(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY

It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.

In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...

Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."

Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.

The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?

so until life is found elsewhere?

ps I did find this before on a shorter clip but that seems to have been shortened now to edit out this piece otherwise I would have just posted it.

Stop it, this is the same stupid tactic people use to twist the words of Hawkins and Einstein. It does not work.

It will not make virgin births real or zombie gods real. People don't walk on water and bushes don't talk. No one is going to get 72 virgins. And their is no elephant god named Ganish. There are just people like you who like the idea of a god or gods existing.

Scientifically speaking the individual atoms that make up life when separate as INDIVIDUAL ATOMS are also found in other materials. In a universe of billions of galaxies it should not shock anyone if we find some sort of other living organism that exists because of the same processes we see on earth.

We also see other suns too(those white dots are suns, people stupidly have called them stars, but they are suns). All Dawkins and Tyson are saying is that it should not shock anyone if we did find life possible elsewhere.

Don't conflate or twist their words to prop up your myth. None of us are that stupid.

(January 3, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY

It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.

In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...

Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."

Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.

The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?

so until life is found elsewhere?

ps I did find this before on a shorter clip but that seems to have been shortened now to edit out this piece otherwise I would have just posted it.

Stop it, this is the same stupid tactic people use to twist the words of Hawkins and Einstein. It does not work.

It will not make virgin births real or zombie gods real. People don't walk on water and bushes don't talk. No one is going to get 72 virgins. And their is no elephant god named Ganish. There are just people like you who like the idea of a god or gods existing.

Scientifically speaking the individual atoms that make up life when separate as INDIVIDUAL ATOMS are also found in other materials. In a universe of billions of galaxies it should not shock anyone if we find some sort of other living organism that exists because of the same processes we see on earth.

We also see other suns too(those white dots are suns, people stupidly have called them stars, but they are suns). All Dawkins and Tyson are saying is that it should not shock anyone if we did find life possible elsewhere.

Don't conflate or twist their words to prop up your myth. None of us are that stupid.

I'm sorry but they are clearly saying there must be life elsewhere otherwise something stupedeously rare happened on earth and that if that were the case then the origins of life would have to be found in a "stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere." . I don't twist their words I use them exactly as spoken I just say they have other implications apart from what they were intialy used for.

(January 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Stop it, this is the same stupid tactic people use to twist the words of Hawkins and Einstein. It does not work.

It will not make virgin births real or zombie gods real. People don't walk on water and bushes don't talk. No one is going to get 72 virgins. And their is no elephant god named Ganish. There are just people like you who like the idea of a god or gods existing.

Scientifically speaking the individual atoms that make up life when separate as INDIVIDUAL ATOMS are also found in other materials. In a universe of billions of galaxies it should not shock anyone if we find some sort of other living organism that exists because of the same processes we see on earth.

We also see other suns too(those white dots are suns, people stupidly have called them stars, but they are suns). All Dawkins and Tyson are saying is that it should not shock anyone if we did find life possible elsewhere.

Don't conflate or twist their words to prop up your myth. None of us are that stupid.

I'm sorry but they are clearly saying there must be life elsewhere otherwise something stupedeously rare happened on earth and that if that were the case then the origins of life would have to be found in a "stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere." . I don't twist their words I use them exactly as spoken I just say they have other implications apart from what they were intialy used for.

Do you think I am that stupid, you must. You have a bible quote as your name so your end goal is to try to convince us that a god is possible, then you stupidly think that by using the words of atheists you can sneak your magic baby story into all this through the back door.

Drop it. If you are going to bring science into it, don't be stupid and think we haven't heard "I'm not trying to convince you of anything". If you are going to quote scientists just admit you do believe in a god and you want science to prop up your particular pet deity. Otherwise don't bring science into it. If you do, we are going to say "What does this have to do with the fact that you believe in a 2000 year old desert myth?"

"Mark 13:13" unless I am mistaken that is a bible verse isn't it?

Brian37 Wrote:so your end goal is to try to convince us that a god is possible.

I'm not so ambitious although it would be nice if i could, no I would like you at least acknowledge the possability and maybe explore where that would lead for you and maybe even try an experiment and ask God if he exists to come into your life.

Brian37 Wrote:If you are going to quote scientists just admit you do believe in a god and you want science to prop up your particular pet deity. Otherwise don't bring science into it.

It would be silly of me to expect science to prove the Existence of God when I have stated clearly that there is no way anyone can prove or disprove Gods existence given the nature of GOD but why should an Athiest not allow me to use science where I can to support my points?

Brian37 Wrote:"Mark 13:13" unless I am mistaken that is a bible verse isn't it?

yes

(January 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Brian37 Wrote:so your end goal is to try to convince us that a god is possible.

I'm not so ambitious although it would be nice if i could, no I would like you at least acknowledge the possability and maybe explore where that would lead for you and maybe even try an experiment and ask God if he exists to come into your life.

Brian37 Wrote:If you are going to quote scientists just admit you do believe in a god and you want science to prop up your particular pet deity. Otherwise don't bring science into it.

It would be silly of me to expect science to prove the Existence of God when I have stated clearly that there is no way anyone can prove or disprove Gods existence given the nature of GOD but why should an Athiest not allow me to use science where I can to support my points?

Brian37 Wrote:"Mark 13:13" unless I am mistaken that is a bible verse isn't it?

yes

Thank you for exposing your intellectual cowardice. If you are going to say "it would be nice if you Brian37 would ask God to come into your life" then why are you dodging what you believe by trying to say "I'm not trying to convince you". When I have something I think will help someone else I expose them to it and argue for it.

If I hold a position I defend it and I do not beat around the bush about it like you are here. But that is what believers have to do to sneak their superstition in through the back door.

NOW, you think I am being harsh for no reason. Not true. When I say "intellectual cowardice" I am saying for your own benefit, not mine, you need to be willing to face your position instead of dodging it or dancing around it and be willing to admit when you are wrong.

Our species however has a majority, throughout our species evolution, tend to lean to going with what feels right rather than test it to see if it is actually true.

Now, it has been way too long since we have known what DNA is which puts a damper on claims of virgin births. We also know what happens scientifically after death which puts the idea of a 3 day old dead body in the trash can of bad claims.

So it boils down to asking yourself, NOT ME, but yourself.

What is more important to you "going with what you believe because it makes you feel good"

Or, knowing the truth even if it does not match up with your wishes?

The first is what you are doing and hardly impresses me. Muslims and Jews also like what they believe. And the Egyptians liked believing that the sun was a god.

Otherwise if you had something, you'd at the patent office and have a Nobel Prize in science and could actually make an argument that would convince even the likes of the scientists words you tried to hide behind to pretend we don't know that you do have an invisible friend claim.

(January 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I'm not so ambitious although it would be nice if i could, no I would like you at least acknowledge the possability and maybe explore where that would lead for you and maybe even try an experiment and ask God if he exists to come into your life.

It would be silly of me to expect science to prove the Existence of God when I have stated clearly that there is no way anyone can prove or disprove Gods existence given the nature of GOD but why should an Athiest not allow me to use science where I can to support my points?

yes

Thank you for exposing your intellectual cowardice. If you are going to say "it would be nice if you Brian37 would ask God to come into your life" then why are you dodging what you believe by trying to say "I'm not trying to convince you". When I have something I think will help someone else I expose them to it and argue for it.

If I hold a position I defend it and I do not beat around the bush about it like you are here. But that is what believers have to do to sneak their superstition in through the back door.

NOW, you think I am being harsh for no reason. Not true. When I say "intellectual cowardice" I am saying for your own benefit, not mine, you need to be willing to face your position instead of dodging it or dancing around it and be willing to admit when you are wrong.

Our species however has a majority, throughout our species evolution, tend to lean to going with what feels right rather than test it to see if it is actually true.

Now, it has been way too long since we have known what DNA is which puts a damper on claims of virgin births. We also know what happens scientifically after death which puts the idea of a 3 day old dead body in the trash can of bad claims.

So it boils down to asking yourself, NOT ME, but yourself.

What is more important to you "going with what you believe because it makes you feel good"

Or, knowing the truth even if it does not match up with your wishes?

The first is what you are doing and hardly impresses me. Muslims and Jews also like what they believe. And the Egyptians liked believing that the sun was a god.

Otherwise if you had something, you'd at the patent office and have a Nobel Prize in science and could actually make an argument that would convince even the likes of the scientists words you tried to hide behind to pretend we don't know that you do have an invisible friend claim.

mmmh I think looking at what you have written, the infinite number of monkeys is still a long way from typing a shakespeare play. So as we have descended to this level I must give you one of my LAST WORD cards ( don't forget don't turn it over )

(January 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: what would the highest degree of stupendously impossable odds be and remember that 0.9 recurring mathematically = 1 certain so at the other end of the scale 0.0..infinite..01 = 0 impossable so I can take your impossable as the pinacle of stuendously impossable odds and therefore God fits by your use of impossable.

That comment dropped my opinion of you considerably. Are there more than one of you?

(January 3, 2013 at 3:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(January 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: what would the highest degree of stupendously impossable odds be and remember that 0.9 recurring mathematically = 1 certain so at the other end of the scale 0.0..infinite..01 = 0 impossable so I can take your impossable as the pinacle of stuendously impossable odds and therefore God fits by your use of impossable.

That comment dropped my opinion of you considerably. Are there more than one of you?

was there something wrong with the maths?

(January 3, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Thank you for exposing your intellectual cowardice. If you are going to say "it would be nice if you Brian37 would ask God to come into your life" then why are you dodging what you believe by trying to say "I'm not trying to convince you". When I have something I think will help someone else I expose them to it and argue for it.

If I hold a position I defend it and I do not beat around the bush about it like you are here. But that is what believers have to do to sneak their superstition in through the back door.

NOW, you think I am being harsh for no reason. Not true. When I say "intellectual cowardice" I am saying for your own benefit, not mine, you need to be willing to face your position instead of dodging it or dancing around it and be willing to admit when you are wrong.

Our species however has a majority, throughout our species evolution, tend to lean to going with what feels right rather than test it to see if it is actually true.

Now, it has been way too long since we have known what DNA is which puts a damper on claims of virgin births. We also know what happens scientifically after death which puts the idea of a 3 day old dead body in the trash can of bad claims.

So it boils down to asking yourself, NOT ME, but yourself.

What is more important to you "going with what you believe because it makes you feel good"

Or, knowing the truth even if it does not match up with your wishes?

The first is what you are doing and hardly impresses me. Muslims and Jews also like what they believe. And the Egyptians liked believing that the sun was a god.

Otherwise if you had something, you'd at the patent office and have a Nobel Prize in science and could actually make an argument that would convince even the likes of the scientists words you tried to hide behind to pretend we don't know that you do have an invisible friend claim.

mmmh I think looking at what you have written, the infinite number of monkeys is still a long way from typing a shakespeare play. So as we have descended to this level I must give you one of my LAST WORD cards ( don't forget don't turn it over )

Oh no, not that dead stupid argument rearing it's pathetic ugly head again.

You stupidly think that evolution as a science claims that a human baby came directly from a monkey. You need to sue the person who sold you that bullshit and have them locked up.

You have grandparents, did they die at the moment your parents were born? Did your parents die exactly at the moment you were born? If you have cousins, did they die when you were born?

You do know what the word "cousins" means. If you can be genetically related to other people without coming out of the same womb, then the concept of "common ancestors" should make sense to you.

The classification of "primates" is the description of the genetic line we have in common with other primates. Only an idiot who does not understand evolution would claim evolution means a human baby came out of a monkey.

There is a reason the word "cats" is used both in "big cats" such as tigers and lions, along with "domestic house cats", because when you go back far enough in evolutionary biology at one time they shared the same ANSESTORS(PLURAL} And not only merely looking at them should tell you that they are related, but DNA will also prove that a tabby and lion shared the same ancestors.

Now, evolution IS SLOW and is nothing more than the atoms in our genes getting shuffled over long periods of time. For the same reason you don't look like a baby now, evolution allows very subtle changes which creates that "look separation" while DNA proves that at one time we were more genetically connected.

I think maybe Ray Comfort may have sold you the stupid crocoduck argument and you fell for it.

Quote: think looking at what you have written, the infinite number of monkeys is still a long way from typing a shakespeare play

Never claimed monkey's could type a sheakspere play. Evolution proves that we had common ancestors.

But how convenient that your childish misunderstanding leads to Jesus and not Allah or Vishnu. You do know I have run into Muslims who pull your crap too. If they cant prop up their myth with science, they attack it.

Evolution is a fact, sorry you don't like it. But do not lie to me and say you'd turn down DNA evidence in a murder trial, you would accept it. So if you can accept DNA in that area, then you have no choice but to accept that DNA proves that humans had common ancestors with other primates.

(January 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I agree apart from according to many on here the certainty that GOD does not exist.

Everyone who is certain a deist God does not exist, please raise your hand. In the last thread in which I asked this, we got one, maybe we can do better here.