66 replies to this topic

[Nekki Basara]

No you're not:

Klappspaten, on 16 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Evolution does not deal with the question how the universe came into existence. It doesn´t even deal with how live came into existence. It only deals with the way life changes (or evolves) over time.

See?

[Stormwolf]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

Okay mister I am always right. How did the Universe come from nothing. At some point all there was, was nothing. Explain... I am listening.

We don't know, there are theories, but we don't have anything solid on the subject. We don't claim to know everything like religion does ever so often.

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Dude. Why is it Theistic Evolution is such a big deal. It would make more sense and explain all the gaping holes like how bacteria popped into existence in the first place! I have no problem with excepting evolution. But I believe there is something more if it did happen.

You can't see the holes in religion in general?

[Klappspaten]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

Okay give me undeniable proof God didn't start Evolution. Even if evolution is true (oh how did the bacterias that became animals come into existence on a barren planet?) what started it and how did the universe start. If we can 'Observe' something that happened before our existence (which IMO automatically debunks anything because if you didn't see it, and observe it how can you tell me its true?), why can't we observe how the universe started?

Unless you show me a Monkey Evolve into a man (why don't apes keep evolving now. If evolution is true why is it that it doesn't continue its course and why is it that we haven't found even 9 of the 10000000000 missing links cause there would be a new species of Human-ape every 400 to 500 years?). The fact is you cannot disprove God which is why it is stupid to think the idea is completely impossible.

Anyways we are now violating COC and I am leaving. If you want to continue this PM me.

A omnipotent and omnipresent god like the christian god is per definition unprovable and unfalsifiable. And therefore of no interest for science. I really couldn´t care less if a god or anything else "started" the universe. We will never be able to either prove or disprove its existence. It will always remain a assumption, and I don´t care for assumptions.

[Nekki Basara]

You're still trying to change the point. Logically:

1: evolution is either true or is not true.
2: if evolution is NOT true then it is possible to prove it wrong.
3: if evolution IS true then it is NOT possible to prove it wrong.

IE:

Nekki Basara, on 16 April 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

^^^^
Don't be silly, if evolution is wrong it can be disproved. If it can't, then by definition it is right.

As to abiogenesis, if you're really interested I can link you to articles where we've managed to create self-replicating artificial RNA in lab conditions, thus proving that it is in fact possible. Obviously doesn't prove that it did happen that way, but it's certainly a thing that could be the case.

[Nekki Basara]

Uh.... "Light Particles" are known as Photons and have been experimentally verified. This is 100+ year old science. Did you not pay attention in school at all?

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

We cannot accurately tell how old this Earth is, we cannot accurately tell how old a star is. All we know is that we are here and there are 2 possibilities both not provable or disprovable- Creation and Evolution. I am willing to accept either one.

This is utterly wrong, as demonstrated above. Seriously, stop repeating the same thing and ignoring the logical proof that you are wrong which has been formulated TWICE to show how wrong you are.

Edited by Nekki Basara, 16 April 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[Klappspaten]

@ Marack: Just for the sake of the argument I am going to redirect your attention back to a few posts I did about just this topic adressed to nobody else but you. I adressed just the same topic in them as we have right here and I wont take the hours just to write another argument for you to ignore:

Klappspaten, on 28 March 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Dude, are you really going full creationism on us here?
Yes, yes, you wrote "intelligent design", but concerning astrophysics "intelligent design" and creationism are the same to me.
Okay, there is nothing that absolutely proves the Big Bang, but actually you can not proof anything beyond the last bit of doubt.
There is however, TONS of evidence supporting the Big Bang.

First of all, the big bang theory makes three assumptions:

• The universe is expanding.
  
• Yesterday, the universe was hotter than it is today.
  
• The universe had a beginning.

So lets look at these three assumtions, shall we?

• The expanding universe:
  
  Edwin Hubble, the man after whom the Hubble space telescope is named, discovered that the galaxies we can observe move away from us, with a few exeptions regarding very close galaxies. And that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away from us.
  He observed that the visible light that those galaxies emit had redshifted. Redshift, in layment words, means that the spectrum of light has changed and appears now more red than before. This happens because the red light, with wavelengs from 630 to 790nm, has more energy than the other colors i.e. light with lower wavelenghts. The farther away a galacy is, the more redshift can be observed.
  Furthermore we can assume the speed and distance in which galaxies travel by observing Type 1a Supernovas, which occur when a white dwarfs mass reaches and exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit. Since we pretty much know the mass and energy output of those supernovas we can use them to determine their distance to us, and the speed they travel at.
  It is rather complicated how it is done, basically they look at the apparent brightness of the light that reaches us, a light source that is further away seems to be dimmer than a lightsource of the same strenght that is close by. And they look at the time it takes the cycle of the supernova to be completed. The faster a Supernova moves away from us, the longer seems its cycle, because of the time dilation.
  
  Both are evidences that work seperately without each other, completely independent ways to determine distance and speed of a solar object, but both come to the exact same results. They are evidence for the Big Bang and they prove each other.
  Expanding objects with an exponentional correlation between distance and speed are a sign of an explosion.
  
• The cooling universe:
  
  This assumption is a bit more complicated that the one about the expansion and I cant quite explain it as well as the first one. I will still try it though.
  If you got a bicycle tire and you use a air pump to fill it with air, you are basically compressing air. The compression of the air generates heat, which you can feel at the vent and sometimes even at the air pump.
  If you now go ahead and release the air from the tire it expands and therefore cools of. Same goes for the universe.
  We know today, and I am sorry I can´t describe the way it is measured, that the average temperature of the universe is around 3° kelvin. But for a lot of the Elements that exist to emerge we need temperatures of over 3000° kelvin.
  So we can conclude that the universe is cooling, which is not only an characteristic of an explosion, but also another kind of evidence for the expanding universe.
  
• The beginning of the Universe:
  
  We know how old the universe is, its roughly 14 billion years old, from several lines of evidence. The easiest one is that we can not look further than about 14 billion light years, after that distance it seems as there would be nothing. But only because that light from further away hast had the time to reach us yet.
  Light travels one lightyear in a year, a million light years in a million years and 14 billion lightyears in 14 billion years. If a lightsource is 15 billion lightyears away the light it emmits will reach us in about a billion years, and before it is here, we cant see it.
  If you would go to a place on the edge of what we can see, you would be able to look further than that, but only the same 14 billion lightyears far.
  
  Additionally, often theists say that "something can not come from nothing" and think that scentence would be proof for a deity of any kind. If its ******, or Allah, or Krishna, or Zeus, or whatever you want to call your "creator" doesn´t matter.
  First up, the same scentence also counts for a deity, a god is something and therefore can not come from nothing.
  If you say "there has to be an creator", you merely go one step further than me. Because, where does your creator come from? There is no eternity, an creator too has to come from somewhere or he comes from nothing. So why take that additional step if it doesn´t bring you to any conclusion but the same as if you would accept the existing and overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang?

We can not answer the question if the universe had a "start", we can not look at what came before. But that we don´t have an answer to that question doesn´t mean that there is none.
It is impossible to disprove anything, you cant disprove god just as much that you cant disprove the Big Bang, so I will go with the one of both that has the evidence on its side, and that is the Big Bang. Or to say it in the word of Neil deGrasse Tyson: "The Big Bang is law!"

Ps.: If youre interested heres a link to an online speech of Neil deGrasse Tyson, proving my point:
http://www.boreme.co...88#.UzXBCPl5Ot8

and:

Klappspaten, on 28 March 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

I will answer to this before the other one:

There is no such thing as undeniable evidence. There always can be something that you dont know that changes everything. But there is actual evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. There is so much evidence for it that I would need weeks for the research alone and weeks again to write it down.

As you might have already guessed I am an atheist. I can´t tell if there is a god or not, but I do not believe that there is. (Agnosticism and Atheism do not exclude each other) But if there should be a god of any kind I would want to know it. So I do not request undeniable evidence, I demand just some evidence, any evidence at all.

Many atheists say this "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" crap and thats just as stupid as the crockoduck. Extraordinary claims need any evidence, just normal, standard, boring, every day evidence. And although I was religious as a child and started to look for it as it became apparent to me that the claim of a deity is pretty bold, I have yet to see that evidence.

I don´t even want you to believe me. Hell why would you believe some guy from the internet?
But maybe I can inspire you to go out and seek the evidence for yourself. Look at it, its all been published. All of it is accessible for anyone.
Dont believe second hand arguments.
Look at the evidence yourself and then decide what you want to believe.
Thats what I did myself and it hase been hard, at first. But it is such a rewarding feeling to know that you know stuff. To understand things you would have never even imagined before.


And now for this:



You are right, radiocarbon-dating can only determine an age between 300 and 600.000 years. So why is it that limited?
Radiocarbon-dating, or the c14-dating method is based on the knowledge of the decay rates of the radioactive c14 isotope of carbon atoms. A c14 isotope decays within aproximately 600.000 years.
But radiocarbon-dating is only one of the forms of radiometric-dating.
Some of the others are the:

• potasium argon dating method
  
• rubidium strontium dating method
  
• uranium thorium dating method
  
• fission track dating method
  
• chlorine-36 dating method
  
• luminiscence dating method
  
• argon argon dating method
  
• iodine xenon dating method
  
• lanthanum barium dating method
  
• lead lead dating method
  
• lutetium hafnium dating method
  
• rhenium osmium dating method
  
• uranium lead helium dating method
  
• uranium uranium dating method

Lets take the uranium-lead-dating-method for an example:


It can be used to determine the age of objects as old as the solar system!
We do know relatively sure that the earth is between 4,44 billion and 4,51 billion years old.
And science works in the way that it constantly tries to disprove their findings. Just a few years ago the had to change the aproximate age of the earth down from 4,54 billion years.




You are destroying your own argument. Isnt it inconsistent to say that everything needs a beginning? What about the first thing there was. For the sake of the argument, what about god? In the logic of your argument god would need to have a beginning too. But how is that possible if god is infinite?
If god was infinite it wouldn´t have had a beginning but was just there somehow. And then you are back at the same point that I am. One can not tell what came before this universe. The only thing theists do is to put another instance that cant be proven or disproven and that explains nothing in front of it.

A scientific hypotheis needs to make predictions in order to become a theory.
The Big Bang theory predicted that the universe was hotter yesterday, it predicted that the universe would expand and both predictions have proven to be true. And that is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that supports it.




I can not say anything about that. I would need to read the publications regarding the find first and probably concern myself about geology and fossilisation first.
It would be dishonest to try and make something up about that right now.



I´ve read stuff from Ken ham and even saw the debate with Bill Nye.
The problem is that Ken Ham descredits himself just with the assumption that there whould be two different kinds of science. And the division in observational science and historical science is just absolutely ridiculous.
At the end of their debate Ken Ham and Bill Nye where asked what would be needed to make them change their mind about the topic. And I think their answers where pretty telling:


What Ken Ham does is that he starts out with the conclusion, and then he looks for data that proves his conclusion. And that is not how science works. Even if he would be interested in the truth, everything he can find that way is tainted by his expectations. Science doesn´t ask: "Is it how I think it is?" Science wants to know: "How is it?" Science has no preconception.

Additionally Ken Ham is a literalist, who believes that God made the earth in 6 days and created one man and one woman of whom we all are the ofspring. Which is biologically impossible. The gene pool of only one pair would be insufficient to create viable amounts of offspring.
But that is another topic I would need to do my research on first to properly discuss it.
However, I am engaging that topic at the moment anyway, so if you want to we could discuss it in a few weeks or so, at least in a supeficial way.




Nobody in his right mind would say that is impossible. We can not disprove the existence of a deity of any kind. But we cant prove it either. But the thing is, if I say: "I cant tell what was before the Big Bang." and then continue to assume a creator I would remain in the same position as before. Where does that creator come from? An creator does not explain the origin of existence itself.
So why do the additional step it it brings me nowhere?




Again, I can not disprove that.
But from what we know Supernovas do not create the amount of force that would be necessary to drive the whole universe. Furthermore, an expansion driven by several smaller events distributed over the whole space of space itself would probably result in a imballanced expansion. However, if we look at one galaxy in a certain distance and then at another galaxy in about the same distance but in another direction we see that both are travelling at roughly the same speed. Which indicated a singe energetic event that has provided the force to drive them outward.




That is pretty much just what the Big Bang theory says.




The Big Bang theory does not require "nothing" to be there before the Big Bang. A hypothesis about what was before that I personal can relate to is the idea that the universe undergos a repetitive cycle of expansion, compression, big bang, expansion, compression and so on and on. But that is only an idea and that I like it doesn´t mean that it might be true. My experience in that field is that reality doesnt give a shit about what I like.




The universe is so incredibly vast that everything that possibly could happen does happen, somewhere and sometime. Given enough time, particles will find togather and form atoms, those atoms will find together and form molecules, molecules will come together and form chemical compounds. And from chemical compounds its just a relatively small step to simple monocellular organisms.
Yes, it might be comforting to say god did it, but that doesn´t prove anything, it doesn´t even explain anything.

One of the most amazing things I learned from science is that we are made from some of the most common elements in the universe.
Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Nytrogen, the four most abundant elements in our bodies are four of the five most abundand elements in the universe. And all of them are formed in the hearts of the stars.
We are not "in" the universe, we are a part of it.
We are made of stardust.

[Madw0lf]

.....Someone obviously loves the sound of his own voice....

[Nekki Basara]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Okay what's a Photon?
According to my Physics book they are Light and Quantum particles.. But wait.. Quantum is theory isn't it so that means that Photons are theory which means they are not proven to the point of being considered law therefore they are technically an assumption. Theory is Assumption. Everything started as assumption. Everything is assumption.

You need to read that book better and see what a "Quantum" actually is, and why "Quantum Physics" uses it.

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Also I have 2 Full ride scholarships and 5 colleges asking me to attend.

Well done, you play sports.

ETA: How many times has he quit now?

Edited by Nekki Basara, 16 April 2014 - 11:12 AM.

[Loc Nar]

If you blew a fuse on that reach with Yen-Lo, you're gonna need to get some rest before tackling Firebrand.

[Nekki Basara]

Ruh-roh! You did it now!

[Stormwolf]

Loc Nar, on 16 April 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

If you blew a fuse on that reach with Yen-Lo, you're gonna need to get some rest before tackling Firebrand.

Gotta love Iron Maiden

[Bosie]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

And to this day 'Science has not been able to debunk God. The fact is neither can be disproved.

The onus is on the one claiming to know something to provide the evidence. You claim there is a being that created all this, where is your evidence?

[Klappspaten]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

[/list]Klapp this right here is an assumption... You said you don't believe in assumptions therefore why do you believe this?


Okay what's a Photon?

According to my Physics book they are Light and Quantum particles.. But wait.. Quantum is theory isn't it so that means that Photons are theory which means they are not proven to the point of being considered law therefore they are technically an assumption. Theory is Assumption. Everything started as assumption. Everything is assumption.

Also I have 2 Full ride scholarships and 5 colleges asking me to attend.

Its funny how you try to use my own argument gainst me and fail misserably.
If you read that post carefully you will find that I go further into those assumptions and explain that, and how they have been proven to be true.

And you are still mistaking a "scientific theory" with a theory some dude on the streets might have.
Before a scientific hypothesis can become a theory it has to be tested and it has to be proven correct. A "scientific theory" is called "scientific theory" because it has not just the majority, but ALL of the evidence on its side. Modern "scientific theories" are the same as "scientific laws" where before.
You just can´t pick only the arguments that you like and leave out the rest.

If you want to convince anyone you will have to adress ALL arguments that he made. And I challenge you right here and right now. Disprove the big bang theory, disprove the theory of evolution, disprove quantum physics. Since you seem to understand that and why they can´t be true it should be easy for you.
If you did that, there probably would be some Nobel Prizes waiting for you just around the corner.
Literally thousands of people, really, really smart people have tried to debunk those theories for decades and they have failed. Because the evidence, all the evidence supports them.

That is why they have the status of "scientific theories", they are fact!

Edited by Klappspaten, 16 April 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[Iqfish]

How to make a big hastle out of nothing.


gg

[Klappspaten]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

I have never played any sport but soccer and I quit playing it 10 years ago.

Final post before I leave this community-
I HATE THIS PLACE!

If you can´t stand a discussion you shouldn´t start it.
You can always make your argument, and hell, if it is better than mine I would be happy to accept any view that proves to be more sustainable than mine.
I hope I didn´t offend you, because that was not my intention. I am merely discussing a matter that is of interest to me and that I can say something about.

[Vanguard319]

Marack Drock, on 16 April 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

Final post before I leave this community-
I HATE THIS PLACE!

Any bets on how soon he'll be back?

[Klappspaten]

Vanguard319, on 16 April 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Any bets on how soon he'll be back?

As if mocking him would be any better than ragequiting.

[Nekki Basara]

It's been far too much fun to quit mocking him now.

ETA: http://www.reddit.co...satanic/cgu3vpj

Edited by Nekki Basara, 16 April 2014 - 01:08 PM.

[Klappspaten]

You must be easy to please when youre pleased mocking someone who is easy mocked.
Some people just don´t appreciate a challenge, I get that.

If it wasn´t for you fratboys I would probably have a fair and interesting discussion with him. But you guys have to play your games. That you do not agree with him doesn´t mean that you can look down on him.

Edited by Klappspaten, 16 April 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[Hawkeye 72]

Mason West, on 15 April 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

I don't care about your silly Greekz! that was 10gajillion years ago! i care about what is here and now! and that is!





ATLAI!!!!!

Yes? I am here to answer the call of our sacred lord of MWO