|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Percy writes: There's really no point in disagreeing with the real world that science uncovers for us, atheists for the most part understand this very well, and this is why Agobot sees atheists agreeing with each other on matters of science. But his filter causes him to fail to notice that religious scientists agree with each other and also with atheists on matters of science. But this is blank statement. Do they agree on the existence of God?What does science have to do with God? And what does "matters of science" have to do with religion or God? What agreement are you talking about? Such a gross generalisation about scientists(which scientists??) carries no distinct, definite meaning. Let's start one by one. Why does this utter nonsense get a free pass, if religion and atheism are on equal footing on EvC: From "Confidence in evolutionary science" thread, post 31, discussing emergent properties: "How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?" Percy, people say you are a deist? but in message 290 in "Why so friggin' confident?" you said this: "He's not saying that higher confidence should be placed in his incomplete evidence than in yours. What it boils down to is that you don't have any evidence related to the key question, whether there's any such phenomenon as God at all." If you believe there is no such a phenomenon as God, what kind of a deist could you be? And why would being an atheist necessarily be a bad thing or a negative label? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Capt... writes: "How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?" Huntard writes: Thanks, I was getting a bit confused here, it's becoming clearer to me now. As I thought, the comment was not nonsense, I should trust myself more No, it's not nonsense. It's nonsense beyond nonsense. He is clearly saying that the atoms in whatever molecules there are in the bridge, behave in the same way as the atoms in the molecules of your body. Which is the same as denouncing the existence of emergent properties. And which of course is idiotic, but it's no surprise that nobody from your camp notices it. I know most you of you would like to think of atheists as intellectuals. While this may be the case with certain individuals, as whole, most of you don't fare much better than creationists. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Rahvin writes: It's not nonsense. Agobot is confused. Agobot is nearly always confused. Agobot is also nearly always convinced that everyone else is speaking nonsense, and that he communicates clearly to the rest of us. He also tends to interpret things that people say in decidedly odd ways, like a few posts ago when he took Percy's summary of the atheist position as Percy's own position, despite the fact that it was clear to the rest of us what Percy was intending to do. In any given discussion about nonsense where Agobot is involved, it can nearly always be accurately assumed that the nonsense was brought into the discussion by Agobot. Percy's quote was completely reasonable, and contained no nonsense. The atoms that comprise a bridge are not fundamentally different from those that comprise a living cell, and in both cases those atoms do in fact "constantly move and interact in an organized fashion." This is an accurate portrayal of the Atomic Theory of Matter. Only Agobot could consider the statement to be "nonsense." You are not confused only because you are floating in a sea of ignorance and you believe you know everything(LOL). That's why you are confident and you are not confused if God exists or not. When you are past puberty(your language gives you away at every 2nd sentence), you'll see how little in fact you knew, Mr.IknowEverything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Modulous writes: A person that asks a rhetorical question that implies that atoms in a bridge move and interact in an organised fashion in the same way the atoms in your body move and interact predictably is the best example of atheist nonsense you can come up with? Rhetorical question?? What "rhetorical" question? Here is the thread(please cite it): http://EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary science -->EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary science Now where in my quote below:
Agobot writes: This is complete nonsense and it's a shame that atheists can spread drivel 7/24 here. A bridge does not have emergent properties, it's not alive and it's most definitely not conscious. If this board was not biased toward atheism you'd get at least temporary suspension. did i "imply" this:
Modulous writes: In your reply to the above statement you implied that a bridge does not display any emergent properties and that this was because it was not alive/conscious. That is nonsense. -------------------------------------------------------------------
Modulous writes: Indeed, the Cap'n then went on to reply to you to discuss, in brief, his understanding of emergent properties with at least one real life example thereof - the very opposite of denouncing emergent properties. Yep, he spouted even more BS. If a dead human body floats in water and a living human body floats in the water, does this mean they are both somehow alive?(although one is obviously dead?). They both float, but one has emergent properties and the other clearly doesn't. This is his ridiculous quote:
Capt... writes: You seem very confused vis a vis the difference between the behavior of an atom that is part of a system that has emergent properties, and the emergent property itself. A crude analogy would be a piece of iron dropped in the water - it sinks - and an iron tub dropped in the water - it floats. The iron is no different, but its arrangement gives the tub a different property with respect to the surface of the water. Is this how an atheist with blinders thinks about emergent properties? Are they really that simple to "explain" as an example with a bath tub floating in water, or is it because the blinders are set too tight and some of you don't see very well past a pre-conceived notion?
Modulous writes: I'd rather make no sense to you, than make sense to you, if your nonsense detection apparatus is calibrated as it is. It's ok with me. If 10 YEC's agreed that the Earth is 6000 years old, would this agreement between them lend credibility to their claims? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Modulous writes: In your reply to the above statement you implied that a bridge does not display any emergent properties and that this was because it was not alive/conscious. I never said because it(the bridge) was alive that it didn't have emergent properties. I never implied the word because, that's a Lie what you are putting into my mouth. I merely said:
Modulous writes: A bridge does not have emergent properties, it's not alive and it's most definitely not conscious. If this board was not biased toward atheism you'd get at least temporary suspension. BTW, what are these magical emergent properties of the bridge that you are talking about??
Capt.... writes: Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? If this was supposed to have been a rhetorical question, it's got to be the dumbest 'rhetorical' question on Earth. Ha ha ha, here is another rhetorical question: Is the Earth not flat? (asked by a flat earth society member) Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Percy writes: The text you quote from Modulous's is a pretty accurate recap of what you said in the text you quoted from yourself. The point Capt Stormfield was making was that a bridge is no less an emergent manifestation of atoms than life. You have no idea how wrong you are here. In fact, this is by far the dumbest thing I've seen posted here. IMO this beats the 6000 year old Earth, the talking serpent and is on par with the idea of a flat Earth.
Percy writes: All atoms of a given isotope always have precisely the same properties, and it doesn't matter whether they're in a bridge or a living cell. So you don't have blood, enzymes, DNA, hormones, etc. etc. all made of atoms? Are your internals made of stationary parts? Do you take food and drinks? I don't even want to get involved any further in this thing. Here is the smallest bacteria - Mycoplasma. It is constructed of roughly 10 billion atoms. It's alive. Change the positions of 10% of the atoms in the molecules, and it will be dead. While in a specific configuration, those 10 bln. atoms "come alive" and have new , radically new, unseen properties. Mycoplasma - Wikipedia
Percy writes: Reading the rest of your message, I'm wondering if you believe that only life can display emergent properties. If so then you're saying a lot of things that you'll probably regret later, so you might want to read up on emergence before digging your hole any deeper. There is strong and weak emergence, but we were obviously discussing life, which is strong emergence and cannot be explained. Well, i see that some of you are 'aware' of ways to explain life's emergence from atoms. It's the same as in bridges. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
kuresu writes: You know, I really have to wonder if there's some kind of language barrier here. Nice try. Do you believe your atoms are behaving in the same manner as the atoms in a bridge? Does the bridge have DNA? Is there a brain in the bridge that can send individual atoms to a certain location that is in need of such an atom(in the bridge)? Is everyone gone mad already? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Modulous writes: The question I asked you, if you had forgotten, was is this rhetorical question 'the best example of atheist nonsense you can come up with?'. Your playground-level of attempted insult is not an answer to my question. Instead of being puerile, perhaps you'd like to answer? Out of the last 3 or 4 days, yes, it's the best example and atheists are still fighting to upkeep this nonsense. I can dig more, but this is not a good tactic to sweep some nonsense under the rug, as if it didn't exist, or as if it wasn't that much of a nonsense. If i had posted more quotes with stupidity from the past, it would only serve to distract me from the debate by going back and forth between a dozen topics, its details, its wording, its dictionary definitions, semantics, etc. all into oblivion. I've been a member of this camp long enough to know well this "confuse your opponent" tactic. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
kuresu writes: I don't believe it. It's what's supported by the evidence. The atoms in the bridge and my body all behave according to the very same rules. The atoms in my body and in the bridge all work according to the same atomic theory of matter at the macro scale, and whatever it is that applies at the micro scale. Imagine that life is a water molecule. A bridge is a carbon dioxide molecule. They both operate according to the same principles, and yet are very different from each other. I don't see what's so nonsensical about that. Imagine that life is a water molecule? How about imagine that the Moon is cheese or that Obama is a mouse. We have 'proof' that Obama eats moons.
kuresu writes: The atoms in the bridge and my body all behave according to the very same rules. No they don't. Not in any way remotely similar to the bridge. For starters, here is how the atoms in the molecules of your body are communicating:
Page Not Found - Site Help - Mayo Clinic
This is how the sensation of touch is transferred between atoms, through electrical signaling. This is offtopic but we are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon, than a body of solid matter, despite the illusion created by your brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: 2) It's not nonsense, you just haven't understood the point Capt Stormfield was making. An atom is still an atom, whether it is part of a bridge or part of a person. It obeys exactly the same laws, yet the bridge and the person are very different. No, this isn't true. It's quite obvious that you'd be dead if the atoms in your body didn't behave in a radically new way, supposedly because of their configuration. Life at the molecular and atomic level is not simple, it's not even complex, it's mind-bogglingly complex. I posit that there is a difference between a dead and a living human being. The difference is visible at the atomic level, easily. I have no idea why certain individuals omit to consider that your body is mostly liqiud, and most of the communication between the atoms of the molecules are talking place through these liquids(which are excited atoms whose outer electrons at times have the ability to 'fly off'), and through electrical signaling, which is instantaneous. Of course our atomic structure and it's mind-boggling abilities is in absolutely no way similar to that of any bridge.
Granny Magda writes: I think the point Modulous is making here is that he is unimpressed with the scale of "nonsense" that you have provided as your example. I'm certainly pretty unimpressed; it hardly ranks up there with a triceratops wearing a saddle or other such creationist twaddle. (I chose an example from outside EvC here, so as to avoid causing unnecessary offence.) But the nonsense is ongoing and protracting. It wasn't my desire to raise hell, i was dragged into it and quite frankly i am wasting my time(i don't stand to gain anything from threads like this one). The only thing i hoped to gain was that maybe someone would think out of the box and maybe take a interesting guess about the nature of those atoms' 'properties' in living organisms. This is again offtopic, but some scientists have gone as far as to claim that atoms are conscious. While i don't claim this, i see no way to disprove this either.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024