Hawking says physics proves there is no time for "Gawd".

[bobcollum]

I was wondering when one of you would point to abiogenesis as an explanation. It's an impossibility. I have pointed out the flaws in this theory many times. When I have more time I will explain it again.

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

Soo..let me get this straight...

It's okay for you to never prove your statements, because it's "scientific" and proof isn't required...

But people who claim to state things as a matter a faith must provide "evidence" or they're wrong.

Got it.

Wrong again KG.

You're confusing scientific theories based on mathematics with unwavering belief based on scriptures.

The only roadblocks theoretical science encounters involve the current technology not being at the level required to test these theories in order to achieve repeated confirmation. Just look at the theory of relativity...there are numerous confirmations based on experimentation that confirm a large portion of it, but it's technically still a theory, and I can live with that, because we'll probably get there eventually.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You have to try and remember that when I speak of things it could be completely theoretical, since science doesn't claim to have all the answers in the way religion does.

You seem to excel at telling people why they're wrong, but you're not so good at explaining why you're right.

Soo..let me get this straight...

It's okay for you to never prove your statements, because it's "scientific" and proof isn't required...

But people who claim to state things as a matter a faith must provide "evidence" or they're wrong.

Got it.

Wrong again KG.

You're confusing scientific theories based on mathematics with unwavering belief based on scriptures.

The only roadblocks theoretical science encounters involve the current technology not being at the level required to test these theories in order to achieve repeated confirmation. Just look at the theory of relativity...there are numerous confirmations based on experimentation that confirm a large portion of it, but it's technically still a theory, and I can live with that, because we'll probably get there eventually.

Theories rooted in math AND backed by experimental evidence.

 

[koshergrl]

You're full of shit, and a liar to boot.

*coughdoublestandardcough*

 

[bobcollum]

You're full of shit, and a liar to boot.

*coughdoublestandardcough*

The inner-child shows herself.

She spends a lot of time on this board.

 

[koshergrl]

I really want you to explain AGAIN why it is that scientific theories require no evidence to be seriously considered, and what justifies the double standard you've applied to faith-based theories...i.e., the dismissal of said theories because there is no hard *evidence*.

Please. Provide some citations, if you would, that show evidence that scientific minds think this way.

 

[bobcollum]

For those that aren't familiar, koshergrl, yesterday on a different thread tried to argue that because a homosexual man and homosexual woman could get married to each other and collect all the benefits that go along with it, the entire argument about gay-marriage rights is a lie.



True story.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For those that aren't familiar, koshergrl, yesterday on a different thread tried to argue that because a homosexual man and homosexual woman could get married to each other and collect all the benefits that go along with it, the entire argument about gay-marriage rights is a lie.



True story.

Relevance?

 

[daveman]

Theoretically I feel it's as close to anything else we could call an explanation.

How can non-living material evolve?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this much thought.

There are many theories, google abiogenesis.

Yeah. That takes as much faith as believing in a Creator.

After that explain to me how a deity in the sky made humans.

Okay.

 

[daveman]

Speed = distance X time.
Time = speed/distance. Time exists in terms of motion (speed and distance).

edthecynic = impotent flailing.

I took your own speedometer example and proved my point, reducing you to nothing but a personal attack!

If speed and distance are not terms of motion, what are they terms of???

Restate your original claim.

 

[bobcollum]

I really want you to explain AGAIN why it is that scientific theories require no evidence to be seriously considered, and what justifies the double standard you've applied to faith-based theories...i.e., the dismissal of said theories because there is no hard *evidence*.

Please. Provide some citations, if you would, that show evidence that scientific minds think this way.

When you're talking theoretical astrophysics as an example, you're an talking about ideas that are supported by mathematics, which is to say it could possibly work, but we don't have the means to physically test it as the scientific method requires.

My point about the Theory of Relativity tried to illustrate that. While technically still a theory, enough facets of it have been proven to the point that it's not only generally accepted, but applied, and the modern world would be vastly different without it. It's not like everything can be neatly confirmed with one easy test, it's complex stuff.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tests of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course it's possible that a theory could change over time based on findings, but that's what makes science move forward.

Not all science is theory, excuse me if that's too obvious, but it sounds like you're insinuating that it doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's got a pretty good track-record for success.

 

[daveman]

Theoretically I feel it's as close to anything else we could call an explanation.

How can non-living material evolve?

Take your time. I can tell you haven't given this much thought.

You can't define whether or not something is evolving without defining what "survival" means for that something. If that something is life, "survival" is easy to define. If it isn't - what the fuck are you even talking about?

Ask the guy who thinks non-living material can evolve.

 

[bobcollum]

For those that aren't familiar, koshergrl, yesterday on a different thread tried to argue that because a homosexual man and homosexual woman could get married to each other and collect all the benefits that go along with it, the entire argument about gay-marriage rights is a lie.



True story.

Relevance?

She'll take the most ridiculous angle to an argument and run with it, fair warning. Thought it'd be more obvious.

 

[daveman]

Right, because Genesis makes more sense, sure.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM]The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. - YouTube[/ame]


Morons.

It makes more sense to me. Perhaps you just lack imagination.

 

[koshergrl]

For those that aren't familiar, koshergrl, yesterday on a different thread tried to argue that because a homosexual man and homosexual woman could get married to each other and collect all the benefits that go along with it, the entire argument about gay-marriage rights is a lie.



True story.

Naw, not a true story at all.

What I said is that people who claim homos are being denied equal rights in regards to marriage are LYING because homosexuals have the exact same rights as everybody else...as evidenced by Sky marrying her wife's ex-husband in order for him to obtain insurance coverage for his terminal AIDS.

Meanwhile, check this out, loon:

"The question I wish to ask is this: How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism? If the New Atheists’ atheism is not evidence-based, as Hitchens implies in the above quotation, doesn’t evidentialism entail that atheism is itself irrational or epistemically unjustified? The answer is ‘Yes’; at least if evidentialism is interpreted in the standard way. So it appears that the New Atheists need some fix for evidentialism – a kind of ‘theoretical plug-in’ – which legitimizes their atheism in the absence of evidence. They also seem to be aware of this, since they offer several reasons why atheism requires no evidential support."

Where’s The Evidence? | Philosophy Now

Thought that was kind of interesting. Apparently you morons who claim that a different evidentiary standard exists for faith-based theories have already been outed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right, because Genesis makes more sense, sure.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM]The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. - YouTube[/ame]


Morons.

It makes more sense to me. Perhaps you just lack imagination.

Yeah makes much more sense to say some craetor magically made everything than to admit we don't know everyth

 

[bobcollum]

For those that aren't familiar, koshergrl, yesterday on a different thread tried to argue that because a homosexual man and homosexual woman could get married to each other and collect all the benefits that go along with it, the entire argument about gay-marriage rights is a lie.



True story.

Naw, not a true story at all.

What I said is that people who claim homos are being denied equal rights in regards to marriage are LYING because homosexuals have the exact same rights as everybody else...as evidenced by Sky marrying her wife's ex-husband in order for him to obtain insurance coverage for his terminal AIDS.

Meanwhile, check this out, loon:

"The question I wish to ask is this: How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism? If the New Atheists’ atheism is not evidence-based, as Hitchens implies in the above quotation, doesn’t evidentialism entail that atheism is itself irrational or epistemically unjustified? The answer is ‘Yes’; at least if evidentialism is interpreted in the standard way. So it appears that the New Atheists need some fix for evidentialism – a kind of ‘theoretical plug-in’ – which legitimizes their atheism in the absence of evidence. They also seem to be aware of this, since they offer several reasons why atheism requires no evidential support."

Where’s The Evidence? | Philosophy Now

Thought that was kind of interesting. Apparently you morons who claim that a different evidentiary standard exists for faith-based theories have already been outed.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...maiden-name-back-w-o-pissing-off-hubby-3.html

I guess if anyone daves that much they can look it up for themselves, eh?

 

[koshergrl]

Deflection. It is your friend, if you're a kook, and you wear it well.

 

[Liability]

I always love it when you parrot what I said as if it was your own. Thanks for changing from the MATTER is destroyed to the atom is split to pieces releasing the energy holding the pieces together.

It would be easier -- not to mention refreshing -- for you to have the integrity to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

It depends on which mass you're talking about. There is an invariant mass - namely, the total number of nucleons times their mass in free space. The mass we measure will be different, though, you're right about that. The difference is in the energy that holds the atom together - that appears as mass


Strictly speaking, under relativity there is little distinction between energy and mass.

When an atom undergoes fission, a part of the total mass of that atom is lost when it is transformed into energy.

This is a shorthand way of saying what I noted earlier.

edthesickdick can lie and pretend otherwise, but his argument is with Einstein and observable facts.

 

[bobcollum]

Deflection. It is your friend, if you're a kook, and you wear it well.

Deflection of what, the bottom portion of your post that was irrelevant?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It would be easier -- not to mention refreshing -- for you to have the integrity to simply acknowledge that you were wrong.

It depends on which mass you're talking about. There is an invariant mass - namely, the total number of nucleons times their mass in free space. The mass we measure will be different, though, you're right about that. The difference is in the energy that holds the atom together - that appears as mass


Strictly speaking, under relativity there is little distinction between energy and mass.

When an atom undergoes fission, a part of the total mass of that atom is lost when it is transformed into energy.

This is a shorthand way of saying what I noted earlier.

edthesickdick can lie and pretend otherwise, but his argument is with Einstein and observable facts.

It depends on what kind of mass you're talking about. The lost mass is actually the lost energy from the bonds holding the atom together. But there is still the same number of quarks.