Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Alex K]

Wait, wait, stop the thread! I think it may be all based on a false premise. Can we go back to square one?

[Surgenator]

were not talking quantum theories here, were talking about simple measurements.

The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

[Huggy Bear]

were not talking quantum theories here, were talking about simple measurements.

The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

That is not a ratio my friend...

[Esquilax]

LOL, still trying to defend his error clearly shows the bias.

I know this is from five pages back, but I have to respond: are you a goddamn child? Can you seriously not conceive of a reason someone might disagree with you, other than that they're out to get you, personally? I explained my reasons for disagreeing with you above, kindly stop pretending I haven't so you can continue to shrug off every little criticism of your inane position as some imagined bias.

Guess what? From 1953....

And as I pointed out in my post- that you conveniently ignored because really the only reason anyone would dare to disagree with the Great Huggy is that they hate him and what he believes in personally- is that a person with a functioning fucking brain would try to consider the reason why someone would object to that specific set of data. Having done that consideration, a sane person would not conclude that all data from 1953 is invalid, as that would also mean that accurate data would be invalid.

You, on the other hand, decided that thinking was for losers (or perhaps honest people, who want to get to the truth, and not just win an argument... ) and to stop looking at the data, to instead proclaim "aha! This is from 1953! It must also be wrong, because it's a bad year for sciencing!"

You do recognize the concept of contradiction, do you not?

You do recognize the concept of a willful misinterpretation, do you not?

[Brakeman]

The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

That is not a ratio my friend...

Really??

Full Definition of RATIO
1
a : the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions

Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

[FatAndFaithless]

At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

[Esquilax]

At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

Anything to avoid having to concede a point. It's pretty much standard operations for theistic apologists.

[Cyberman]

Only at this point?

[Huggy Bear]

That is not a ratio my friend...

Really??

Full Definition of RATIO
1
a : the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions

Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

yes REALLY!!!!!

A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.
this is like remedial math...
BTW if I was home schooled and taught math with a Bible, what does that make you?

I will be waiting patiently for your apology.

LOL, still trying to defend his error clearly shows the bias.

I know this is from five pages back, but I have to respond: are you a goddamn child? Can you seriously not conceive of a reason someone might disagree with you, other than that they're out to get you, personally? I explained my reasons for disagreeing with you above, kindly stop pretending I haven't so you can continue to shrug off every little criticism of your inane position as some imagined bias.

But there is Bias, use the above example, Brakeman blindly agreed with Surgenator clearly because he's a fellow atheist, which is fine, but stop pretending you guys are somehow different from christian fundamentalists when you guys exhibit the same psychology. You will defend a untenable position to the death, making you nothing more than lemmings.

I'll give you another example from Mr. Oukoida who thought the secrets of the placebo effect had been discovered

Going back to the start of Huggy's discussion, how the Placebo effect works is well-understood in biology. So much that it is possible to predict if you are predisposed to it. Praise dopamine and peace be upon its receptors!

My post follows...

---

Did you even read the article I posted? The Placebo effect works through the well known reward mechanisms (the same we experience when we eat or generally do something positive to our bodies).

I could do this all day, really...

LINKS:

---

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S089...462-X?cc=y

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...8745,d.d2s (it's a pdf)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14986780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17017561

---

Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that!

I'm kinda glad there is a kudos button since it exposes all the mental midgets.

Every link you posted compared the placebo effect as it related to Parkinson disease..

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S089...462-X?cc=y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14986780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17017561

This is not the placebo effect and I'll tell you why... DOPAMINE IS THE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE. So OF COURSE if someone with Parkinson's brain, for whatever reason, released dopamine, they will see improvement.

This is from your own website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001762/

Parkinson's disease
Paralysis agitans; Shaking palsy

Last reviewed: September 25, 2013.

Parkinson's disease causes certain brain cells to die. They are the cells that help control movement and coordination. The disease leads to shaking (tremors) and trouble walking and moving.
Causes

Nerve cells use a brain chemical called dopamine to help control muscle movement. With Parkinson's disease, the brains cells that make dopamine slowly die. Without dopamine, the cells that control movement can’t send messages to the muscles. This makes it hard to control your muscles. Slowly over time, this damage gets worse. No one knows what causes these brain cells to waste away.

Treatment

There is no cure for Parkinson's disease. However, treatment can help control your symptoms.

MEDICINE

Your health care provider will prescribe medicines to help control your shaking and movement symptoms. These drugs work by increasing dopamine in your brain.

The brain producing dopamine because of reward mechanisms, which in turn has an affect on Parkinson's, is not the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is not limited to any specific disease. The example I posted was about cancer, on which dopamine has no effect.

Nice try though... really.

---

Let's see all the people that supported his post.
Kudos given by (5): Mister Agenda, Chas, Crossless1, Tonus, Bad Wolf
Hmmm, obviously they didn't bother to read the articles, Stevie Wonder could have seen the discrepancies in his articles. But these individuals agree because the post is from a fellow atheist.

The bias is clear.

As a side note, I read every article and look at every video you guys post, I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt and do my due diligence, I sat through a hour long video someone posted to make sure I had all the facts. Would an irrational person do this?

but reverse the situation, you guys refuse to do any research all it takes is checking google before you open you mouth, then we wont have situations like this..

---

I'm not going to go through line by line and tell you why each and every example is ignorance when any example will explain why -any other- is ignorance.

Wait...wait..you think that the only way a pattern can emerge is if the bees are ticking out numbers in their heads...doing reproductive math? You don't think that it has anything to do with the manner in which bees produce, and the way we might be able to express that mathematically?

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents. They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

---

Also, one thing I do pride myself on is giving a straight answer, that is to say every time I've been asked a yes or no question, I give a yes or no answer (hows that for being irrational).

examples

---

That's funny...

So yes or no? Do you deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible? Really; it's a pretty simple question.

Do I deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?
Yes

1. It matters not whether the society was feudal, agrarian, capitalist, communist, anarchist or anything else. So I'll rephrase my question to (hopefully!) make you commit to a direct answer: given the opportunity, would you own another person as property?

No

2. Once again a dodge. Your mortgage does not strip you of your right to self-determination. So once again, I'll rephrase: would you submit to being stripped of your right to self-determination?

yes

---

I've only asked a total of two yes or no questions on this board, lets see how an atheist responds..

---

(Although I've been over this already.)
So to be clear, you are saying that the words possession and property mean the same thing. Yes or no?

And to be clear, you disingenuous little turd, a possession- which is the use actually in the text- denotes property, and is inapplicable to you utterly execrable excuse about "taking possession" that you used on me.

Answer a simple yes or no question.
If you find new data that is more accurate, do you continue using the old data?

That's not a relevant question. We're not talking about a single point of data. We're talking about a data range. The old data isn't wrong, it's not as accurate.

---

Guess what? From 1953....

And as I pointed out in my post- that you conveniently ignored because really the only reason anyone would dare to disagree with the Great Huggy is that they hate him and what he believes in personally- is that a person with a functioning fucking brain would try to consider the reason why someone would object to that specific set of data. Having done that consideration, a sane person would not conclude that all data from 1953 is invalid, as that would also mean that accurate data would be invalid.

You, on the other hand, decided that thinking was for losers (or perhaps honest people, who want to get to the truth, and not just win an argument... ) and to stop looking at the data, to instead proclaim "aha! This is from 1953! It must also be wrong, because it's a bad year for sciencing!"

You do recognize the concept of contradiction, do you not?

You do recognize the concept of a willful misinterpretation, do you not?

Oh the irony, talk about misrepresentation..

Who said anything about ALL DATA, we were talking specifically MEASUREMENTS, Surgenator clearly asserted that there was newer data available and that the measurements from 1953 were not accurate, fine.

Upon further questioning about the methods for Measuring DNA he posts an article from 1953! Thereby contradicting himself.

You can have it one of two ways, either my measurements from 1953 were in fact correct, or he contradicted himself.

like I said, remove the rose colored glasses.

---

At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

Anything to avoid having to concede a point. It's pretty much standard operations for theistic apologists.

since you want to go there, here one point you never conceded....

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

I have a passage saying that there is no punishment for beating them, meaning there is no law against it.

Now who's being dishonest
this was your exact quote..

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

Still waiting on you to provide that scripture, or do you capitulate?

[Chas]

Really??
Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

yes REALLY!!!!!

A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.
this is like remedial math...
BTW if I was home schooled and taught math with a Bible, what does that make you?

I will be waiting patiently for your apology.

You will have to wait a long time, because you are wrong.

"34/23.7" is an example of a ratio, as is "34:23.7" as is "34 to 23.7". Read a math book.