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

KAI. Too bad logic doesnt apply to small thingz

Bélla3: 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.

lol.....I like Dawkins no doubt....but....it is reetarded for a creationist to call Dawkins a "baby atheist".....only if you knew.....

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

Reetard, is there anything like a "baby atheist".....facts my azz.


Reetard

Bélla3: KAI. Too bad logic doesnt apply to small thingz

Bella, you go wound ooo!

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...


@Chedarking.
The video shows that the figure was obtained using the scientific process.

This is the question you asked that it answers for you.

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?

Logicboy03:


Reetard, is there anything like a "baby atheist".....facts my azz.


Reetard

I thought your only problem was with physics, I never knew literature too.

Logicboy03:


lol.....I like Dawkins no doubt....but....it is reetarded for a creationist to call Dawkins a "baby atheist".....only if you knew.....

He didntatheists jesus Dawkins! He was refering the guy Foo quoted. So relax.

Logicboy03:


Bella, you go wound ooo!

#i put on the whole armour......

It's kind of funny to see the Christians here approaching the philosophical position of solipcism. Do you ultimately know anything other than the fact that you exist? Is all else just an illusion?

If we should never trust any information that we have not personally verified by doing our own experiments then there is no point in arguing this thread.
Christians have faith in something for which there is plenty of rational evidence to suggest is not true (Genesis). If you want to say that people who believe in evolution have faith in the scientists, I'd say that we don't, because we ask them to submit rational, logical, and scientific proof of their positions. Otherwise we are not encouraged to believe them.

On the other hand Christians cannot go and ask the authors of the Bible to submit proof of their assertions, nor can we replicate experiments that they left behind for analysis. But believe me, I'd love to travel back in time and give the 'prophets' a thorough interrogation!

Reyginus: I thought your only problem was with physics, I never knew literature too.

FINISHING!

wirinet:

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.

NICE ONE!!!

I just loooove this. Good thinking, bro

But unfortunately these theists have trained their ears and minds to go dumb towards sound points like these. That is why religion should be uninstalled from human mind for it to function properly again.

mantraa: 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...


@Chedarking.
The video shows that the figure was obtained using the scientific process.

This is the question you asked that it answers for you.

This video shows nothing.

It does NOT PROVE anything...

There are ONE main reasons why I do not like to take part in G0D-DEBATES.
1: No one has ever given me an acceptable definition/meaning of the word GOD. A MATHEMATICIAN LIKE ME CANNOT contribute when there is so much confusion. I think the concept of "CREATOR" is ok with me.
WHY: Those who use the everyday-definition of GOD claims that he/she/it must be able to do everything, solve every problem in our universe. Any rational person knows that is impossible. Some tasks/problems are unsolvable/undecidable.

Even if someone, created the universe we live in, it is not necessary that the person can perform every task in this universe. In other words, the statement "can do all things" should not be a necessary condition.
If you don't get it, try and convince yourself that the following task is impossible.

TASK: Mention all the numbers 1,2,3,4,......... in 60 MINS!!!!

After a week or two -supposing you just don't get it - it should become clear to you that NO-ONE can perform this task successfully. It does not matter how fast the person mention those numbers.
No spirit/magician/scientist ..... can do it.

Now, just because your GOD/PROFESSOR cannot do it is not enough reason to take away their title. No math PROFESSOR can answer all math problems, yet we still give them the title. The same applies to the title GOD!!!!

No Christian should go on his knees and ask Jesus to solve UNSOLVABLE problems for him/her. It will be stupid and equivalent to "tempting the LORD". You will never get the answer you expect!

F00028:
...I, plaetton, have FAITH in them

Hey, but faith has nothing to do with scientific laws. Pls see the definition of faith.

onetrack: It's kind of funny to see the Christians here approaching the philosophical position of solipcism. Do you ultimately know anything other than the fact that you exist? Is all else just an illusion?

If we should never trust any information that we have not personally verified by doing our own experiments then there is no point in arguing this thread.
Christians have faith in something for which there is plenty of rational evidence to suggest is not true (Genesis). If you want to say that people who believe in evolution have faith in the scientists, I'd say that we don't, because we ask them to submit rational, logical, and scientific proof of their positions. Otherwise we are not encouraged to believe them.

On the other hand Christians cannot go and ask the authors of the Bible to submit proof of their assertions, nor can we replicate experiments that they left behind for analysis. But believe me, I'd love to travel back in time and give the 'prophets' a thorough interrogation!

Thank you very bros.

Chedarking:

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?

C'mon man, you have been rational so far, but right now, you are sliding into irrationality.

The medicine you took that made you well worked in exactly the manner in which the scientific method said it would work. The next time your doctor prescribes a drug for you, you will take it because you trust his judgement and the claimed efficacy of the drug, even though you were not there when the drug was manufactured nor do you truly know whether your doctor is lying to you or not. the reason is because you have implicit trust in the scientific method.
So do I.
So, when something like the age of the earth is scientifically acecpeted to be 4.7 billion years old, I too accept it because of my implicit trust of the scientific method.

plaetton:

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.

Agreed...I am a man of science too and I love the scientific method as well because so far it is one of the best ways we have for understanding and explaining reality. However now I would like us to use the scientific method to ponder a small problem.

The universe i.e. space and time has an origin in a gigantic explosion called the big bang which is estimated to be about 13 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding ever since. I would like to hear your scientific hypothesis on the nature of what could have caused this big bang

Logicboy03:
Reetard, is there anything like a "baby atheist".....facts my azz.


Reetard

Lol isn't it interesting how he dishes out insults just because someone doesn't agree with him. Reyginus seems to have been making life a little bit uncomfortable for our in-house "knight of atheism"

logicboy reminds me of a spoilt little preteen brat screaming insults and abuses just because she isn't allowed to have her way.

Mr_Anony:
Agreed...I am a man of science too and I love the scientific method as well because so far it is one of the best ways we have for understanding and explaining reality. However now I would like us to use the scientific method to ponder a small problem.

The universe i.e. space and time has an origin in a gigantic explosion called the big bang which is estimated to be about 13 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding ever since. I would like to hear your scientific hypothesis on the nature of what could have caused this big bang

That question is too hard, here are simplier ones:

what exploded? Nothing?

Wait, if it was something that exploded, what was it?

Hw did this something that exploded come to be?

(An answer without insults will be appreciated)

Mr_Anony:
Lol isn't it interesting how he dishes out insults just because someone doesn't agree with him. Reyginus seems to have been making life a little bit uncomfortable for our in-house "knight of atheism"

logicboy reminds me of a spoilt little preteen brat screaming insults and abuses just because she isn't allowed to have her way.

You are a liar.....who threw insults first?

hmmm? This is the delusion of christians....they persecute people than when they get harsh reactions, they act like saints.

Bélla3: That question is too hard, here is are simplier ones:

what exploded? Nothing?

Wait, if it was something that exploded, what was it?

Hw did this something that exploded come to be?

(An answer without insults will be appreciated)

The big bang wasnt an explosion.....you and Anony, just set up lies to try and trap the atheists.



You guys are pharisees

Logicboy03:



The big bang wasnt an explosion.....you and Anony, just set up lies to try and trap the atheists.



You guys are pharisees

Am i enjoying this?
Okay let me rephrase:

did the 'big slam'(that is not an explosion) occur outta nothing?
If no, what was that 'thing'?
How did that 'thing' come to be?

Bélla3: Am i enjoying this?
Okay let me rephrase:

did the 'big slam'(that is not an explosion) occur outta nothing?
If no, what was that 'thing'?
How did that 'thing' come to be?

Lolololol.....I can't tell you how much I am laughing here.

...well at least we are no longer "retards", we have now been elevated to "pharisees". This is getting very interesting and fun.

Bélla3: Am i enjoying this?
Okay let me rephrase:

did the 'big slam'(that is not an explosion) occur outta nothing?
If no, what was that 'thing'?
How did that 'thing' come to be?

Why do you guys choose to show your ignorance? Basic wikipedia will tell you about the big bang.


First the big bang is an expansion. Scientists trace the current expansion of the universe back to a point in time. The earliest moments of the big bang are not known. The big bang model explain from a particular point where the universe was in a hot and dense state (because, one can only trace so far back with an expanision and other charectristics of the cosmos)

Mr_Anony:
Lolololol.....I can't tell you how much I am laughing here.

...well at least we are no longer "retards", we have now been elevated to "pharisees". This is getting very interesting and fun.

LOLING AT.. Now pharisees
Worry not, they're currently seeking for help from dawkins.

Mr_Anony:
Lolololol.....I can't tell you how much I am laughing here.

...well at least we are no longer "retards", we have now been elevated to "pharisees". This is getting very interesting and fun.

Werent the pharisees reetards? If they could be debunked by a 13 year old until he was 30. hey couldnt argue with a guy that was an illiterate son of a carpenter despite all their knowledge of scriptures.

Logicboy03:

Werent the pharisees reetards? If they could be debunked by a 13 year old until he was 30. hey couldnt argue with a guy that was an illiterate son of a carpenter despite all their knowledge of scriptures.

Calm down.

Logicboy03:

Werent the pharisees reetards? If they could be debunked by a 13 year old until he was 30. hey couldnt argue with a guy that was an illiterate son of a carpenter despite all their knowledge of scriptures.

Lolololol............"retarded pharisees"?.... logicboy has entered second gear. Lord of mercy! logicboy, you are such an amusing character.

Bélla3: Calm down.

Logicboy03:

lol, why you wan kiss bella na

Mr_Anony:
lol, why you wan kiss bella na

She said she likes atheist boys.....you know.....good girls love bad guys

Logicboy03:


Why do you guys choose to show your ignorance? Basic wikipedia will tell you about the big bang.


First the big bang is an expansion. Scientists trace the current expansion of the universe back to a point in time. The earliest moments of the big bang are not known. The big bang model explain from a particular point where the universe was in a hot and dense state (because, one can only trace so far back with an expanision and other charectristics of the cosmos)

so, so, so 'nothing' suddenly started expanding?
Oh wait, the earliest moments of the big bang is yet unknown...
Well done.... Tsk tsk tsk.

Logicboy03:



She said she likes atheist boys.....

na wa o. When did i say this one?