Like i said before, if the “god answer” is not a compelling answer than that means you are drawing out that it is possible for realities like language, systems, and intelligent life to just come here accidentally. You can’t just lower an answer of it’s value with out showing an example to suggest something else because that makes your argument more close to an assumption. But continue flagging because you can’t raise your position in the first place.
bitch
Understandable. I’ve been a nuetral to these types of discussions but despite what Fishjie is saying (and despite that i honestly feel Cisco is trolling than trying to debate) Cisco does have a point. You can’t point out flaws in a topic with out another vanue to look at. If god/gods are not an intelligent answer than what else can we use to explain the reason of language and all that mentioned to just become real? Is it possible that language can generate with out intelligent intervention, yes or no? Based on your post here, you need to be on the side that speaks of it being possible so you have to give the consideration of supporting yourself otherwise it is you who is in the assumption zone (or a bigger one).
No disrespect, but your last sentence “explanation just waiting for us…” is almost on the same contrast of faith. You believe it is there somewhere with out any valuable data to view that yet.
GOD was mentioned so I showed up.
I didn’t read a damn thing in this thread but would like to say that science is the answer and that religion is one of the best trolls of all time.
Also, the creation of the genetic junk known as Cisco was not my fault, it was science.
Start reading mother fucker because I just owned the thread by showing Atheism as the biggest fraud science of all time while Theism is the real science. Hopefully you won’t cry again and go “you’re not as clever as you think” when i’m raising my arms in victory just like i did to Fishjiz when he ended up criticizing my morality at the end because of all his shit being blown up when i returned to this site 3 years ago.
There is no absolute way for the universe to be that sophisticated, systematic, and much of all accessible with out a mind intending it. Show me any common example that shows it is possible that any system can develop a language out of anything before saying it’s not a compelling reason to say a mastermind did it. Remember, just saying “you’re wrong” is an automatic loss because if you can’t show why your shit is reasonable than you are just rejecting out of refusal or in my terms, choosing to pass out from a submission hold because you don’t want to tap out. ^ this post is going to GoodMorgan’s posts because he just replied with the same input i prestated an atheist does in my great post up there, and that is saying how the opposing topic is wrong with out providing anything to support why the case he has is better.
Comeon guys. For 10+ years i’ve been trying to man you guys up and up to now i can get an effective swing on me yet? I’m about to retire with my belt about to being vacated, now would be the best time to step up and claim it.
Almost makes me wish it really was Ultimate Warrior posting. At least he would have an excuse.
Proof there is a GOD besides ElderGOD or GTFO.
This thread is about science.
I am the Ultimate Warrior.
Of SRK Religion and Science threads. You and your girly-man friends can never beat me and you can’t do shit but spin in circles.
*I’m out. Re-read my words new posters and watch how i effectively have put these atheists back in their place by showing how the science they love to dick ride is a fake ass science that is unintelligent. I hope sonicbye has seen this because nigga wanted a demonstration, but it is a bummer that i my departure from this site is taking out the same punks again.
Yes it is, that’s why atheists should gtfo. Read that great post bitch and see how atheism is fraud version of science because all laws of physics contradict their shit.
next, if anyone is closest to a god here on SRK, it’s me. You are millions of levels below me, edgargod.
*I’m out…
Not really, the simple explanation is that complexity arises from simplicity. If you look at how various animals such as dolphins, whales, and monkeys communicate with one another, you can see how the brain has evolved how communication such as language evolved with it. Complexity existing does not mean that something even more complex created it, if that were the case, then what created that more complex being? The theists will argue that god has always existed, but that’s a case of special pleading. If you want to argue that, well hell, you might as well argue that the universe has always existed. Remove the word god, it is superfluous. It is a synonym for “i dont know”. And its ok to not know everything, because it has lead to philosophy, literature, and science. The god of the gaps argument is that the things we don’t know can only be explainable by god. But this list of things keeps growing smaller. Perhaps there is a limit to human knowledge. This does not mean that god exists, it means that there are things that we do not know. Coming up with religious nonsensical dogma to fill that gap is dumb and counterproductive. exhibit A - cisco. keeps saying he’ll leave and never comes back, yet keeps coming back begging for validation that he is not pathetic and dumb.
in fact cisco is proof that god is imaginary. if i were a god and i had someone so retarded, i’d be embarassed at such a pathetic minion i’d have smited him into oblivion long ago.
If there is a phenomenon for which we haven’t found an explanation, that does not mean we get to substitute our favorite pet explanation just because. It is rational to assume that there is an explanation for things, but it is irrational to simply pick one without an evidentiary basis.
As for pointing out that a proposed explanation doesn’t meet the criteria for a valid hypothesis, it is absolutely fine to do so even if one does not propose an alternate hypothesis. To the contrary, it is conceivable that if not enough information is available on a particular phenomenon, then any hypothesis is as ill-founded as the next. Not only is there nothing wrong with the starting assumption that something is unknown until it is clearly demonstrated otherwise (as ordinary an assumption as they come), it is actually essential to do so.
This post is brought to you by too much caffeine and not enough sleep.
Now this is where it becomes a discussion however what your input is is simply a case for evolution and it does not answer or provide any possiblity that an a different answer is conceivable. I don’t care about the opinions on cisco are but it is true that language can’t just generate on it’s own with a mind communicating it. Your first sentence if you carefully look at it is actually supporting the point in his post, a mind is still needed for the existence and evolution of langage. Using “I don’t know” is not a good retort because if you don’t know then you can’t eliminate or degrade another persons input on the origin of everything. Evolution was not originally an atheist argument it actually started as a Christian idea.
It’s more rational to argue that a god always existed than a universe being infinite. If Universe has always existed (which is false) than atheists shouldn’t have a problem as to the logic of God always existing. The reason this part of what i quoted is not well though out is because it’s mathematically illogical because it is suggesting X creating another X. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up. Now this can’t change because that is Law so that shows the only logical application to use that there was something outside of it and due to the fact that the universe has a language layers an outside intelligence as the only logical answer.
I thank you though for replying with something intelligent but it just supports the whole talk of language before.
If there is a phenomenon we can’t disregard a hypothesis of intellectual value with out supply a different hypothesis to rival it. You said it here yourself “To the contrary, it is conceivable that if not enough information is available on a particular phenomenon, then any hypothesis is as ill-founded as the next.” well that’s the problem with an atheist hypothesy because it lacks information even worse than the theism hypothesis they accuse of.
How are you going to make clear that the information for a specific answer as ill-founded with out information to support the contrary? Lets say if i get into an argument about electric fans being the only thing that can generate wind, i know in arguments like this you can give a counter example/evidence to show that wind can be made by otherthings such as exhaling, throwing out movement and other ways. However in a topic of “is there anyway intelligent life can happen on it’s own” the necessity of giving an example is unnecessary. To sum it up, for an atheist to reject the god hypothesis as unscientific they must first show how language can generate on it’s own because with out it they are just rejecting an answer out of bias than being academic. Theism is the only one who does argue with that requirement and until that time comes then atheism remains as a belief based on faith than science.
Which supports my argument about language needing a mind. Thanks for showing examples about minds creating language or having their communications evolved… sadly, i asked for communication to happen with out mind as the challenge for the atheist so i’m suprised that you are showing examples of how minds are required for language generally.
LMAO…get over it fishjiz. There has never been a thread where you didn’t leave with a foot mark on your ass. “is being cool on SRK more important than being cool with Jesus? *sniff” remember that?
It’s hard making a last post when somebody argues with posts that indirectly supports my points yet thinks it’s a counter. But that’s what happens when your arguments are fact, the opponent will not know he is owning himself by giving replies that helps the opposing case.
edit: Fishjiz’ line: “Complexity existing does not mean that something even more complex created it, if that were the case, then what created that more complex being?” or in short “then what created God” line. Is the old school boy question that many idiots use to counter with the universe being created.
*leaves thread like UMVC3 Ironman
It would be helpful at this point to differentiate between different varieties of atheism. (We all knew this was coming.) Hard atheism is the positive assertion that we live in a confirmably godless universe, and that would indeed require an evidentiary basis. Some people subscribe to this idea, but I don’t know of anybody here who does, so you’re probably talking to the wrong crowd in that regard.
Soft atheism is simply the position that so far there has been no sufficiently compelling argument in favor of the existence of a god–so, starting with the position that a hypothesis is false until proven true, we cannot conclude based on those arguments that there is a god. By way of an analogy: most people don’t have a particularly strong view on the nonexistence of unicorns. However, we have no compelling evidence that unicorns do exist, so we live our lives comfortably without the assumption that at some point we might run across one. That’s soft atheism’s position on God, gods, or what have you.
The universe is just an infinite number of D20’s being rolled at once. Or not rolled. Or both. The guy doing the rolling is probably some intergalactic quantum nerd that lives in his mother’s basement and smells of Cheetos. 
Your definition of the Soft Atheism is what i’m touching here. First to your point about Hypothesis’, you can’t claim the hypothesis false or show doubt on it if there is no example to provide an alternative Hypothesis this is just the basic grounds of intellectualism. How can the hypothesis not be proven true when there is no elements to give it doubt in the first place? I’m not here trying to back Cisco because i feel insulted on how he is just here to piss and troll people off for the fun of it instead of being real with what he is saying, but that part of the room example is spot on for what you just said here.
The diffence between magical beings from God is because God is more of an argument for “cause and effect” while those are beings that have no signficance on existing or not so for god another substitute is needed to refute him/her/them. We have no evidence that magic unicorns don’t exist because all evidence proves they don’t. The whole “you can’t prove the nonexistent to exist” IMO is a shallow argument because of course we can prove things don’t exist. Santa Claus, Gold pots at the end of the rainbow, random t-rex’s runnning around new york. Non-existent beings have been proven to not be real not just because their is no evidence but because there is evidence against their existence. The only reason why atheism feels that unexistent things can’t be proven real is because they can’t prove god doesn’t exist. if you don’t think that the universe (the functions, life…) is evidence of a greater mind than you are giving in to the possibilities of Language, Intelligent life, and the universe being on it’s motion was made on it’s own. So where is the observation of that? You can’t say option A is low in credibility if option B is that poorly equiped that’s my point.
ralph_sab apparently trying to revive the hate for new posters
“Hai d00dz, why come u dun t8ke Ciscos argumnts srsly??”
fuck outta here with that shit. gonna ruin a perfectly good thread
Why don’t you fuck out your own shit? I made it a great thread. You motherfuckers can’t take the fact that your versions of science is a fraud joke science and i ran over that shit in one single post. The best you can do is plug your ears and yell la-la-la…
"Nigga you don’t got evidence so yours is wrong… my arguments don’t have any evidence either and it doesn’t have examples like yours to support and that’s science! but you’re wrong anyway nigger!!! our scientists are so smart and they can’t add! Observation isn’t needed in science, you just have to think* that we will get the answer one day. believe!!! ". You are the last poster i will punch out in this thread, i promise that.
@raph_sak, why in the fuck are you insulted by my great posts? You’ve been literally bootlegging a bit of mine on top of making it as if it was your own. hmm… come to think of it… maybe you theists should copy paste my shit after i retire. I mean, if you can take access of a nuke, why not take it instead of making your own?
I came in here crossing my fingers with the hope my 27 notifications meant that the Science thread had news of the discovery of intelligent alien life.
Woe is me.
Cisco, I’m asking you nicely, please exit this thread. If you want to discuss the how the faith based belief systems can be validated via the scientific method, please make a separate thread.
No discovery of life on Mars yet, but Curiosity has discovered substantial amounts of water mixed into the soil of the Red Planet.
Mars water surprise in Curiosity rover soil samples
There is a surprising amount of water bound up in the soil of Mars, according to an analysis done onboard the US space agency’s (Nasa) Curiosity rover.
When it heated a small pinch of dirt scooped up from the ground, the most abundant vapour detected was H2O.
Curiosity researcher Laurie Leshin and colleagues tell Science Magazine that Mars’ dusty red covering holds about 2% by weight of water.
This could be a useful resource for future astronauts, they say.
“If you think about a cubic foot of this dirt and you just heat it a little bit - a few hundred degrees - you’ll actually get off about two pints of water - like two water bottles you’d take to the gym,” Dr Leshin explained.
“And this dirt on Mars is interesting because it seems to be about the same everywhere you go. If you are a human explorer, this is really good news because you can quite easily extract water from almost anywhere.”
The dean of science at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York, has been describing her work with Curiosity in this week’s Science In Action programme on the BBC.
The revelation about the amount of water chemically bound into the fine-grained particles of the soil is just one nugget of information to come from a series of five papers in the respected journal describing the early exploits of the rover.
Some of this data has been reported previously at science meetings and in Nasa press conferences, but the formal write-up gives an opportunity for the wider research community to examine the detail.
‘Good and bad’
Dr Leshin’s and colleagues’ publication concerns a sample analysis done at “Rocknest”, a pile of wind-blown sand and silt about 400m from where Curiosity touched down on the floor of Gale Crater in August 2012.
The robot used its tools to pick up, sieve and deliver a smidgeon of this Martian dirt to the Sam instrument hidden away inside the belly of the vehicle.
Jake_M
The wind has eroded Jake_M into the striking shape of a pyramid
Sam has the ability to cook samples and to identify any gases that are released. These products are diagnostic of the different components that make up the soil.
So, for example, Curiosity saw a significant proportion of carbon dioxide - the likely consequence of carbonate minerals being present in the sample. Carbonates form in the presence of water.
And it saw oxygen and chlorine - a signal many had expected to see following similar studies in Mars’ “High Arctic” by Nasa’s Phoenix lander in 2008.
“[We think these] are break-down products from a mineral called perchlorate, and that’s there at about a half-a-percent in the soil,” said Dr Leshin.
“If the water was the good news for the astronauts, this is the bad news. Perchlorate actually interferes with thyroid function, so it could be a problem if humans were to ingest some of the fine dust on Mars. It’s just something we need to know about now so we can plan for it later.”
Scottish link
Three of the other Curiosity papers in the Science Magazine release also concern themselves with the nature of the Martian soil.
The fifth is a report that describes a pyramid-shaped rock found in the vehicle’s path. This striking block was dubbed Jake Matijevic, in honour of a recently deceased Nasa engineer.
The team led by Prof Ed Stolper from Caltech, Pasadena, can now confirm that Jake_M is a rock not seen before on the Red Planet.
It is most like a mugearite, says the group - a type of rock found on islands and rift zones on Earth.
“On Earth, we have a pretty good idea how mugearites and rocks like them are formed,” said co-worker Prof Martin Fisk from Oregon State University, Corvallis.
"It starts with magma deep within the Earth that crystallises in the presence of 1-2% water.
“The crystals settle out of the magma and what doesn’t crystallise is the mugearite magma, which can eventually make its way to the surface as a volcanic eruption.”
Mugearite was first identified on Earth by British petrographer/petrologist Alfred Harker. The name references a local croft, Mugeary, on the Isle of Skye, just off the Scottish mainland.
The Curiosity rover is currently engaged in some hard driving in Gale Crater. Since early July, it has been rolling tens of metres a day.
The robot is trying to reach the foothills of the large mountain that dominates the centre of the deep, equatorial impact bowl.