a scientist.

by stuart torr Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:21 pm

I have left instructions exactly the same Sheldon, if there is anyone religious at my funeral I would jump out of my box and give them all a right rocket for not following my orders. Laughing

by snowyflake Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:52 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
First of all you have to decide for yourself the source of life in all it's forms.

If you log on to the means of calculating odds you will find that those relative to evolution playing any part in the creation of life, are not only many thousands times greater than those accepted by those who understand the working out of odds as impossible but beyond comprehension.

So you do not have to calculate any odds regarding a creator because that is the only alternative to a disproved theory that is not only accepted as improbable but impossible.

The source of life is unknown. We don't know what sparked life on earth or anywhere else in the universe. Your obsession with calculating the odds of it happening is a false conception. Even in the lottery, someone wins. We just happened to have the winning ticket. Making up a creator to satisfy you and to justify your beliefs is illogical especially in the absence of any evidence for said creator. And no matter what you say about it, it will always boil down to who created the creator. If everything has a cause and that cause is the creator, then that's the next logical question.

by stuart torr Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:01 pm

Hello snowyflake, hope you are well, a very fine question you ask, "who created the creator" and there is really only one simple answer to that is there not? mankind? in the writing of the 90% fictional book called the Bible.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:52 pm

Hi stu. How are you doing since your mum passed away? My husband's mum died the Wednesday after EAster very suddenly and unexpectedly and we are both trying to come to terms with this. She was a good mum to her kids and she was my friend. I will miss her. We are now the proud companions to her two cocker spaniels. One is deaf and one is blind but we seem to be ok together. We haven't left them on their own yet and the deaf one barks the house down when she is left alone. The funeral isn't for weeks which just makes it harder I think. Things are still a bit raw and emotional as you can imagine.

Polyglide needs to live THIS life instead of worrying about the non-existent next life. He's wasting precious time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:58 pm

snowyflake wrote:

The source of life is unknown. We don't know what sparked life on earth or anywhere else in the universe. Your obsession with calculating the odds of it happening is a false conception. Even in the lottery, someone wins. We just happened to have the winning ticket. Making up a creator to satisfy you and to justify your beliefs is illogical especially in the absence of any evidence for said creator. And no matter what you say about it, it will always boil down to who created the creator. If everything has a cause and that cause is the creator, then that's the next logical question.

I believe I explained the lottery winner fallacy to poly already, more than once. I even linked a couple of textbook definitions for him, but of course he ignored these, never even acknowledged them, just rolled on with his proselytising.

Anyway just for polyglide to ignore them again here is a link that offers a cogent and thorough definition of his fallacious reasoning here. I look forward to yet another rendition of "you don't understand" from polyglide.

This one is perfect and could have been written with polyglide in mind.

https://viewfromreality.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/statistically-speaking-the-lottery-fallacy/

Here's a little snippet:

"THE SUPERSTITIOUS MAMMAL
The religious and superstitious impulses thrive in conditions where we encounter something we can’t fathom – something so improbable it seemingly defies reason. This is where statistical fallacies begin. There are two flavours: fallacies arising from improbable events taking place; and statistics of small numbers.

An example of the first one often trotted out by religious apologists is that conditions are too perfect to have been created by chance. Therefore there must have been an intelligent force that created these conditions for us."

by stuart torr Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:10 pm

Sorry to hear the bad news snowyflake, i'm afraid it will stay raw for a while especially until the funeral is dealt with. At the moment I am trying to be big strong brother for my younger sisters, as they seem to talk to me more than my elder sister, which will seem strange to some but my elder sister treats them almost like children and she is trying to take my mum's role, and I think that is the reason why.
You are very right about polyglide i'm afraid.
Things will ease after the funeral love and life starts to take it's normal routine again, with tears here and there when reminders come in.

by polyglide Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:07 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Without any trouble whatsoever I could write your replies because they are all groundless rubish.

I have read most of the points raised against the scientifically calculated odds and all they do is say it's rubbish with nothing to back their opinion and that is all it is an opinion that you could relate to anything with no hypothesis to back it up.

As I have said countless times, evolution takes place through unnatural occurances when conditions change, it never ever has produced a new species with a different DNA.

This should be no suprise taking into account how man has ruined most of what God intended.

What on earth a lottery using double figures has to do with odds that you need several volumes to show how impossible they are, is so stupid that even you should find it acceptable as the rantings of an infant.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:32 pm

Polyglide??? one answer you have not yet given, and that is who created the creator, and that could go on forever could it not?

by polyglide Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:56 pm

Hi, Stu,
Hope you are OK.

Yes, I am afraid you are correct.

It does puzzle me at times but if you think in human terms we can only come to human conclusions.

There is no doubt that all things must have come from somewhere, things do not just materialise.

Forget about God and religion and just consider that which we do know.

We know that all things, [if we are right of course which may appear a contradiction] are made from energy, so if that is so, somehow the energy has been transformed into all matter etc;

The likelyhood of this comming about by chance and resulting in the universe in general and the earth in particular appears to me unrealistic to say the least.

The odds say that it is impossible and the circumstances would confim this to be true.

So we come to the million dollar questions which are all I am realy concerned about as everything else is of no real consequence to me regarding this matter.

How and why.

If we accept that their is a creator then it is obvious from the extent of the known universe [ which we do not actually know] that the earth and mankind is not the be all and end all.

So there must be an overall reason for all things.

Do not ask me what because I have no idea.

What is obvious to anyone who is interested is that things are still in progress, the universe is still being formed the ultimate end unknown, as is the beggining.

So, Stu, think about it and if you can come up with some answers I will be delighted.

I believe what the Bible indicates regarding the earth and mankind.

.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:04 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Without any trouble whatsoever I could write your replies because they are all groundless rubish.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I totally agree, your replies are generally groundless rubbish, when you bother to reply at all.

I have read most of the points raised against the scientifically calculated odds and all they do is say it's rubbish with nothing to back their opinion and that is all it is an opinion that you could relate to anything with no hypothesis to back it up.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If it were scientifically and mathematically valid then Darwinian evolution would have been falsified, as you've told repeatedly.

1 Has that happened?
2. Who falsified it?
3. When did they get the Nobel prize?
4. Why has this news gone unnoticed?
5. why do you keep rehashing this lie and ignoring these facts?

As I have said countless times, evolution takes place through unnatural occurances when conditions change, it never ever has produced a new species with a different DNA.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You can say anything that doesn't make it scientifically valid. If it were then...

Darwinian evolution would have been falsified, as you've told repeatedly.

1 Has that happened?
2. Who falsified it?
3. When did they get the Nobel prize?
4. Why has this news gone unnoticed?
5. why do you keep rehashing this lie and ignoring these facts?

**(Hitchen's razor used to remove a completely unevidenced claim and save bandwidth)**

What on earth a lottery using double figures has to do with odds that you need several volumes to show how impossible they are, is so stupid that even you should find it acceptable as the rantings of an infant.
You've not shown any odds, not once, in fact you have said each time that they quote "can't be calculated". Now making a claim about odds you can't calculate is most definitely the stupid rantings of an infant. The lottery is relevant as it is a simple analogy to try and make you understand that longs odds don't negate something happening, all you need is enough time and repetition and random events produce extreme complexity, unfortunately it's clear you haven't the intellect to understand even this simple analogy. Not to worry others will have read it an understood it's signofocance.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:08 pm

There is no scientific evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution, or else it would have been falsified. So Poly's claims are demonstrably false, and even he must know this by now?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:28 pm

polyglide wrote: Yes, I am afraid you are correct. It does puzzle me at times but if you think in human terms we can only come to human conclusions.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:We're human so what terms are you suggesting we think in if not human terms? the fact is you claimed everything that existed must have been created, and I had repeatedly asked you why this didn't apply to your deity, you have ignored this up until now, and now you do respond you offer no explanation and no evidence, just a bit of theological head shaking and shoulder shrugging. The point is either you are wrong about everything that exists being created, or your god was created, in which case you should logically be worshipping what created it, but then have no more evidence for that you do for your god beyond your bombastic claim which created the paradox in the first place.

There is no doubt that all things must have come from somewhere, things do not just materialise.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:They do according to your bible, all the time.

Forget about God and religion and just consider that which we do know. We know that all things, [if we are right of course which may appear a contradiction] are made from energy, so if that is so, somehow the energy has been transformed into all matter etc; The likelyhood of this comming about by chance and resulting in the universe in general and the earth in particular appears to me unrealistic to say the least.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Slightly more likely than it being created by magic at the hands of a bronze age superstition I'd say. For which no one has managed to produced any compelling empirical evidence, EVER.

The odds say that it is impossible
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No they don't Hicthen's razor - slash)

and the circumstances would confim this to be true.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No they don't Hitchen's razor - slash.

If we accept that their is a creator
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's neither evidence nor argument, why would accept something for which there is no evidence, and in what way does this assumption represent evidence itself?

then it is obvious from the extent of the known universe [ which we do not actually know]
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: Oh dear, if you're referring to it as "the known universe" that would suggest it is known.

that the earth and mankind is not the be all and end all.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Only your religion and other religions have suggested that the eartha dn humans are the main purpose of the universe, just take a read of the biblical genesis myth

So there must be an overall reason for all things.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No there mustn't, Hitchen's razor - slash.

Do not ask me what because I have no idea. What is obvious to anyone who is interested is that things are still in progress, the universe is still being formed the ultimate end unknown, as is the beggining.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Obvious? If you mean scientific hypothesis exist to explain the origins of the universe, and has produced evidence that suggests it is expanding from it's original point of origin then yes. We don't need assumption, or region, nor is any of it obvious.

So, Stu, think about it and if you can come up with some answers I will be delighted.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No you won't, you'll only be delighted if those answers when science produces them don't utterly refute your religious beliefs as it has done many times before.

I believe what the Bible indicates regarding the earth and mankind.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you are not remotely interested in answers then, quite obviously, as you here show that you already believe you have them.

.

by stuart torr Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:11 pm

Hi Sheldon.
Well polyglide at least answered the question to myself did he not?
The one thing is that he has already ignored science regarding the beginning of the universe which we do know, alas the ending will not be found out until we are long dead and gone from Earth,just either rotting in it or cremated.
At least Polyglide admitted that he had no idea did he not? just the fact that he will carry on believing the bible what it says regarding the earth and mankind? which has been proved false so many times by science has it not?

by stuart torr Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:21 pm

Polyglide I do hope that you are well.
But I am afraid that you seem more than mixed regarding one the universe and it's beginning and what the bible says regarding Earth and mankind.
It is true we do not know where the universe ends? and will not until we are dead and gone. We will have to give man many more years to either travel further in space or science to come up with more answers.
Yet you believe what the Bible says regarding mankind and Earth? Why?
The bible has been proven wrong on so many occasions regarding these facts yet you still believe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:26 am

The problem is stu that polyglide is constantly contradicting himself, and never acknowledges it when you point it out. If pressed for a response he sometimes does, but inevitably it's another unevidenced claim often involving another contradiction.

That unfortunately is the nature of self delusion in a belief system that has no tangible evidence to support and where all the empirical evidence indicates it's claims are wrong.

He claimed categorically that everything that exists must have been created. He merely scoffed at my request for evidence. Then when I pointed out his claim would mean his own deity must have been created his reticence was defeaning.

So if he now tries to claim an exception without any real evidence, to an absolute rule he previously claimed had no exception, all without any real evidence of course, then that indicates a very befuddled and logically inconsistent if not downright dishonest thought process.

Then again anyone who can convince themselves that a logical argument can be presented for limiting the choices of a being with both omniscience and omnipotence can clearly believe anything no matter how absurd.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 10:30 am

We could also point out Polyglide's logical inconsistency in presenting the genesis creation myth as true in the same thread he acknowledges that energy cannot be created. It seems the irony here is lost on him again.

by polyglide Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:27 am

Hi, Stu.

We do not know how the universe started.

The latest theory being the Big Bang theory and that is exactly what it is a theory.

I listened to the latest explanation which I have stated previously and it went exactly like this and from the latest thinking.

There was a great inflation [ there is no indication of what inflated] then there was a Big Bang which took millionths of a descond to take place and the universe started from that point.

The scientist also said no one had any idea what went Bang nor what went before it.

Yesterday I listened to a lecture on science and the scientist said that that the majority of scientists used unatural means to attempt to substanciate their theories.

He also said that scientists in the process had also created many monsters, some that threaten the whole of mankind.

He explained the processes used in the use of DNA, I was more interested in what DNA is.

When he went through the whole make up it was more than obvious that there was no way whatsoever that this could have come about by chance.

Just think about the implications that would be necessary for even just DNA to have evolved and then how on earth did it attach its self to all life forms etc;

Look DNA up, consider the make up and decide for yourself if you feel this could come about by chance.

I am perfectly willing to discuss anything in a proper manner with you Stu, you ask, I will ask and we go from there.

I will not reply to Dr, Sheldon again, anyone interested can consider what we debate on this matter.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:22 pm

polyglide.

These are spurious arguments assumptions and logical fallacies you've made multiple times before and have been shown to be so.

Your dishonest and frankly stupid insistence that a scientific theory is the just a theory and not supported by testable empiracle evidence. This one is still hilarious as you seem happy to repeat your folly ad nausea so who am I to stand in your way.

You rehash your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by suggesting that not knowing something can be used to base an unevidenced asumption on.

Your woeful ignorance of the BBT is again on display. I'm not sure why.

You have also rehashed your made up stats. Again no research is quoted or peer reviewed work linked or cited. Oh dear.....

And then there's your favourite lie that the BBT claims life started purelt by chance. Another gem.

You're happy also to re-use the lottery winner fallacy.

It's just a collection of every spurious clichéd piece of empty rhetoric that's been exposed a myriad times before. It seems you think ignoring every response represents expert debating skills.

Dear oh dear.

You never did respond when I asked what created your deity? You did claim after all that everything that exists MUST have been created, your words.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:27 pm

Polyglide wrote: Look DNA up, consider the make up and decide for yourself if you feel this could come about by chance.

It didn't come about entirely by chance. You've been told this repeatedly.

Evolution is a step by step process that unfolds over vast timescales.

Why didn't your god mention DNA in its account of creation btw? Odd to not mention it at all in favour of nonsensical claims about human being conjured from clay.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:34 pm

Polyglide wrote: I will not reply to Dr, Sheldon again, anyone interested can consider what we debate on this matter.

it seems you realised your obvious error in claiming everything that exists must have been created. Now you don't have the integrity to admit it and prefer to sulk.

What created your deity polyglide and how did it create it?

by Sponsored content