Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Another conversation with almost atheist

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 4
 [ 72 posts ] 
Another conversation with almost atheist
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Another conversation with almost atheist

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun May 08, 2016 11:10 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

There are several points that need to be addressed from this conversation, but I want to do one quickly.

At one point around 46:00 I asked him what his idea about evolution is because he says, and frequently did after that.
"I know what evolution is"

I doubted that for one because he said that we evolved from chimps. That's one of the first misconceptions that is corrected when you study this subject. He claims to have had an education of this so I don't know where he got the idea that humans came from chimpanzees.

Well after I asked him what it is, he gave me several mechanisms of evolution, but the mechanisms that drive evolution isn't synonymous with evolution. Later he gave me:
"Evolution is a gradual change"

While evolution is gradual (although punctuated equilibrium would beg the differ) this definition isn't accurate because as I explained lots of things that are gradual changes are not evolution like position of the sand in an hourglass changes gradually so by this definition this would be an example of evolution, but it isn't evolution, so the definition isn't accurate.

He objected to that by saying that even though it overlaps with other definitions it is still accurate. But no, Evolution is summarily defined as
"Descent with inherent modification" That's the basic definition of evolution and if you know what evolution is then you would know this definition. Of course this phrase can be misleading. whenever I put forward "Descent with modification" people object to that by implying that being different from your parents isn't evolution and they would be right, evolution occurs at the population level, not from a single parent to offspring.

Evolution is thus more specifically it is a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations.

And this process can increase biodiversity when evolution makes two or more separate population increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. Thus evolution is an explanation for biodiversity.

Of course this happens, thus the statement "Evolution happens" is just a fact as the statement "Gravity happens (attraction between objects with mass)" is.

Also later still, about macro evolution, he was right on with that. Macro evolution is synonymous with speciation.
Macro evolution = the evolution that results in a new species - speciation
Which has been observed many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Of course, as he noted, creationists won't agree that macro evolution has been observed and argue that macro evolution is one kind turning into a completely different kind. But that is moot, since macro evolution is defined by scientists themselves before creationists cam along and changes these terms. And creationists redefining terms isn't a rare thing. There are creationists who say that evolution includes the Big bang, star formation and nuclear synthesis within stars, Stellar accretion and abiogenesis.
Image
From a tract called "Big Daddy?" written by the infamous Jack Chick, but this straw man of "6 types of evolution" was taken from the more infamous Kent Hovind

Some creationists even include plate tectonics and radioactive decay as evolution, but of course they are wrong. Evolution is specifically an aspect to biology, though scientists have used the word evolution in different contexts as in stellar evolution to describe how stars form and die, but how life diversifies is a different process of how stars form.
Also since "kind" is undefined by creationists, thus it is not possible to identify the "kinds" that creationists believe in nor find out whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. For example a 28 year long study observed speciation of Darwin's finches, thus the question is: If a new species of finch emerges by evolution, is this finch a new kind of finch or the same kind and how would you tell? Of course creationists will never answer that, I know that because I have asked several of them (not AA, I think he is not a creationists, despite using similar arguments).

To understand more about what evolution is and isn't, I recommend the 6th foundational falsehood of creationism.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Tue May 10, 2016 12:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Mon May 09, 2016 10:28 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

With one of his questions about abiogenesis on how ribo-nucleotides form from which RNA and eventually DNA form. During the video "abiogenesis" of Aronra he mentioned that someone had produced nucleotides from simple compounds under conditions expected in a prebiotic earth, AA asked for what compounds and how did they form nucleotides so I will clarify it here.

For abiogenesis to be a working hypothesis, we had to show that DNA or at least RNA can form without any preexisting living system. We already knew from previous experiments that RNA forms by polymerizing nucleotides and that a particular clay, Montmorillonite, can catalyze this process which is formed by weathering of volcanic ash which was much more common during the prebiotic earth. However how nucleotides can form was an unanswered question until recently.

Nucleotides are made of phosphate, sugars (ribose or deoxyribose) and nitrogenous bases. Phosphates is an inorganic chemical that occurs naturally (without life) in phosphate minerals.
Sugars and nitrogenous bases are more trickier. Though precursors of sugars and complete nitrogenous bases have been found inside chondrite meteorites as Murchison and Murray, thus these can form even in outer space. The problem was when scientists tried to synthesis nucleotides by adding the three compounds that make up nucleotides (sugars, bases and phosphates) together, but no matter how they added it together, nucleotides just would not form.

Chemist Sutherland and his colleagues tried a different approach. Instead by beginning with sugars, nitrogenous bases and phosphates, they started with even simpler chemical precursors, not sugars nor bases but they did use phosphates.
Article of Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08013.html
Although the complete article must be payed for, here are other sources that explains what this study showed.
Presentation by Chris Jones about the article: http://donohoe.chem.ox.ac.uk/resources/ ... eChris.pdf
New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/scien ... pe=article
(Although New York Times contains some errors like it says that one of the precursors was #5 but that is not correct, it should be #9 and it says that #10 is glyceraldehyde but it is Glycoaldehyde)

This is chemical pathway for the synthesis of nucleotides straight from the nature article
Image
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 13_F1.html
The precursors which they started with where:
- Phosphate (only chemical that has no number, located between molecule #13 and #2)
- Glycoaldehyde (#10 sugar precursor)
- Glyceraldehyde (#9 sugar precursor)
- Cyanamide (#8 base precursor)
- Cyanoacetylene (#7 base precursor)

If the question "can these precursors exist without preexisting life" should arise:
The first two sugar bases have been also formed abiotically.
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v4/ ... .1467.html
As for Cyanamide
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/181963
And Cyanoacetylene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacetylene (wikipedia shows citations so look at that)

The pathway that didn't work is given in Blue, where the sugar precursors 10 and 9 form the sugar, ribose (#4, p = pyranose; f = furanose) and the precursors #8 and #7 form the nitrogenous base, cytosine (#3) and later cytosine and ribose would condense together into a molecule (#2, don't know the name) and later still the phosphate would condense to it forming the pyrimidine ribonucleotide (#1). It didn't work because ribose and cytosine don't condense (marked with red X).

Sutherland and his team showed another pathway, given in Green, where the precursors formed sugar/base hybrid intermediates that bypasses the need for a ribose and a base to condense. Precursors 8 (base precursor) and 10 (sugar precursor) formed the sugar/base hybrid 2-amino-oxazole (#11) and that formed, with another sugar precursor #9, the compound pentose amino-oxazoline, arabinose derivative (#12) and that formed with the other base precursor (#7), an intermediate compound anhydroarabinonucleoside (#13). This intermediate compound will spontaneously react with phosphate to form the ribonucleotide #1.
This pathway was induced when they exposed the solution with the precursors under several cycles of heating, evaporation, hydrating, heating and irradiating. Each cycle the molecules became increasingly complex and after enough cycles, at the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon May 09, 2016 10:08 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 764Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Why do these people always claim that they know evolution, when usually even the most cursory glance at their claims show that they do not?

Anyway, another case of how creationism taught me real science. Thanks for that.
Tue May 10, 2016 11:38 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Visaki wrote:Why do these people always claim that they know evolution, when usually even the most cursory glance at their claims show that they do not?

Anyway, another case of how creationism taught me real science. Thanks for that.


I don't think he is a creationists, he may be one because he uses many of the same arguments, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not a creationists but has bought in many of the falsehoods of creationists like the mantras "Complexity is evidence of design" and "Intelligence comes from intelligence" but later he changed that to "Some intelligence must come from intelligence" excluding of course the intelligence that didn't need to come form anything - special pleading.
The reason why I don't think that because he has said that he has no problem with evolution and common descent, only about abiogenesis (1:45:25).
Although he contradicts himself later on when I asked him about wetter he would accept that humans are descendants of apes, he wouldn't agree with that. Maybe he thinks that all life is related via common descent, except for humans. I don't know.

Your first line "Why do these people always claim that they know evolution, when usually even the most cursory glance at their claims show that they do not?"

I also wonder about that, what I'm about to say might upset AA but this is what I really think. When I asked him about what his idea of evolution is he couldn't give me a correct definition of evolution.
Gradual change isn't the correct definition because lots of things change gradually like plate tectonics but that isn't evolution. Evolution involves descent and genetic inheritance, thus the definition is wrong or at best not accurate.

When I gave him "Descent with inherent modification" he later asked to me wether I believe he never saw this definition before. I of course, don't know wether he never saw the phrase "Descent with inherent modification" before and he implied that therefore I cannot point out that he didn't know what he was talking about, but I can. I asked him clearly what evolution is and he couldn't give me a correct definition that alone is a clear indication that he didn't know what it was, despite his frequent claims that he knows what evolution is and he studied it and has had an education in biology.

Later (one of his moments that I found really astonishing) at 1:15:55 I asked him wether he was open to the possibility that he might have the wrong idea of what evolution is and wether (and he has proven that he did). He said he wasn't open to that. Basically he is saying that he won't correct himself even after someone shows his errors. That I find very dishonest. I think he is very uncomfortable in admitting his ignorance and being wrong thus he pretends he does know it (count the number of times he repeats "I know what evolution is").
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue May 10, 2016 1:46 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2954Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Greetings,

He may not be prepared to call himself a creationist but, at the end of the day, even if he's a ID-er, he's a creationist.

Since ID-ers claim that an "Intelligent Designer" (aka, ET) may have created us, that raises the question as to who created the ET species? After you go back far enough to the earliest possible ET-bearing planet in the universe, you're left with abiogenesis or "God" as the only explanation for the first ET - or, indeed, intelligent - species in the universe.

If he's not prepared to accept abiogenesis for the first ET species, then all he's got is "God" - thus, he's ultimately a creationist.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue May 10, 2016 5:20 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

He may not be prepared to call himself a creationist but, at the end of the day, even if he's a ID-er, he's a creationist.

Since ID-ers claim that an "Intelligent Designer" (aka, ET) may have created us, that raises the question as to who created the ET species? After you go back far enough to the earliest possible ET-bearing planet in the universe, you're left with abiogenesis or "God" as the only explanation for the first ET - or, indeed, intelligent - species in the universe.

If he's not prepared to accept abiogenesis for the first ET species, then all he's got is "God" - thus, he's ultimately a creationist.

Kindest regards,

James


I chanced my mind, I think AA is a creationist as in he believes the origin of life and the universe requires an act of intelligence (i.e. god). (Almost Atheist if I'm misrepresenting you, say so).
But unlike most creationists you are familiar with, he says he has no problem with common ancestry.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Wed May 11, 2016 4:53 pm
almost atheistPosts: 9Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 9:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Hmm where should i begin....

1. I understand evolution, and albeit my definition was vague, it does not PROVE i do not understand evolution. Now perhaps i didn't articulate myself well, but keep in mind this debate was live, so it's very easy to make mistakes.

The mechanisms for evolution are

Natural selection
mutation
genetic drift
gene flow

And it can be a quick or slow process, now if you want to add to that be my guest, but to sit here and say "you didn't provide an accurate definition of evolution therefore you don't know what evolution is" is a fallacious argument in and of itself.

Now i did say we came from chimps, but what i meant to say is that we allegedly share a common ancestor, again this was a live conversation so errors will happen from time to time. But my take home point is, I UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION.

2. Next it seems you hold to the universe having a net sum of zero energy? I want you to find a link that supports this idea, then in your own words, explain HOW we know this.

3. Even if the energy has a net zero sum, that does not equivocate to nothing....so now, the question is where did that energy come from? we have two options and only two options
A. The energy was eternal
B. the energy came from by some process

Obviously B will lead us towards an endless regression
And if the energy was eternal, I would consider that energy to be a God...

I don't necessarily believe that God has to be intelligent, I don't see any reason why my view of God must be derived from religion, I am curios why you are reluctant to my definition of God of being a being that all things are contingent upon

4. All the evidence suggests that Something comes from something....to avoid the endless regression there must be a prime uncased eternal something(s).
It seems is the argument is not rather or not God exists, but rather, how many Gods? and are it(s) characteristics.
Wed May 11, 2016 9:50 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2954Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Greetngs,

Two points:

1) Why use the term "God" since it has a particular meaning? If you're really talking about a non-conscious cause, why not just call it a First Cause?

2) Regarding properties of such a First Cause, there's a possible list in order of likelihood:

Non-sentient - semi-sentient - sentient (aware) - semi-sapient - sapient (self-aware) - super-sapient.

The most likely is the first - a non-sentient, and therefore, naturalistic FC.

The other extreme would be concomitant with what most people call "God", and is the least likely.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed May 11, 2016 11:50 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2558Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Welcome aboard, almost atheist!


A couple of comments...

First off, you have to realize that we here on this board are veeeeery used to opponents of evolution not understanding it properly. From what you write, you've already shown that you're miles ahead of the usual fare.

Second, the zero sum thing. Yeah, I've heard the same thing. Seen some interesting vids about it. A lot of it is totally over my head, but... it IS a thing. I hope some links will be found, because I don't remember where I saw it right now. :)

Third, I'm not so sure there's just two options. When it comes to advanced physics, cosmology and such, I've come to realize that things are often weirder than the human mind can even comprehend (like the zero sum thing).

Third-point-five. I get what you're saying about not having God derived from religion, but you have to admit that the term is highly loaded, so I think it would make sense to call it something else.

Fourth, sure, the evidence suggests that something comes from nothing, and with that we end with endless regression, as you say. "Who created God?" is always asked. While I think that is a good question, I also think there are some other questions there. For one, why does it always have to be a who doing the creating?
Also, all the evidence suggests that a being is something that is only ever "created" within the universe, so for a being to exist outside the universe is, to me, just about as weird as the fact that the universe (or whatever kind of entity or "existence" one would find "outside" (before or beyond) our universe) might just be eternal.

Just some thoughts.

Again, welcome aboard. Hope you enjoy! :)
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Thu May 12, 2016 12:31 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

almost atheist wrote:Hmm where should i begin....

1. I understand evolution, and albeit my definition was vague, it does not PROVE i do not understand evolution. Now perhaps i didn't articulate myself well, but keep in mind this debate was live, so it's very easy to make mistakes.

The mechanisms for evolution are

Natural selection
mutation
genetic drift
gene flow

And it can be a quick or slow process, now if you want to add to that be my guest, but to sit here and say "you didn't provide an accurate definition of evolution therefore you don't know what evolution is" is a fallacious argument in and of itself.

Now i did say we came from chimps, but what i meant to say is that we allegedly share a common ancestor, again this was a live conversation so errors will happen from time to time. But my take home point is, I UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION.


During our discussion (not a debate) I asked you what evolution is, because I want to know wether you understood what evolution is. Someone who understands what evolution is should have no problem explaining what it is, however you attempted to explain what evolution is twice and all where wrong, so what else can you expect my reaction to be other then:
"you don't know what it is"

Now, you have honestly admitted that you have made mistakes (why not then say that you didn't understand what evolution is or at the very least had the wrong impression of what it is?), that's fine. Wether you understood what evolution is before I had to correct you on that (although the question "Why I had to correct you if you understood what it is" still remains) or not is not important anymore.

Right here and now, I have clarified that:

Evolution is defined as
"descent with inherent modification" or more specifically a change in gene frequency within a population over generations.
This process leads to subtle changes in descendant groups making them increasingly more distinct from their ancestors/cousins - i.e. diversifying through "descent with inherent modification".

Thus wether you understood it before doesn't matter, we are certain that you understand it now. Or at least I hope that you do (read the definition or go to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02)

almost atheist wrote:2. Next it seems you hold to the universe having a net sum of zero energy? I want you to find a link that supports this idea, then in your own words, explain HOW we know this.


Once correction, it is not just that I hold to the universe having a net sum of zero energy, I treat it as a viable hypothesis (though not conclusive, but still compelling evidence behind it nonetheless) of the state of the universe and I will explain why it is, though this isn't my field of interest I will try.

The hypothesis holds that the amount of "positive" energy in the form of mass is canceled out by the "negative" energy in the form of gravity. Well why would you consider gravity as "negative energy"?

If you threw a ball upward (ignoring the resistance of the atmosphere) you can calculate how high the ball will go with
Kinetic energy = Gravitational potential energy
Formula = 1/2M x V^2 = MgH
But can also be 1/2MV^2 - MgH = 0
Thus kinetic energy and gravitational energy cancel each other out where one has to be negative and the other positive.

Calculating the energy of the universe in mass and gravity with precision takes complicated math, thus I will use a more simpler version.

E(positive) = mc^2
E(negative) = - m Mu x G / Ru

we can take m out

E(positive) = c^2
E(negative) = - Mu x G / Ru

c = speed of light
Mu = mass of the universe
G = Gravitational constant
Ru = radius of the universe

If we plug the values in we get that E positive and E negative are almost exactly equal (one is of course negative and the other positive) thus total is zero. See here for how the values are calculated http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

Of course this is a crude estimate of calculating the total amount of energy. A more accurate way to know wether the universe has zero total energy is to measure its overall curvature or shape.
Image
If the universe is flat then it has zero total energy.

We can determine the flatness by calculating Omega, if it is exactly 1.0 then it is flat.
And guess what, it is 1.0 with high certainty.

Ωmass ≈ 0.315±0.018

Ωrelativistic ≈ 9.24×10−5

ΩΛ ≈ 0.6817±0.0018

Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... enpar.html

And direct observations bear that out to.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10801117

almost atheist wrote:3. Even if the energy has a net zero sum, that does not equivocate to nothing....


Well yes and no. If Laurence Krauss is right then a net zero energy universe would fit with his conclusion, because getting zero energy from nothing is no problem, because you won't need energy.

almost atheist wrote:so now, the question is where did that energy come from?


If the universe has zero total energy then that energy doesn't need to come from anything, because you won't need energy.

almost atheist wrote:we have two options and only two options
A. The energy was eternal
B. the energy came from by some process

Obviously B will lead us towards an endless regression
And if the energy was eternal, I would consider that energy to be a God...


By reason being that if the total energy is zero, then you dichotomy doesn't even make sense. And also if your dichotomy is right and the energy in the universe is not zero then matter and energy can still be eternal - First law of thermodynamics. Of course in a zero energy universe, a universe from nothing wouldn't violate the first law of thermodynamics and the first law of thermodynamics doesn't really apply at the quantum level which was important during the beginning of the universe.

And I don't consider energy to be god. And if it where then you would have to say that every form of energy is at least a part of a god. I don't use the label god to describe energy, I use the label energy or joule for that, because those terms are allot more useful and allot less confusing.

almost atheist wrote:I don't necessarily believe that God has to be intelligent, I don't see any reason why my view of God must be derived from religion, I am curios why you are reluctant to my definition of God of being a being that all things are contingent upon


You are talking about something you would call a god, thus that is a matter of subjective labeling.
The reason why I'm reluctant to your definition is because it isn't accurate with respect of what a god is.

Every god from every mythos has three things in common.
1. Anthropomorphic (has intelligence, emotions, etc and most of the times even a human like body)
2. Immortal
3. Magical (supernatural)

Of course that would exclude what you would label as god like energy, which I don't.
If someone comes up to me and tell me that he thinks a cup is his god. I believe that cup exists, but I would not call it a god for the same reason why I wouldn't call energy a god.

almost atheist wrote:4. All the evidence suggests that Something comes from something....to avoid the endless regression there must be a prime uncased eternal something(s).
It seems is the argument is not rather or not God exists, but rather, how many Gods? and are it(s) characteristics.


You haven't even bothered to list one evidence that suggests that something must come from something with regard to the origin of the universe.
Again we don't know what happened during the planck epoch and despite your bold assertion during the chat, that include you too otherwise go collect your nobel prize.
And you are also contradicting yourself by saying something comes from something and then the something you call god didn't come from anything, thus the rule "something comes form something" has already one exception. In order to avoid an infinite regress the chain of "something comes from something" must begin with something that didn't came from anything or came from nothing.
And you also haven't bothered to explain why you have to avoid an endless regression and also an eternal first cause that sat around for an eternity before it produced the universe would also be an infinite regress by definition of being eternal.
How would you avoid an infinite regress other then starting with nothing or a first cause that is not eternal.
And you haven't even bothered to justify why that first something of which all things came from is a god other then your opinion of how you would label that something.

My questions to you:

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.

2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy.
Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes?

4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu May 12, 2016 5:19 pm
almost atheistPosts: 9Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 9:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Hey all, I really don’t mean to ignore you guys, but I will definitely get to you guys after I handle nesslig, but if you have any critiques, just know i'm reading them!!!…with that being said…jeeez where do I even begin

So this net zero hypothesis is problematic, for example, it seems very convenient how Krauss just coins gravity as negative energy… but sure I’ll buy it…. You said that the matter “positive energy” and gravity “negative energy” would cancel out….. sure I’ll buy that too, but even though they cancel out that doesn’t mean they can be considered nothing….matter and energy are very much something

And for the record, even Laurence krauss doesn’t adovacate a universe from nothing…realize when he uses the term “nothing” he isn’t speaking literally, he is actually referring to the universe being formed from quantum fluctuation which requires, energy…he even says in the video “the biggest mystery of the universe is where that energy came from”
So in sum, if you support the net zero energy hypothesis, that does not explain the origin of the energy required to even make the quantum fluctuation possible.

Here’s a link to the actual video enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDmzLfk0K0
Fri May 13, 2016 9:07 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

almost atheist wrote:So this net zero hypothesis is problematic, for example, it seems very convenient how Krauss just coins gravity as negative energy … but sure I’ll buy it


Didn't I explained why we consider gravitational energy to be negative WITHOUT citing Laurence Krauss? Because I did!

me wrote:The hypothesis holds that the amount of "positive" energy in the form of mass is canceled out by the "negative" energy in the form of gravity. Well why would you consider gravity as "negative energy"?

If you threw a ball upward (ignoring the resistance of the atmosphere) you can calculate how high the ball will go with
Kinetic energy = Gravitational potential energy
Formula = 1/2M x V^2 = MgH
But can also be 1/2MV^2 - MgH = 0
Thus kinetic energy and gravitational energy cancel each other out where one has to be negative and the other positive.

Calculating the energy of the universe in mass and gravity with precision takes complicated math, thus I will use a more simpler version.

E(positive) = mc^2
E(negative) = - m Mu x G / Ru


It is a physical necessity for both to cancel each other out according to conservation of energy. That's why gravitational potential energy is depicted as negative.

And also, what about the shape of the universe that supports a zero energy universe?
Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... enpar.html

And direct observations bear that out to.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10801117

You completely ignored that too! I didn't cite Krauss to support any of my claims!
And Laurence Krauss isn't the only one that considers gravity to be a form of negative energy.

We might decide that there wasn't any singularity. The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."
-- Stephen Hawking, "If There's an Edge to the Universe, There Must Be a God" (interview), in Renée Weber, Dialogues With Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity, 1986. (Also partially reprinted in "God as the Edge of the Universe", in The Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 7, February 23, 1987, p. 15.)


almost atheist wrote:You said that the matter “positive energy” and gravity “negative energy” would cancel out….. sure I’ll buy that too, but even though they cancel out that doesn’t mean they can be considered nothing….matter and energy are very much something


Yes they are something, but since those two somethings cancel each other out thus total is ZERO energy then it would be no problem to get the energy you need from nothing to get those things, because you won't need any energy. (I'm beginning to repeat myself here)

almost atheist wrote:And for the record, even Laurence krauss doesn’t adovacate a universe from nothing…realize when he uses the term “nothing” he isn’t speaking literally, he is actually referring to the universe being formed from quantum fluctuation which requires, energy…he even says in the video “the biggest mystery of the universe is where that energy came from”


You are quote mining Krauss. I watched that youtube video. The energy that Krauss is referring to is the energy that resides in the vacuum, which is where most of the energy in the universe resides in the vacuum - i.e. Dark energy.
We don't know where that form of energy comes from, but we do know that the total amount of energy = zero because of the reasons I've explained previously, even dark energy supports a flat universe (meaning a universe with zero total energy) because without it the universe would not be flat.


Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02

Ω must be 1.0 for the universe to be flat. ΩΛ represents dark energy. without it Ωtotal would be around 0.3, with it Ω is 1.00 ± 0.02 and as I said before, observations of the geometry of the universe also supports the universe is flat.
Here Krauss explains what I tried here:


And if you want Krauss to say that the universe really came form the nothing


almost atheist wrote:So in sum, if you support the net zero energy hypothesis, that does not explain the origin of the energy required to even make the quantum fluctuation possible.


Quantum fluctuations happen spontaneously without the need of energy according to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. (already explained to you)

Also Unanswered questions:
1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides? Sufficient or not. If not, please explain.

2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy.
Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? We can go more deeply in how life forms are classified in a twin nested hierarchy.
I've given where humans belong in taxonomy here viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13163, skip a bit down to get why humans are apes in the same way humans are still mammals.

4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri May 13, 2016 11:04 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3317Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

I just finished watching most of the video. I did get to the section where Nesslig20 asked almost atheist what evolution is (starting at ~46 minutes). From what I heard, it seemed obvious that almost atheist did not understand what evolution is. He kept proclaiming that he knew it and also said a few times that he has a degree in it and had taken a class on it, yet when asked to define it he responded with the mechanisms and "gradual change".

Now, if I were grading a paper and got those answers to that question, I would give them partial credit and tell them to see me after class. If a majority of students gave that answer, than I know that I did something wrong in teaching this subject. I know in my college prep biology class in high school, defining evolution was a ten point question on the midterm and final. That is a whole letter grade of difference. Now, almost atheist kept saying that because he did not give exactly what Nesslig20 was asking for, Nesslig20 could not conclude almost atheist did not know it. The definition of evolution is universal in biology. Basically, you have to remember that it happens to population, over time, and with something that the organisms can inherit. As long as you are able to articulate those three things, you have the correct definition of evolution. The fact that you were unable to do this, yet claimed you could, tells me that you did not know this. I have dealt with plenty of reality deniers at this point to see a bluff. It appeared to me that you were bluffing.

Hopefully, you will not let your pride get in the way of the free education Nesslig20 is offering you on this forum. Furthermore, if you started answering Nesslig20's direct questions, this conversation would move along faster.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri May 13, 2016 5:38 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I just finished watching most of the video. I did get to the section where Nesslig20 asked almost atheist what evolution is (starting at ~46 minutes). From what I heard, it seemed obvious that almost atheist did not understand what evolution is. He kept proclaiming that he knew it and also said a few times that he has a degree in it and had taken a class on it, yet when asked to define it he responded with the mechanisms and "gradual change".

Now, if I were grading a paper and got those answers to that question, I would give them partial credit and tell them to see me after class. If a majority of students gave that answer, than I know that I did something wrong in teaching this subject. I know in my college prep biology class in high school, defining evolution was a ten point question on the midterm and final. That is a whole letter grade of difference. Now, almost atheist kept saying that because he did not give exactly what Nesslig20 was asking for, Nesslig20 could not conclude almost atheist did not know it. The definition of evolution is universal in biology. Basically, you have to remember that it happens to population, over time, and with something that the organisms can inherit. As long as you are able to articulate those three things, you have the correct definition of evolution. The fact that you were unable to do this, yet claimed you could, tells me that you did not know this. I have dealt with plenty of reality deniers at this point to see a bluff. It appeared to me that you were bluffing.

Hopefully, you will not let your pride get in the way of the free education Nesslig20 is offering you on this forum. Furthermore, if you started answering Nesslig20's direct questions, this conversation would move along faster.


Yes, I have pointed that out earlier. He clearly didn't know what evolution was and he got very upset about me pointing that out. He couldn't say what it was before I had to correct him on that and see the reluctant of being corrected when I asked him wether he was open to the possibility to be wrong about this at 1:15:55.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri May 13, 2016 6:05 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 795Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Nesslig20 wrote: He claims to have had an education of this so I don't know where he got the idea that humans came from chimpanzees.


I got this idea from my 8th grade science teacher, who was an evolutionist. She also told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

Nesslig20 wrote:Well after I asked him what it is, he gave me several mechanisms of evolution, but the mechanisms that drive evolution isn't synonymous with evolution. Later he gave me:
"Evolution is a gradual change"


So he does know what evolution is.


Nesslig20 wrote:Also since "kind" is undefined by creationists, thus it is not possible to identify the "kinds" that creationists believe in nor find out whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. For example a 28 year long study observed speciation of Darwin's finches, thus the question is: If a new species of finch emerges by evolution, is this finch a new kind of finch or the same kind and how would you tell? Of course creationists will never answer that, I know that because I have asked several of them (not AA, I think he is not a creationists, despite using similar arguments).


Define species.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sat May 14, 2016 7:40 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote: He claims to have had an education of this so I don't know where he got the idea that humans came from chimpanzees.


I got this idea from my 8th grade science teacher, who was an evolutionist. She also told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.


Then you 8th grade science teacher didn't know jack shit about evolution.


thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Well after I asked him what it is, he gave me several mechanisms of evolution, but the mechanisms that drive evolution isn't synonymous with evolution. Later he gave me:
"Evolution is a gradual change"

So he does know what evolution is.


Wrong, evolution is descent with inherent modification or more specifically a change in gene frequency within a population over generations. You may not know this because you had a poor science teacher.

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Also since "kind" is undefined by creationists, thus it is not possible to identify the "kinds" that creationists believe in nor find out whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. For example a 28 year long study observed speciation of Darwin's finches, thus the question is: If a new species of finch emerges by evolution, is this finch a new kind of finch or the same kind and how would you tell? Of course creationists will never answer that, I know that because I have asked several of them (not AA, I think he is not a creationists, despite using similar arguments).


Define species.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

Now define "kind" for me such that you can tell wether organism A belongs in the same "kind" as organism B. When are two organisms the same "kind", how can you tell?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat May 14, 2016 8:34 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 795Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

thenexttodie wrote:So he does know what evolution is.


Nesslig20 wrote:Wrong, evolution is descent with inherent modification or more specifically a change in gene frequency within a population over generations. You may not know this because you had a poor science teacher.


Oh I see. Because I asked you to define species on a web forum, where you have had oodles of time to do so and were unable to. Does this mean you don't know what species are?

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Also since "kind" is undefined by creationists, thus it is not possible to identify the "kinds" that creationists believe in nor find out whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not. For example a 28 year long study observed speciation of Darwin's finches, thus the question is: If a new species of finch emerges by evolution, is this finch a new kind of finch or the same kind and how would you tell? Of course creationists will never answer that, I know that because I have asked several of them (not AA, I think he is not a creationists, despite using similar arguments).


thenexttodie wrote:Define species.


Nesslig20 wrote:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
What a cop out. Did you even read this?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun May 15, 2016 8:05 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

When is Almost Atheist coming back?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Sun May 15, 2016 11:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sun May 15, 2016 11:16 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

thenexttodie wrote:Oh I see. Because I asked you to define species on a web forum, where you have had oodles of time to do so and were unable to. Does this mean you don't know what species are?


I did give you a link to a university that defines what a species is so you didn't have to take my word for it.
A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

What a cop out. Did you even read this?


Yes I read that, from a university teaching the subject in simple terms even laymen can understand and thus not just a cop out (you should come with a better way to argue than just being dismissive). Now that I have defined "species" and given you a citation for that definition.
Can you define what a "kind" is in such a way that you would be able to tell wether two organisms belong in the same kind or not?
This is the second time I asked this question and I don't expect that you ever will because I have asked it to other creationists and none of them did. I hope you will be a deviant from this recurrent theme.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun May 15, 2016 11:17 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 4
 [ 72 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron