cyrexx: And this is creationism that anony, frosbel are rationalising and believing over modern scientific discoveries.

Does this answer any of frosbels question?

Bélla3: Does this answer any of frosbels question?

Hmmm. Bella, hope you've your hahnium armour?

plaetton:

I dont know what questions you are referring to.
You are the Hussain Bolt of this forum. lol

How convenient with the pretend lol at the end.

I have no shame in being ignorant about something.

Then learn and stop talking about what you do not know , while castigating others for believing in what you assume 'they do not know'

Here is another of my favourite sayings:

"He knows not who knows that he knows not, is a child, teach him.
But he knows not, who knows not that he knows not, is a fool, scorn him".

I hope you are not calling yourself a FOOL with the later statement, because that's the impression I get form conversing with you , that you think you know , but actually , you know not.

Chedarking:

Plaetton...

I beg your indulgence...

I am fully aware of the scientific method...

I just ask...How do you know that the scientific method was followed in this case?

Afterall, many so called scientific theories have been proven to be false...

How do you know that this is not the case here?

There is nothing like false theory in science. There are theories that are later proven to be inaccurate. By its very definition, a theory cannot be cassified as false, since it is only a theory. It is only when you assert with authority that something is absolute truth,like much of religious beliefs, that the question of falsehood can be used.

That the earth is 4.7 billion years was arrived at by experimentation using the best known dating method. It is not a theory.
and like I said, if it is later be found out to be 4.9 billion or 3.7 billion yrs old by a more accurate dating method in the future, No scientists lose sleep over that possibility.
Science is an open system, it is not a closed system like religion.

davidylan:

one atheist who is at least honest enough to state the truth... much of the foundation for atheism is based on blind faith.

Good ser david, do you know what "faith" means? This is rather puzzling. Now, there are various configurations one could set for himself, but let's consider 2 (and a half)
options

A: one could choose to believe an angry dog came out of nowhere, created the universe in 6 days then chilled on the 7th. This before creating days mind you, and he(?) inexplicably also decreed we rest on the 7th day of every week as well or die and be tortured for eternity (wait for it, metaphor abi?). Anyways, this god hid all the evidence of his adventures to troll us, just because. Or there was something he, an omnipotent, was incapable of achieving which he's been unable to explain lucidly. And now he eagerly awaits a time, despite being 'timeless' (whatever that means), when he gets to burn quite a lot of us, his creations, for eternity. (btw, I would have thought eternity would mean we were in hell even right now, as strictly speaking it implies no beginning or end, so this could make sense. But what about heaven?).

Or

B: one could choose to accept we don't fully know. We have good clues and some important details of various processes, thanks to people who didn't just sit on their a$$es and comically shout "God" at anything that scared or marveled them btw (doing this in a manner that reminds one of those bushmen in 'gods must be crazy' dazzled by a coca-cola bottle). For instance, we know there was a mind blowing expansion that took place, and have CBR (which was predicted, note, by the big ba.ng model. No one had ever claimed or imagined such existed but the big b.ang asserted it was there, and lo and behold it really was there) and other pieces of evidence, both logical and physical, to back up claims of this expansion. We also know about the wonderful effects of genes and their mutations, and about natural selection. Effects we've observed either in labs or nature. Toss in artificial selection into the mix as a bonus to demonstrate just how quickly the effects of controlled versions of these phenomena can be observed when intelligent conscious beings with a purpose are involved, not the blind chance which dictates evolution in nature. We know of the logical outcome of these factors when we mix in a hell of a lot of time. We've got fossil records, in the thousands found so far, and not one found in an area which would contradict evolution.


So, note, option B has quite a lot of viable actual EVIDENCE, physical and logical, to back up its claims. Option A has a book which claims talking snakes and fires physically existed on this planet less than 6000 years ago as evidence. Just the book. To the great consternation of others who have to share this rock with followers of option A, its adherents claim with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that their version of events are what actually took place. To compound on the folly they claim absolute certainty despite the fact that even amongst themselves they aren't certain of the vast majority of their doctrine. Trinity? What is a soul? The only thing one could say they all subscribe to is the infamous sadist, yahweh. And do note, there are a lot of other cuckoos on this planet making absolute claims as well, using their own myths and fairy tales as 'evidence' of course.

So, who is running on blind faith? Do you even know what 'faith' means?

Now, option C (the half), excludes the inanity that is angry jealous men in the sky and settles for a blind watch maker, but where from did it come? It gained intelligence from where? Have you also noted just how haphazard everything seems, like say...chance... was heavily involved. In just about every single thing? But this group are at least saner than the brilliant adherents of group A (to be fair, not all followers of A are ridiculously silly, in public)

Either ways, most most importantly, really, what does this have to do with atheism? These are rather silly questions to be asking atheists, no? When did atheism = mainstream scientific community?

We have many atheists on these very boards who would tell you aliens, a la von daniken, were responsible for homo sapiens. Some in this group would claim said aliens were responsible for fine tuning all of evolution, but of course assert the aliens were not first cause. You are aware of the amount of ridicule these views can engender from a lot of the mainstream scientific community, yes? Not all atheists (or science for that matter) even accept the big b.ang model, yes? I don't even know how buddhism works, but I'm pretty sure there are views in there that would contradict science, no? Yet I understand there are buddhist atheists.

So, I'll ask you as well, when did atheism = science?



Folly, folly everywhere...

question, why are you an atheist?

Reyginus: Hmmm. Bella, hope you've your hahnium armour?

*hides behind reyginus incase of any attacks*

frosbel:

How convenient with the pretend lol at the end.



Then learn and stop talking about what you do not know , while castigating others for believing in what you assume 'they do not know'



I hope you are not calling yourself a FOOL with the later statement, because that's the impression I get form conversing with you , that you think you know , but actually , you know not.

Frosbel, you have enough crusades to fight. You have the Muslims theists to put down, you have the trinitarian rebels to deal with, you have the Jehovah's witness to harass, you have the catholics to castigate, you have the pentecostal fraudster to arrest and imprison.

How can you spend precious trolling time to come in front of atheists to make a fool of yourself?.

[quote author=wiegraf]

when he gets to burn quite a lot of us, his creations, for eternity. (btw, I would have thought eternity would mean we were in hell even right now, as strictly speaking it implies no beginning or end, so this could make sense. But what about heaven?).

So this is your fear, burning for all eternity

plaetton:

Frosbel, you have enough crusades to fight. You have the Muslims theists to put down, you have the trinitarian rebels to deal with, you have the Jehovah's witness to harass, you have the catholics to castigate, you have the pentecostal fraudster to arrest and imprison.

How can you spend precious fighting time to come in front of atheists to make a fool of yourself?.

Has it ended on this note.

Very sad to see your retire so early.

Anyway, have a nice night, let me wrap up my work for the day , it's been a pleasure.

Bélla3: *hides behind reyginus incase of any attacks*

Lolz.

plaetton:

There is nothing like false theory in science. There are theories that are later proven to be inaccurate. By its very definition, a theory cannot be cassified as false, since it is only a theory. It is only when you assert with authority that something is absolute truth,like much of religious beliefs, that the question of falsehood can be used.

Pardon my ignorance sir.

That the earth is 4.7 billion years was arrived at by experimentation using the best known dating method.

...But you are not answering my question...

You have already admitted that you haven't carried out any experiments on the subject.

how are you so sure that the earth is 4.9 billion years old?

How are you sure it is not a made up figure?

What is your personal conviction that these guys are not lying?

plaetton:

I think You know the answer to that question before you asked it.
No, I have not done that particular experiment. I have no need to. i have absolute confidence in the Scientific Method.

As a science student, I performed many scientific experiments in the lab to arrive at same conclusions as other scientists.

I can't tell you how much I love this answer. . . . .

Still no answer from plaetton...

Let me start off the sentence for you....

Despite the fact that I have neither carried out an experiment nor been present at experiment, I, Plaetton, know that the scientists that dated the earth did not lie or exaggerate their claims because........

Fill in the gap.

Chedarking: Still no answer from plaetton...

Let me start off the sentence for you....

Despite the fact that I have neither carried out an experiment nor been present at experiment, I, Plaetton, know that the scientists that dated the earth did not lie or exaggerate their claims because........

Fill in the gap.

The pre-eminence of the scientific method. Period.
What exactly do you want me to say?

Mr_Anony:
I can't tell you how much I love this answer. . . . .

Quite honestly, I would feel totally embarrassed if any of you would attempt to drag me into an argument on the reliability of the scientific method.
I would feel far too embarrassed to engage in such a discussion in this year of 2013.

Frosbel, i have one question for you:

In the Bible we were told that Adam and Eve were thefirst humans, created 6,000 years ago, and haven't evolved since; out of the two, which one was white, which was black, and which was Asian?

Chedarking: Still no answer from plaetton...

Let me start off the sentence for you....

Despite the fact that I have neither carried out an experiment nor been present at experiment, I, Plaetton, know that the scientists that dated the earth did not lie or exaggerate their claims because........

Fill in the gap.

If you wish to make a point pls go ahead and do so.

There is a reason why you go to the doctor when you are sick, and take take drugs to relieve your pain. There is a reason why you are typing on your pc and have confidence that I am seeing it. After all, you did not build that computer yourself, nor did you perform any experiment to test its workability, nor any of the thousands of scientific ideas that led to its development and manufacture.

So stop kidding around make whatever point you wish to make.

Do I believe in the scientific method?
Absolutely, and so do you, so does Anony, so does frsbel.

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]

And that's the only thing you took from that post? Where was the implication I was afraid of anything anyways? I'm not the one being good because of the fear invisible daddy's tantrums.*smh*

You heathenous heretic to all and sundry, you're one to talk. If we were taking all these random claims literally, by the accounts of something like 99% of them, you deserve to be hanged . By your admission, you've changed your mind on these issues how many times? From catholic to atheist to pentecostal to xtian (the others aren't xtian? Can you clarify or would that require another 20+ page thread to sort out, and inevitably fail mind you) to satanist to republican to liverpool fan to vegetarian to one who loves marmalite, yet you now claim absolute knowledge. Well done...

Take a look at this short video showing the timeline of human evolution at the smithsonian nationl museum of natural history.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/one-species-living-worldwide

Then read up on the overwhelming evidence for human evolution on the site.


Here is a very comprehensive and informative interactive human evolution timeline showing all the different species of extinct humans, major fossils, events and climate changes over the millions of years that humans have evolved so far .

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

mantraa: Take a look at this short video showing the timeline of human evolution at the smithsonian nationl museum of natural history.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/one-species-living-worldwide

Then read up on the overwhelming evidence for human evolution on the site.


Here is a very comprehensive and informative interactive human evolution timeline showing all the different species of extinct humans, major fossils, events and climate changes over the millions of years that humans have evolved so far .

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

Lol....nice try! God and his reetardeen followers are too cool to read up on evolution

frosbel: Some more questions for our atheists in Nairaland :


1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

Source

Mr Frosted, you have shifted the goal post again without concluding on the evolution question. I hope you are learning something. Even if you have a mental block against learning any scientific concept, i am consoled by the fact that i know others reading this thread are learning.

Before i answer your question, i want to explain that atheism is simply a disbelieve in all deities, Gods, spirits, mammy water, etc. And there are varied reasons for adopting an atheistic worldview. Some adopt atheism because of disappointments, tragedies and ill luck despite years of dedication and worship of a God or series of gods. Others still turn to atheism because of hypocrisy, lies, greed, power play, hatred, etc, exhibited by the priests and adherents of the god they are worshiping. Others still reject the idea of god based solely on the characteristics ascribed to the God or God in general. Then there are those that seek answers to the mystery question of when, how and purpose of the universe. These last group are the scientifically minded individuals and it includes me. You can see that even here in nairaland, science is not the main reason people turn to atheism, and they understand as much science as theists.

Now to your questions;

1. Beginning of the universe. No body knows if the universe has a beginning, to me i believe it is unknowable whether the universe has a beginning or not. The best science can do is to estimate the time of the beginning by using the present expansion rate of the universe and working backwards. (assuming the expansion rate had been constant throughout). To me we might even have an oscillating universe. Expanding and contracting over a 20billion yr period.

Even the biblical version did not tell us when the beginning was. It just made a bracket statement "in the beginning". More like "happily ever after" in fairy tales.

2. Materialistic determinism with intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum physics?

See grammar. She na Chris Okotie site you copy this one from. I know that even you do not understand what you copied. Ok let me try.

Yes, materialistic determinism is compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanism, because quantum mechanics rules the micro world, while materialism is seen in the macro world. Even though even in the quantum level is random and can only be predicted by probability, the aggregate of all the probabilities is predictable as revealed on the materialistic level. A typical example is the radioactive decay of a piece of uranium, the disintegration of a single atom of uranium cannot be determined accurately, but only by using probability. But the total mass of uranium that would be destroyed over a given time can be known accurately if given the half life of uranium.

I hope you can grasp this science concept.

3. The third question is beyond me, you probably need a professor of fundamental physics to answer it.

4. Language of mathematics.

Human mind is fluent in the language of mathematics because as you said, it is a human language, like any other human language. It is a language developed to communicate the relationship between the shape, size, quantity, distances and energy between components of the universe. So you have to learn and be able to communicate with the mathematical language, just like English. So you would expect it to fit in and represent accurately what it describes.

This video by stated clearly explains evolution so simply that anyone can understand it.

What is evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8

plaetton:

If you wish to make a point pls go ahead and do so.

There is a reason why you go to the doctor when you are sick, and take take drugs to relieve your pain. There is a reason why you are typing on your pc and have confidence that I am seeing it. After all, you did not build that computer yourself, nor did you perform any experiment to test its workability, nor any of the thousands of scientific ideas that led to its development and manufacture.



So stop kidding around make whatever point you wish to make.

Plaetton...

I'm not kidding around...only trying to engage in discourse

The statement in bold signifies exactly why I asked you the question you've been dodging all day...

I have first hand experience and proof that medicine works, and that my pc works...

You DONT(By your admission) have first hand experience or proof that the world is 4.7 billion years old...all you have is knowledge gleaned from literature and stuff...

My question again is...if you have not personally proven that the world is 4.7 billion years old, what is your conviction that the scientists that announced this followed the scientific process?

I am NOT questioning the scientific method, not at all...

Were you present at the experiments?

Were you there at there at ratification stage?

Unless you were present during the entire process of ratification, can you say for sure that the scientific method was carried out?

@frosbel, plaetton, chedarking

on the scientific method:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, admitted in the New York Review in January 1997:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to the understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

Not again please. Can we leave the baby atheist dawkins out of this? Please.

Reyginus: Not again please. Can we leave the baby atheist dawkins out of this? Please.

What have you achieved in your life to call an old man who was proffessor from oxford university a "baby atheist"?

Have you achieved anything in your useless creationist life?

People can be reetarded at times.

Chedarking.
Take a look at this video. It explains the scientific methods used to work out the age of the earth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

I hope this helps you understand.

Chedarking: Still no answer from plaetton...

Let me start off the sentence for you....

Despite the fact that I have neither carried out an experiment nor been present at experiment, I, Plaetton, know that the scientists that dated the earth did not lie or exaggerate their claims because........

Fill in the gap.

...I, plaetton, have FAITH in them

mantraa: Chedarking.
Take a look at this video. It explains the scientific methods used to work out the age of the earth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5369-OobM4

I hope this helps you understand.

Did you read where I wrote this?

Chedarking:


I am NOT questioning the scientific method, not at all...

Logicboy03:


What have you achieved in your life to call an old man who was proffessor from oxford university a "baby atheist"?

Have you achieved anything in your useless creationist life?

People can be reetarded at times.

you had to throw all these insults because your mentor the scientist was called a 'baby' atheist? Compared to dawkins most of you atheists could be refered to as 'baby' atheist nt because you just found your 'atheist faith' necesarily cos you're unwise.
Such a shame logic doesnt work for small things.

Logicboy03:


What have you achieved in your life to call an old man who was proffessor from oxford university a "baby atheist"?

Have you achieved anything in your useless creationist life?

People can be reetarded at times.

Lolz. You cannot distinguish insults and facts. That somebody is a 'baby atheist' is not an insult.
Dawkins is more of a scientist mr.