Fed up of non believers

[milquetoast1]

Yep, it all depends on how you define nothing. I personally don't think it was a particularly well advised sound bite.

 

jb

 

Atheists believe "something came from nothing" is something that theists often claim.

 

Within this context the theist has the burden of proof, that there was nothing and then something was caused. Whilst I understand why Krauss might want to show how something might be possible from nothing, I think it's an unwise argument since it claims some of the burden of proof.

 

Is "nothing" even possible? Shrugs shoulders.

 

 

OK, challenge accepted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

 

jb

 

Show him an intermediate fossil and he will just point at two gaps instead of one.

 

It amuses me how some people demand proof with respect to evolution, whilst they are happy to accept evidence when they climb onto a plane, or no evidence at all with respect to how they think a god wants them to eat, drink or have sex.

[Guest]

Yep, it all depends on how you define nothing. I personally don't think it was a particularly well advised sound bite.

 

 

Surely that isn't up for debate..

 

We all know what 'nothing' means.

 

noth·ing (nŭth′ĭng)

pron.

1. No thing; not anything: The box contained nothing. I've heard nothing about it.

2. No part; no portion: Nothing remains of the old house but the cellar hole.

3. One of no consequence, significance, or interest: The new nonsmoking policy is nothing to me.

n.

1. Something that has no existence.

2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero: a score of two to nothing.

3. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity: "A nothing is a dreadful thing to hold onto" (Edna O'Brien).

adj.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nothing

[mjw47]

Yep, it all depends on how you define nothing. I personally don't think it was a particularly well advised sound bite.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2014 at 14:52 ----------

 

OK, challenge accepted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

 

jb

 

Not particularly convincing in my opinion. Is there a Natural History museum somewhere with an exhibition of fossils starting with some non-human creature and slowly proceeding item by item until it concludes with Homo Erectus?

 

Each one of the remains containing human DNA.

 

It seems to me most references to differences in fossils which bear human characteristics can be explained by changes in diet and or racial types.

 

After all we have witnessed a dramatic change in appearance here in Sheffield in my lifetime.

 

I'm six foot tall and 45 years ago if I entered a room of thirty males I would normally find no more than three or four taller than me, another three or four the same size and the remaining twenty or so shorter.

 

Do the same thing today with younger males and more than half will be taller.

There's also male pattern baldness, which in my youth was practically unknown and is now commonplace.

 

Extend that over millions of years and a significant difference would be expected. Of course in a way that is evolution in progress, but always human as apposed to the change of species which believers in evolution without question seem to believe in.

 

Lets be clear, I do not doubt that evolution takes place, there is evidence to prove it does and I have no problem accepting that.

It's just that I don't necessarily think it provides all the answers.

 

There is still the anomaly with Entropy to explain. Both theories are generally accepted but they appear to contradict each other.

[SnailyBoy]

Not particularly convincing in my opinion. Is there a Natural History museum somewhere with an exhibition of fossils starting with some non-human creature and slowly proceeding item by item until it concludes with Homo Erectus?

 

Each one of the remains containing human DNA.

 

It seems to me most references to differences in fossils which bear human characteristics can be explained by changes in diet and or racial types.

 

After all we have witnessed a dramatic change in appearance here in Sheffield in my lifetime.

 

I'm six foot tall and 45 years ago if I entered a room of thirty males I would normally find no more than three or four taller than me, another three or four the same size and the remaining twenty or so shorter.

 

Do the same thing today with younger males and more than half will be taller.

There's also male pattern baldness, which in my youth was practically unknown and is now commonplace.

 

Extend that over millions of years and a significant difference would be expected. Of course in a way that is evolution in progress, but always human as apposed to the change of species which believers in evolution without question seem to believe in.

 

Lets be clear, I do not doubt that evolution takes place, there is evidence to prove it does and I have no problem accepting that.

It's just that I don't necessarily think it provides all the answers.

 

There is still the anomaly with Entropy to explain. Both theories are generally accepted but they appear to contradict each other.

 

 

mmmmmmm....starting to sound suspiciously like a logical fallacy - an argument from personal incredulity.

[ivanava]

Atheists believe "something came from nothing" is something that theists often claim.

 

 

I don't, I believe something from nothing is as unlikely as God.

[mjw47]

mmmmmmm....starting to sound suspiciously like a logical fallacy - an argument from personal incredulity.

 

Really? That's strange, I make a statement whereby I clearly admit that I simply don't know, and am keeping an open mind on the subject and you interpret that as a logical fallacy?

 

Do you actually know what a logical fallacy is?

 

If so, please explain exactly what position I'm trying to persuade you to adopt?

[ivanava]

Is "nothing" even possible? Shrugs shoulders.

 

 

No..........

[Obelix]

 

There is still the anomaly with Entropy to explain. Both theories are generally accepted but they appear to contradict each other.

 

What anomoly? Entropy only applies to a closed system - an organism respires, excretes, consume and reproduces - it's not a closed system at all.

[mjw47]

 

 

 

 

Show him an intermediate fossil and he will just point at two gaps instead of one.

 

It amuses me how some people demand proof with respect to evolution, whilst they are happy to accept evidence when they climb onto a plane, or no evidence at all with respect to how they think a god wants them to eat, drink or have sex.

 

Do you know what amuses me? People who make assumptions about other people without a clue as to who that other person is, and what they actually believe.

 

The only opinion that I've expressed is that creationism is not, in my view, a belief to be taken seriously.

 

Other than that I have simply expressed doubts as to the complete acceptance of evolution without question.

 

Yes it has a certain validity and has far more evidence to back it up than any religion, but I simply don't believe it is necessarily the complete answer.

 

I prefer to keep an open mind and reserve my total acceptance of any theory until no questions remain.

 

You know, the common sense approach.

[ivanava]

Do you know what amuses me? People who make assumptions about other people without a clue as to who that other person is, and what they actually believe.

 

The only opinion that I've expressed is that creationism is not, in my view, a belief to be taken seriously.

 

Other than that I have simply expressed doubts as to the complete acceptance of evolution without question.

 

Yes it has a certain validity and has far more evidence to back it up than any religion, but I simply don't believe it is necessarily the complete answer.

 

I prefer to keep an open mind and reserve my total acceptance of any theory until no questions remain.

 

You know, the common sense approach.

 

If you don't think creationism should be taken seriously, wouldn't that mean you dismiss it completely, and if you dismiss it then you are left with evolution even though we don't have all the answered.