Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[+Hammerclaw]

4 hours ago, Piney said:

I haven't met a archaeologists who believed the Clovis First Hypothesis since the 80s.

Personally, I think it was a shared lithic industry. Not a "culture" or ethnic group. 

 

That's the consensus, now. Most of the CF crowd have converted or died.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's the consensus, now. Most of the CF crowd have converted or died.

Ales Hrdlicka at the Smithsonian was the main reason for the "recent settlement model" holding out for so long. Charles Conrad Abbott, one of my fellow New Jersey Quakers, his arch nemesis was the first to push the early dates but pushed too early of a date because stratigraphy was in it's infancy and carbon dating was unknown. 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

17 minutes ago, Piney said:

Ales Hrdlicka at the Smithsonian was the main reason for the "recent settlement model" holding out for so long. Charles Conrad Abbott, one of my fellow New Jersey Quakers, his arch nemesis was the first to push the early dates but pushed too early of a date because stratigraphy was in it's infancy and carbon dating was unknown. 

 

It didn't matter, even as late as 25 years ago, if the data was spot on. They would come up with creative reasons the data was skewed because according to dogma, it couldn't be true. South American anthropologists thought their American colleagues were batsh!t crazy. 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[Piney]

22 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It didn't matter, even as late as 25 years ago, if the data was spot on. They would come up with creative reasons the data was skewed because according to dogma, it couldn't be true. South American anthropologists thought their American colleagues were batsh!t crazy. 

 

I got to work with Jim Adovasio. He was originally hammered about Meadowcroft. 

[+Sherapy]

On 9/17/2023 at 4:32 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I did.

I have many arguments against 'science false so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles. 

Read, feedback is an important aspect of self-correction in various domains, including scientific research. In the scientific community, feedback plays a crucial role in the peer-review process, where one evaluates and provide constructive criticism on research studies before they are published. This feedback helps to identify potential flaws, suggest improvements, the goal is to ensure reliability and accuracy. 

Receiving feedback from others provides insights into ones strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. It allows one to reflect on actions, adjust the behavior, and make corrections or improvements based on the feedback received. 

Checks and balances/self-correction often involve being open to feedback, taking it into consideration, and making adjustments accordingly. It is through this process that we can refine our understanding, skills, and knowledge to reach more accurate and informed conclusions. By actively seeking and embracing feedback, we can continuously learn, grow, and make progress in discussions of all kinds. 
 

It is on you to put your best efforts into providing fact based arguments. This far you have offered empty claims based on personal bias to SDA and EGW beliefs.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Sherapy

[Rlyeh]

On 9/18/2023 at 9:02 AM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I did.

I have many arguments against 'science false so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles. 

Interesting that you are an advocate of "fake science".

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 7:55 PM, Arbenol said:

On 9/17/2023 at 7:14 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

You can breed a bunch of dogs to get different kinds of dogs. But no matter how long you try, you'll never get a cat. We have no observational evidence of a jump from one kind to the next, like a cat to a rat or something else. 

Expand  

You're absolutely correct. A dog will never become a cat or a rat. Do you think that's what evolutionary theory says?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

On 9/17/2023 at 7:55 PM, Arbenol said:

On 9/17/2023 at 7:14 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The whole millions of years thing is also unsubstantiated. Carbon dating has some loopholes. Can we observe the C14 half-life? And determining the original C14 content is debatable. 

The absolute limit of carbon dating is 60,000 years. That you think carbon dating is used to date things millions of years old shows how little you understand of these subjects.

Have your own beliefs, but if you're going to try to prove the existence of god by attacking science you should at least understand a little bit about the science to start with

I made 2 different points in that quote. One - life in the world is not millions of years old and two - Carbon dating is sketchy. 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 8:13 PM, joc said:

What is 'science false so called'?

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 8:33 PM, cormac mac airt said:

There wouldn’t have been many, if any, pre-existing laws before the first circa 380,000 years AFTER the Big Bang as stars and galaxies hadn’t even existed yet. That’s not remotely a sign of intelligent design. 

The big bang didn't happen 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 8:51 PM, joc said:

On 9/17/2023 at 6:39 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Quote

how does a powerful majestic intelligent mind come into being? 

It doesn't. 

Expand  

So, the majestic intelligent being doesn't have a beginning

Exactly 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The big bang didn't happen 

Your fantasy God didn’t happen. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

12 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

I made 2 different points in that quote. One - life in the world is not millions of years old and two - Carbon dating is sketchy. 

And you failed on both counts, congratulations! 
 

cormac

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 9:03 PM, joc said:

On 9/17/2023 at 8:38 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

This really bothers me..this lie we have been told. I am not looking at just one thing. But the whole picture. The world is so well designed and organized. It's not just life existing, but existing in style. Beauty and symmetry, perfect organization and variety. All designed to attend to our needs and happiness. The sun, and air and water and the ground we need for stability and sustenance. How plants and trees give off oxygen for life. They could have looked deformed and strange but no, they are beautiful. Delightful.   

 If it was all designed to attend to our needs and happiness...then why is there so much unhappiness and starving people in the world? 

Because of greed and selfishness/evil in the world. 

Quote

You seem to have a 'whole picture' that doesn't really fit into the reality of Planet Earth.  Go to Libya and ask the people there if the water that has killed over 5000 is meeting their need for stability and sustenance.  Ask the people of Maui how they liked that perfectly designed fire storm.  Take a walk through the streets of Portland or San Francisco and point out to the homeless people the perfect organization and variety of their existence.  

The whole picture?  Your picture is not the whole picture.  It's the picture you have drawn for yourself.  The trees are beautiful...until a Tiger steps out and eats you.  

The world was designed with all the things necessary for human life and happiness. Whether it be plants or trees, water or food etc., they were all intricately designed to fit with human needs. All the variety of foods providing the different nutrients for the human body, land and water animals, etc. Some may look and see nothing but others, like myself, see intentional design and creativity. Oh the wonders and complexity of the human mind. Things being formed to fit together, compliment, and support each other. It takes intelligence. Take a look at the landscape, a family holding hands walking in nature, picking berries as they go, the mountains and trees rising high in the distance, the sounds of the nearby ocean and the birds singing in the treetops above. The sun shining bright in blue skies and the smell of life and nature on the wind. You then turn around and look into the eyes of your beautiful wife, carrying your next child and say, hey honey 'science did that' all this just popped out of nowhere by itself. No intelligent designer behind it all. Yes yes. I guess that's how some see it. It just doesn't make any sense. Creation/life and everything in the world is so incredibly creative. The work of an artist. Perfect symmetry. Death, evil and deformity are anomalies. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[Antigonos]

33 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

One - life in the world is not millions of years old and two - Carbon dating is sketchy. 

You are woefully, miserably, childishly and irredeemably uninformed.

Anti-intellectualism at its worst.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Antigonos

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

I made 2 different points in that quote. One - life in the world is not millions of years old and two - Carbon dating is sketchy. 

Carbon dating is only part of Radiometric dating and it's not "sketchy" and your right. Life is 3.7 billion years old. 

[eight bits]

14 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

Your own translation, or your handlers'?

The Greek of the bolded:

ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (antitheseis tēs pseudōnymou gnōseōs)

Gnōseōs isn't "of science," because science in the modern sense hadn't been invented yet. The word is usually translated as "knowledge," but can mean "doctrine" (something taught). I think "doctrine" is a good translation here, since the author who is pretending to be Paul (ironic, isn't it, that an impostor would prattle on about falsehood?) continues (verse 6:21):

[gnōseōs] which some who have gone astray from the faith are professing.

Bottom line: The verses are discussing religious teaching of which the impostor author disapproves; nothing in the least to do with "science" as we use the term.

Pro tip: You rely on the Bible a great deal for your "arguments." It would really help your case if you knew what your Bible actually says.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/17/2023 at 9:03 PM, joc said:

And what of the dinosaurs?  How do you explain the dinosaurs in this beautiful paradise designed for our needs and happiness?  Why did the Majestic Being that always was wait approximately 4 billion years to create human beings?  Or is this False Science? And if it is...what about the dinosaurs?

Lol something you said sounds funny. These were the creatures God destroyed by the flood, the work of the amalgamators, being repeated today. Very soon you'll most likely find yourself in a world very different than the one you've known. Creatures you've never seen before. 'Aliens' are one of them. I would like to take a look at your scientific findings for dinosaurs predating humans by whatever many years. Please share. Thanks. 

This picture is hilarious!! --> 

Edited September 19, 2023 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[jmccr8]

59 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

Hi Read

Hmm...., 2000 years have passed since that was written science now is not what it was then.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/18/2023 at 7:04 AM, Sherapy said:

In the context of science, a law is a statement or principle that describes a consistently observed phenomenon or pattern in nature

Exactly. The laws of nature. Someone set them there. 

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Exactly. The laws of nature. Someone set them there. 

No one set them there. They’re a development of nature since the universe began. 
 

cormac

[eight bits]

2 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Exactly. The laws of nature. Someone set them there. 

If I may ask, what of the laws of geometry? That one circle's ratio of its circumference to its diameter is identical to any other circle's, for example. Do you claim that there was a personal law giver for that sort of thing, too?

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, Sherapy said:

The argument presented above is more of a theological viewpoint, rather than one based solely on empirical evidence or scientific facts.

There are many scientists who are atheist. This is how they view the world. How they title their findings and what they put out to you. 

Hypothesis: 

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

So their hypothesis is atheistic in nature and they go from there. Some think that there are no bias in science but that is not true. I'm talking about explanations for natural phenomenon. 

[jmccr8]

@ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

Why didn't god give life on all planets if it is all powerful?

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

On 9/18/2023 at 9:57 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

what is the probability that these constants can vary at all let alone by half or a few percent? 

They do vary in other places in the universe. Just not on planet earth.  

[jmccr8]

Just now, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

There are many scientists who are atheist. This is how they view the world. How they title their findings and what they put out to you. 

Hypothesis: 

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

So their hypothesis is atheistic in nature and they go from there. Some think that there are no bias in science but that is not true. I'm talking about explanations for natural phenomenon. 

Hi Read

There are likely more scientists that have a religion than there are atheist scientists. Atheists only comprise 10% of global poulation so would expect that ratio to be reflected in science as well.

The fact is most of the population in the religious catagory are not fanatics and allow human knowledge to exceed religious doctrine in understanding the world around us.