Atheist Manifesto

[The ClayTaurus]

Then you simply have to render the example to be a house. If the person claimed the purchase of a house, there is no way you can lose that receipt or not know where it is.

That's an assumption. It renders your absolute statement irrelevant. You can't claim something as absolute and then apply qualifiers to your examples so they work.

And we are in a situation where the person definately wants to show the proof. So, lack of proof proves he is lying.

No it doesn't! He could just not want to show it. You're applying the assumption of logical behaivor to your examples. Again, that renders your absolute as irrelevant.

Giving the qualification of "knowing the person wants to provide proof" doesnt render it irrelevant, because it is a possibility,

Anything is a possibility! Besides; knowledge of the person wanting to provide proof would count as evidence. This is the problem with when you try and be cute on one end with semantics. You have to be cute on all ends with semantics, and your position falls apart.

and I only need ONE EXAMPLE of it occuring to prove my posistion correct. But unfortunately for you guys, I have given many examples, as there are literally thousands upon thousands of examples.

No you haven't. You've yet to give one GOOD example of a LACK of evidence prooving there is no evidence. You've tried, and each has been shown to require qualifiers and/or actual evidence to be true.

But keep trying.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, let's check out the dictionary.

Radiation:
Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays or waves.

Now, provide your source that energy is composed of matter as you said.

I already did idiot. It says radiation is composed of particles. If energy is in waves or rays, what makes those? It has to be something physical, other wise rays or waves wouldnt occur, idiot.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's an assumption. It renders your absolute statement irrelevant. You can't claim something as absolute and then apply qualifiers to your examples so they work.No it doesn't! He could just not want to show it. You're applying the assumption of logical behaivor to your examples. Again, that renders your absolute as irrelevant.Anything is a possibility! Besides; knowledge of the person wanting to provide proof would count as evidence. This is the problem with when you try and be cute on one end with semantics. You have to be cute on all ends with semantics, and your position falls apart.No you haven't. You've yet to give one GOOD example of a LACK of evidence prooving there is no evidence. You've tried, and each has been shown to require qualifiers and/or actual evidence to be true.

But keep trying.

Congratulations. You have just joined the crowd of idiot morons.

Tell me what evidence is in an empty room? If there is none, which there cant be, cuz the room is empty, then there is a lack of evidence. It proves the room is empty.

Twist it, turn it all you want, you are simply wrong.

and for your bonehead friend who wants proof that energy is a physical entity, here is a link:
http://www.dac.neu.edu/physics/b.maheswaran/phy1121/data/glos/glossary.htm

 

[Dr Grump]

go back and read your examples. They were events that occured because of an intelligent being. If you want to show events that occured to prove evolution, you need events that didnt use an intelligent being.

Easily done. In the past people didn't know why the sun shone, why it rained, why the grass grew....BTW, I wasn't trying to prove evolution, I was trying to point out that in the past people saw things as very complicated, yet science eventually explained them.

no, its just common sense. If you were on a trail and saw a very complicated (although it wouldnt be nearly so complicated as the single cell) stick house built with twigs and twine which was obviously tied into knots (just as the single cells DNA is in a twisting fashion) and you said, HEY LOOK, that is pretty cool how that thing evolved. Everyone would think your nuts.

Why would they think you were nuts? It happens in nature all the time. You do know that the reason they cannot cure the common cold because it is a mutating virus, right? Therefore it is changing all the time. What is causing it to change? The virus adapting to its environment and overcoming the antibodies trying to suppress it, or some omnipotent being zapping it into action?? Talk about common sense....

mathematically its just impossible for that many random event to all occur at the same time and same place..

Says who? You? Give me examples. You know LvPRgrl you are really short on links to back up your claims (for ones you seem to be so sure of) and real big a spouting off opinion as fact. Start backing up your claims with solid, unrefutable evidence - hell even refutable evidence - because from where I'm sitting you're starting to look like you are out of your depth...

It would be similiar to waiting and expecting a fairly busy intersection in a city to have a moment when 50 different accidents all occured at the same time (as there is a need for over 50 different chemicals to have reacted with other chemicals all in the same place, same time).

WTF? So now you're comparing 50 accidents with chemical reactions? Why don't your compare a polar bear with a piece of cheese while you're at it..

Those who want to believe in evolution are just stone headed about this and refuse to admit the obvious, and just make callous claims such as "well if thats what you want to believe", just like some still believe landing on the moon was orchastrated in Hollywood, you too believe a single cell could have evolved on its own.

First of all, what is the obvious? Second of all, look up the word callous. Third, I don't believe a single cell evolved on its own, I think it had a little help from nature.

Basic problem is, even some athestic scientists agree it couldnt have. One is an author of a book about the reasons why we should seek to stretch our space exploration to mars. I heard this person interviewed and they proved to be highly intelligent, rational, calm and informed.

I've bolded the most important word in the above statement. As for the person being highly intelligent, rational, calm and informed, is that part of the ingredients to prove that a scientist's theory is a little more than just a theory?

The "creation" of the single cell wasnt a matter of evolution either, it was suppose to be a chance accident. Evolution is another matter, so a non evolving item like a house certainly fills the bill.

Could you expand on the last sentence a bit....because right now the theme tune from the Twilight Zone is going through my brain.....And as for the first sentence, I have two words "prove it".

 

[MissileMan]

I already did idiot. It says radiation is composed of particles. If energy is in waves or rays, what makes those? It has to be something physical, other wise rays or waves wouldnt occur, idiot.

You gave a definition of radioactivity. Radioactive matter sheds particles (matter) that also release radiation (energy). So, one more time...provide a source that specifically says energy is composed of matter. And while you're searching, ask yourself this: If light (a form of energy) is composed of matter, how does it pass through glass (another piece of matter) without blowing a hole through it?

 

[MissileMan]

Congratulations. You have just joined the crowd of idiot morons.

Tell me what evidence is in an empty room? If there is none, which there cant be, cuz the room is empty, then there is a lack of evidence. It proves the room is empty.

Twist it, turn it all you want, you are simply wrong.

and for your bonehead friend who wants proof that energy is a physical entity, here is a link:
http://www.dac.neu.edu/physics/b.maheswaran/phy1121/data/glos/glossary.htm

I have to apologize for the Kansas school comment. It's become obvious you've never seen the inside of one.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Congratulations. You have just joined the crowd of idiot morons.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you abandoned your position for namecalling.

Tell me what evidence is in an empty room? If there is none, which there cant be, cuz the room is empty, then there is a lack of evidence. It proves the room is empty.

No. You look at the room and see that it is empty. Your vision is the evidence. If you have no evidence about the state of the room, you can't prove anything. It could have stuff in it, it could not have stuff in it. You need evidence to prove one way or the other. Your examples get worse and worse.

Twist it, turn it all you want, you are simply wrong.

You're the one twisting and turning in some retarded semantics excercise to try and show some clever way of thinking about stuff that no one else has thought of. Pseudo-intellectualism at its finest.

and for your bonehead friend who wants proof that energy is a physical entity, here is a link:
http://www.dac.neu.edu/physics/b.maheswaran/phy1121/data/glos/glossary.htm

Why don't you spell out which specific "proof" you're referencing, instead of just giving us some list of physics terms.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You gave a definition of radioactivity. Radioactive matter sheds particles (matter) that also release radiation (energy). So, one more time...provide a source that specifically says energy is composed of matter. And while you're searching, ask yourself this: If light (a form of energy) is composed of matter, how does it pass through glass (another piece of matter) without blowing a hole through it?

I thought light was matter. It's made out of photons (particles) that can be detected individually when they strike against a surface. Am I wrong?

 

[MissileMan]

I thought light was matter. It's made out of photons (particles) that can be detected individually when they strike against a surface. Am I wrong?

I'm no physicist, but to my knowledge, light is energy, not matter. Everything I've ever read makes a distinction between energy and matter. From http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm

Electrons circle the nucleus in fixed orbits -- a simplified way to think about it is to imagine how satellites orbit the Earth. There's a huge amount of theory around electron orbitals, but to understand light there is just one key fact to understand: An electron has a natural orbit that it occupies, but if you energize an atom you can move its electrons to higher orbitals. A photon of light is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high-energy to normal-energy, the electron emits a photon -- a packet of energy -- with very specific characteristics. The photon has a frequency, or color, that exactly matches the distance the electron falls.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm no physicist, but to my knowledge, light is energy, not matter. Everything I've ever read makes a distinction between energy and matter. From http://science.howstuffworks.com/light4.htm

You're right!

http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html

Interaction of Light with Matter: Absorption and Emission of Light
It should come as no surprise to you that atoms and molecules (which are simply bound collections of two or more atoms) can absorb light (= energy!). If they didn't, you could simply flick a light on and off, and then sit back while the photons continued to bounce around the room! Likewise, infrared light (= heat = energy!) wouldn't do any good in heating up your home in the winter if it didn't get absorbed by matter. Higher energy light photons, like X-rays, tend to want to plow through more matter before they get absorbed. (Hence, their use in medical imaging: they can pass through your "soft" tissue, but are more readily absorbed in your bones, which are denser.) How and why do photons get absorbed by matter?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I thought light was matter. It's made out of photons (particles) that can be detected individually when they strike against a surface. Am I wrong?

From a quantum mechanics perspective, light displays the properties of both waves and particles.

Links here:

<a href=http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html>Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment</a>

<a href=http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm>Do the "Double Slit" Experiment the Way it Was Originally Done</a>