Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 Just now, Otto von Jizzmark said: Is that the test of a real scientist? If only I'd know that when I was examining those PhD candidates! "Your research into the underlying mechanisms of thelytokous parthenogenesis in the sternorrhyncha is absolutely faultless. But... where did all the matter in the universe come from?" Well the final point is what you are claiming to know everything about. Look I'm very happy that you have achieved great things in your field but I'm just pointing out something that despite your obvious knowledge, you don't understand, you have no logical answer for. Even people with a physics background, you know, people like me, I might have forgotten to mention that, even those people can't answer that one fundamental question. The answer from science is foolish when it comes to the creation of the universe. Let's not even get started on dating fossils. If I have a question about non fertilised embryonic development then I will ask you. If I have a question on creation I will consult a suitable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 4 minutes ago, Buckster said: Well the final point is what you are claiming to know everything about. Look I'm very happy that you have achieved great things in your field but I'm just pointing out something that despite your obvious knowledge, you don't understand, you have no logical answer for. Even people with a physics background, you know, people like me, I might have forgotten to mention that, even those people can't answer that one fundamental question. The answer from science is foolish when it comes to the creation of the universe. Let's not even get started on dating fossils. If I have a question about non fertilised embryonic development then I will ask you. If I have a question on creation I will consult a suitable source. At no point have I claimed to know everything about where the matter in the universe came from. I'm more than happy to debate you, but you need to stick to some basic rules of engagement. Perhaps I'll turn the question back to you: Can you give me an explanation for the creation of the universe that is not invalidated by Occam's Razor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 14 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: At no point have I claimed to know everything about where the matter in the universe came from. I'm more than happy to debate you, but you need to stick to some basic rules of engagement. Perhaps I'll turn the question back to you: Can you give me an explanation for the creation of the universe that is not invalidated by Occam's Razor? Occams Razor would be satisfied by God being the single source for all creation. Until of course you get into the complexity of God. It is exactly the same double edged sword that makes the big bang problematic. But Occams Razor is a philosophical principal and philosophers cannot agree amongst themselves on what the basis of knowledge itself is. It's Alice down the rabbit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busabeast Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 8 hours ago, Marcel le Moose Fondler said: Well I know you were just waiting for it to disappear..or get and excuse to take it out...maybe I'm asking the wrong gay.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busabeast Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 36 minutes ago, Buckster said: Occams Razor would be satisfied by God being the single source for all creation. Until of course you get into the complexity of God. It is exactly the same double edged sword that makes the big bang problematic. But Occams Razor is a philosophical principal and philosophers cannot agree amongst themselves on what the basis of knowledge itself is. It's Alice down the rabbit hole. Who the fuck is occams razor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 Just now, busabeast said: Who the fuck is occams razor He is the guy who cut the wires to the warning lights on your Audi. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XTreme Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 2 hours ago, Saul said: But I have this feeling you are still playing a game 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 1 hour ago, Buckster said: Occams Razor would be satisfied by God being the single source for all creation. Until of course you get into the complexity of God. It is exactly the same double edged sword that makes the big bang problematic. But Occams Razor is a philosophical principal and philosophers cannot agree amongst themselves on what the basis of knowledge itself is. It's Alice down the rabbit hole. That seems to be a little confused. We both have the same problem, which is how we got from the point where there was nothing to the point where there was everything. If we simplify our respective positions for the purposes of clarity, then the big bang explanation is essentially 'everything came out of nothing'. The creationist position is 'everything came out of nothing because a divine and eternal supernatural intelligence who exists beyond the bounds of space and time made it so.' That falls foul a priori of Occam's Razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fallsalot Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 2 hours ago, Buckster said: Let's not even get started on dating fossils. Pete's dated some fossils in his time maybe he knows 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 1 hour ago, Buckster said: Well the final point is what you are claiming to know everything about. Look I'm very happy that you have achieved great things in your field but I'm just pointing out something that despite your obvious knowledge, you don't understand, you have no logical answer for. Even people with a physics background, you know, people like me, I might have forgotten to mention that, even those people can't answer that one fundamental question. The answer from science is foolish when it comes to the creation of the universe. Let's not even get started on dating fossils. If I have a question about non fertilised embryonic development then I will ask you. If I have a question on creation I will consult a suitable source. This is the fundamental problem though Buckster - you don't consult suitable sources. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is so utterly divorced from what evolutionary theory actually states that it almost certainly came from one of those creationist websites that specialise in misrepresenting science in order to discredit evolution. They are entirely antithetical to genuine science, in that they are trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion rather than the conclusion fit the evidence. I do not know for a fact how the universe started any more than any other scientist does, or any more than you do, come to that. The difference between us is that you think you do, and the reason is the same stopgap that has sufficed for every hole in our knowledge since the dawn of man: supernatural agency. And if you do ever have a question on non-fertilised embryonic development I can find you someone far better qualified to answer it than me - these days I'm mainly a microbiologist. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 12 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: these days I'm mainly a microbiologist. I’ll consult you if I ever need to know more about Marcels brain then. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 14 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: This is the fundamental problem though Buckster - you don't consult suitable sources. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is so utterly divorced from what evolutionary theory actually states that it almost certainly came from one of those creationist websites that specialise in misrepresenting science in order to discredit evolution. They are entirely antithetical to genuine science, in that they are trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion rather than the conclusion fit the evidence. I do not know for a fact how the universe started any more than any other scientist does, or any more than you do, come to that. The difference between us is that you think you do, and the reason is the same stopgap that has sufficed for every hole in our knowledge since the dawn of man: supernatural agency. And if you do ever have a question on non-fertilised embryonic development I can find you someone far better qualified to answer it than me - these days I'm mainly a microbiologist. You are a little off base, I actually understand a huge amount of evolutionary theory, however my life experience has taught me to reject it, I became a creationist. I now believe that evolutionists try to make the evidence fit the conclusion, I know I will not convince you of it but you may nevertheless one day come to that conclusion yourself. My belief on this does not come from Answers in Genesis although I do like the site, but we always like things that agree with us. Yes I do know how the universe was created and God isn’t a stopgap. We are not going to agree on this today. I understand where you are coming from, I was once there myself. Unlike some, I also don’t think any of this matters one jot in the grand scheme of human existence and I suspect you think the same but for different reasons. I think you are mistaken, you think I am mental. However madness and genius are always only separated by a fine line so I win and you sir are a potato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 47 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: That seems to be a little confused. We both have the same problem, which is how we got from the point where there was nothing to the point where there was everything. If we simplify our respective positions for the purposes of clarity, then the big bang explanation is essentially 'everything came out of nothing'. The creationist position is 'everything came out of nothing because a divine and eternal supernatural intelligence who exists beyond the bounds of space and time made it so.' That falls foul a priori of Occam's Razor. You are adding to the equation, science currently says ‘everything came out of nothing’ then it adds a very complicated system that allowed matter to be formed. Creationism says ‘everything came from God’ then adds its complexity after just like science does. Both at their base level satisfy Occams Razor, both fail the philosophy when examined further, it’s a non sequitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 But you are still a potato. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six30 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 @Marcel le Moose Fondler right now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 1 minute ago, Six30 said: @Marcel le Moose Fondler right now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 3 hours ago, Buckster said: You are adding to the equation, science currently says ‘everything came out of nothing’ then it adds a very complicated system that allowed matter to be formed. Creationism says ‘everything came from God’ then adds its complexity after just like science does. Both at their base level satisfy Occams Razor, both fail the philosophy when examined further, it’s a non sequitur. This is exactly the sort of woolly thinking that I used to have to wade through back when I used to teach undergrads. Where the complexity comes in is irrelevant to the test of Occam’s Razor: however you slice it, the creationist view of the start of the universe requires an extra step that is not required by the big bang: BIG BANG Nothing > Something complex happens > Everything CREATIONISM Nothing > Something complex happens because of God > Everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 4 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: This is exactly the sort of woolly thinking that I used to have to wade through back when I used to teach undergrads. Where the complexity comes in is irrelevant to the test of Occam’s Razor: however you slice it, the creationist view of the start of the universe requires an extra step that is not required by the big bang: BIG BANG Nothing > Something complex happens > Everything CREATIONISM Nothing > Something complex happens because of God > Everything BIG BANG Nothing > Something complex happens > Everything CREATIONISM God creates everything Big bang fails Occam’s Razor. You are definitely a potato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 8 minutes ago, zzzak said: Hell must be cold tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 3 minutes ago, Buckster said: BIG BANG Nothing > Something complex happens > Everything CREATIONISM God creates everything Big bang fails Occam’s Razor. You are definitely a potato. If we're going to play games: A. The universe came into being. B. The universe came into being because God created everything. God fails Occam's Razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 1 minute ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: If we're going to play games: A. The universe came into being. B. The universe came into being because God created everything. God fails Occam's Razor. If we're going to play games: A. The universe came into being. B. God. Potato fails Occam's Razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 1 minute ago, Buckster said: If we're going to play games: A. The universe came into being. B. God. Potato fails Occam's Razor. So no universe then in your scenario, or are you now conveniently assuming that the universe and God can be conjoined in order to 'win' the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 The Universe exists Man God The Universe exists again? Man exists again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 9 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: So no universe then in your scenario, or are you now conveniently assuming that the universe and God can be conjoined in order to 'win' the argument? No, but God created the universe with a thought, there is no more simple solution than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts