Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Our best theory indicates that due to expansion of universe, throughout its history, it cannot be infinite in its past, and must have a past space-time boundary. Most cosmologists accept that.

My bad. I thought you were about science and stuff.

You’re an atheist because you don’t believe in God. Not because you don’t want to be called one.
Then you need to take it up with cosmologists, otherwise you are to be considered delusional. Think you are not an atheist, when you are, doesn’t help.

Hope it all goes well mate.

Also your aversion to it.
All the best Alex!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you’re the silly billy here, judging by your attempts to simplify the meaning of religion, to such a degree.
I guess you have to do that to try and distance yourself away from from the fact the you are religious. Darwinism is your religion.

You are making all the assumptions.
My position is, I am a theist. That’s all that’s on the table. You’re the one claiming your religious ideas as scientific fact. But you cannot show one piece of evidence that supports it. Only quotes.
All the evidence suggests (what is termed) microevolution.

What it boils down to is, you don’t believe in God. For that you can spin any reason that suits your need.
There will never be evidence for you. You’re like a blind person coming to the conclusion that everybody else is blind, because he is. That’s all.

Ive no need to defend anything.
I’m not the one flapping about. You are.
You think your belief system is under attack, so you draw out the testimony of other practitioners, who simply say “there evidence of darwinism. All the while not showing anything that remotely leads to it

This sounds suspiciously like one of those just-so stories, told by folk in your religion. “Love” evolved because man thought he would have better sex, thereby planting his seed and creating more off-spring. Or Fido the dog, mad at his caveman master, for not feeding him, went out and became a whale.
You’re just spinning another yarn mate.

Your belief tends to remind me of some Simpsons episodes. So that’s not a surprise.

I am a theist. No defending strategy needed.
Honest atheists don’t need a defending strategy either.
Explicits constantly need to defend their position, which is one of religious belief in the idea of darwinism.

Lol!!!
The onus is on the one who makes the claim.
Show me a claim I made, which wasn’t backed up?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you checked with each cosmologist or are you generalising?

If you google you may find there are various views finite infinite and even multiverse.

Mostly. But our observation can't get past the CBR so I feel one can speculate a little...
Also all we can talk about is the observable universe..as I understand that is what is dealt with in the big bang theory ..there is no reason to think that it was the only small hot something..I don't know that we can look outside but I think that is the way some "see it".

I don't actually. I do not have any tested model that offers anything new or indeed different in essence.

Perhaps but I would think I am rather rational and you may have guessed by now I am not worried about the opinions about me..if I was concerned I would shave and repeat only the exact opinions of science mainstream ... No ..... People will hold whatever opinion they chose ..for some I am easy to hate.. so what do you do.

Just because you do not understand my position it is of no consequence...I maintain a reality where the only things that can be considered have a place in reality..to a large degree evidenced such that their existence can be taken as a fact or as truth. For example...I am reasonably confident the Sun is real, as is the Moon, from personal observation..Evolution and Big Bang I hold a very high degree of confidence which reflects that both theories are capable to be included in sensible discussion of the evidence in support.

I am not at all interested in matters that have no evidence that supports any claim that scriptures explain cosmology or reality.

There is no need for a term theist or atheist.

I certainly object to being left linked in anyway to a concept that can not meet the price of admission to rational consideration of the Universe, and can present not one thing that indicates the claims of theist are at all valid.

So why is there any need to qualify someone...atheist or theist...well of course there is none...these words are inventions by theist no doubt in the belief they can thru such trickery give credibility to their views..well it does not give or even lend any credibility..I won't play that game.

And if delusional is the only description that folk can make I suggest they also have no idea of the position I now hold.

Thanks Jan. I am looking forward to driving around the property and to see what's there.

Yes indeed. But someone has to remain critical.

Thanks Jan.
All the best to you also.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again your ignorance shows you as a silly billy. The BB is only applicable to the observable universe, and in fact cosmologists cannot be certain whether the universe is infinite or finite, as was explained to you previously.

No prizes for second Jan, and as we already know, religion/god/IDer, at its beginnings was simply imagined by the uneducated ancients, and admittedly it did have a good run, until science came to the fore, with more explanatory, evidenced supported knowledge.

 

stuff up............................

 

Just going off what other cosmologists have said. They have to go with the best evidence, even if they don’t personally agree.

I know.
But the best evidence to date, show that the universe had a beginning.

By evolution, I take that to include Darwinian evolution.
I am also confident the sun is real, as is the moon. The BB makes sense, as the universe is expanding, it figures that if you reverse the process, there must be a point of singularity, and all that stuff.
But I don’t see how you hold darwinism in the same way. What can you observe that makes you say “yeah this evidence that one type of animal evolved into a completely different type.
eg: doggy-types to whales.
Judging by the other things you mentioned, how have you come to put that in the same bracket?

You’re dead right.
I barely know your position, let alone understand it. But I do know that you don’t believe in God, which is the definition of atheist. If I am cold, there’s no point in changing the word, or eliminating it because I see no point in it. I won’t call you an atheist if you prefer, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t one.

Give some idea of the evidence that actually supports darwinism. Not just testimonies of others who support darwinism.
What was the smoking gun for you?

I can see why you would think that, given your lack of belief, and disdain.
I can see that you’ve cottoned on to the fact the very notion of atheism, and theism, means there is a God, and there are people who do not believe in Him. These people have broken of from the norm, and are called atheists. Without God. No mention of existence, or lack of. That is the reality.

You mean going back home after the fire, for the first time?
If that is the case. Best of luck.
I hope the damage is as minimal as can be.
Good luck.
Keep us posted.


p.s.Hey! Did you know the Aussie’s have a cure for this Coronavirus! Tried to get some online. All gone.

 

Actually Jan, the real question is how it is possible that you don't put one science in the same bracket as another? Evolution has far more substantial evidence towards being factual than does our current cosmological theory. It seems that the more factual the science, the further away from it you distance yourself. Why is that?

 

The actual skeletons of the dozen or so intermediate fossils between "doggy type" and whales.

 

Does it?
The evidence does not tell us that.
The evidence used by BBT gives it support but the theory deals with the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state and does not deal with a beginning.

You just don't wake up one morning and find your dog had puppies and a small whale Jan.
Evolution is a very gradual process.
In any event you don't as yet seem to understand it from a science approach if you are still in the crockaduck camp.

It makes sense.
The only alternative is to have all species appear at a point, and over the years until now various species have gone extinct..some 98% has gone extinct...and through all that time humans existed as most life went extinct.
That seems unbelievable whereas a gradual change over time will have species coming and going ... The fossil records support this approach.
Changes took place over many generations. Creationists often hold a view that the Earth was created less than ten thousand years ago and in that time frame they reasonably question the processes...if they could accept the Earth was as old as science reveals they too could accept change take many generations perhaps over millions of years.

Finding a small whale in the dog box.

At my age I can't pull stuff up like I once could. But seriously Jan the evidence is easy to find...look into DNA, look at how fossil records can trace the development or minimisation of a particular bone ... It's there if you look.
Consider the evolution of the eye. It went from a patch of skin that could detect a change in light to the complex unit it is today. The eye just did not appear one day it evolved over a long time.

I reserve disdain for crooks and conmen.
I feel sorry for folk who are within their grip.
I would love a world with a God but there simply is no evidence. The whole concept is clearly made up from a multitude of speculations non of which have support.
I don't think there is any answer to the critisism ....If it is all about God why does he remain distant and not make his message entirely clear.

No. The place is 100 acres and I need a bush bashers to drive around and look.
The fire was at the other property.

The other place I lost a cement mixer but I don't go there at all these days. Thanks.

We are great inventors and innovators a fact not well known as the world thing we are just beer drinkers with casual attitudes.
Make masks compulsory. Pants are compulsory why not a mask.
Alex

 

Yes, Alex, but that is evidenced based science, and shows the superfluous nature that is his IDer myth.
We shouldn't expect anymore of him, other then to ignore that evidenced based science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's the nature of extremist creationists personal.

 

With your attitude I can't see you getting in.

 

It is interesting how Jan and many others look to the big bang as the beginning...I have noticed many times the comment is that the BBT deals with the evolution of the universe not it's "beginning".

I do think if Jan wishes to reject his "Darwinism" he needs to provide a model by way of hypothesis to address the obvious problem faced if creation of all life is to be all at the same time and the related issues re extinctions.

I don't know Jan's exact position as I can not recall him ever presenting me with specifics... And although he rejects "Darwinism"I admit I am not exactly sure what he means...I need not second guess and will not speculate as to what he thinks...he may be more specific but I will restrict my consideration to reasonably well established scientific models.
Alex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It's not quite that God becomes a blind retard; that's more a Lovecraft joke. Still, "Darwinism", as such, is an all-purpose taboo referring to systems in which humanity is something other than the center of God's attention. To the one, we are the reason why things exist; to the other, we are symptomatic of something amoral and dispassionate. Psychologically, it's quite a tumble from the prestige of grace; the neurotic tension, judging from the experience of witness over time, would appear to hurt.

No, really, I mean, think about creationists in general. To the one, there is the famous question: Is it from his mother's side, or his father's, that he is descended from a monkey? Or the century and a half when laughing derisively at the walking, swimming whale seemed like a safe bet. Yeah, A. natans hurt. I mean, around my corner we have an obscure notion of getting fishwalloped, and you generally have to be oblivious enough to walk in the way of a flying salmon in order to experience it. But this is an actual walking-swimming whale, not a tourist gimmick at the fishmonger's. That's like getting Dar-whacked upside the soul.

You're not wrong about Jan's exact position; he doesn't say much toward that end. But that's the thing; in this soulless theatre, that's the way the weasel pops.

 

I shall call him phydeaux.
Alex

 

Some would say that hot dense state, the point of singularity, represents the beginning. Similar to the point of where all the ingredients of bread have been put together. And now we just put the bread in the oven, and wait for it to expand. The point at which bread begins to expand, marking the point where we can understand what as taken place.

God isn’t defined as a Spaghetti Monster, but we all get the drift.
My point is, how do you know this event did take place? What did you observe as evidence, to know this is correct?
Have you seen fossil records? Just as an example.
How is the example of a crocoduck, any worse than Fido —->Whilly?

It makes more sense that no such thing happened. Especially as there is no evidence anyone can easily cite.

How does extinction show that darwinism took place?
The alternative would be to not make up stuff, either scientific or religious. We observe the world as it is. We understand that things do change over time, because we observe it. When all is said and done, that is what we do.

It simply means that species die out.
Why invoke darwinism?

Which is what we call evolution. We can observe this, and make predictions from it.
But why invoke darwinism? Especially as it has to be believed, or accepted on trust. The majority of people who believe in darwinism, are like you, in that they do not know much, or anything about it.
You saw when I asked Paddoboy for evidence of darwinism. He came back with more folk claiming it.

Those are known as Biblical Young Earth Creationists. Most creationists don’t buy into that. But I can see why it is important for you to, kind of put it out there.

Why should they have to accept it?
There is no smoking gun here.
The reality is, it doesn’t matter whether or not we accept it. Nothing changes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, like Paddoboy, you’re not addressing the question.
What was the evidence, for you, that meant darwinism is a scientific fact?

You’re assuming the eye as evolved (darwinian]. Do you believe the eye has evolved, or do you have scientific evidence?

Again, how do you know this?

I don’t think you’ve given it much thought.
But that’s another talk for another time.

If this assertion is the same thinking process which you assert darwinism, it is little wonder you accept it.

 

No I don’t.
I can reject on the basis that there is no evidence that points exclusively to darwinism.
That the majority of people believe in it, as no facts have shown to date, that is not based on just-so stories.
As there is no exclusive evidence, it makes no difference whether or not we believe in it?

 

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

This is all Jan does, asks the same question and then provides his own dishonest, disingenuous answer, over and over and over...

I know there's a term for this behavior, but I just can't remember...

 

Well, there is cherry-picking, but that has more to do with your behavior in the moment.

And there's also cowardice, (Q). Try contributing something, for once.

 

Could you be more vague? Grasping at straws?

Still trying to pick a fight? Why not just tell us how utterly bored you are with your life, instead?

Lol. This coming from a guy who has never contributed anything outside of an internet forum.