Hoyle, who before studying carbon was atheist.
So, I looked up Hoyle and read this. “Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist.”
Obviously, either Hoyle or the person writing the article had no understanding at all of Atheism or the Big Bang. They seem just as confused as WhoAreYou.
Hoyle’s position before his death was that he, "believed that life, as we know it today, “must have been the result of some unseen intelligence and that ‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is’” (Easterbrook 2003). "
What does the article conclude? “Fred Hoyle kept the scientific community on its toes until his death on August 20, 2001. While most of his ideas are now regarded as false, his work on the creation of heavy elements in the heart of stars through the process of nucleosynthesis revolutionized the field of astrophysics.”
So you really want to use Hoyle as an argument from authority? It’s a worthless venture, empty of evidence and reason.
Another supposed mind reader who has come to this forum to tell us we are all lying about not believing in their imaginary friend. Fuck me.
What part of what I wrote was too complex for you to understand. People around here write to you, hoping to give you information, and you just blindly see what you want to see. What a fucked up way to go through life. I feel sorry for you.
the context of that quote:
Regardless if you spend time looking into carbon 12 and its resonance you will see how it was predicted by Hoyle using Beryllium8 and Helium4 and it was not only never observed before his time at Caltech lab but it can only be within a certain tolerance for the triple alpha process to work. this also gives strict tolerances to forces. Engineers know that is a good design. He looked at other pathways to carbon12 but found it impossible with the 5 nucleon crevasse thus his conclusion and strict tolerances. carbon is essential for all forms of life.
“as we know it” there, fixed it for you.
I beg to differ. There are great implied ties to Darwinian evolution which in turn has great implications to atheism:
Where did the laws of physics come from?
Another false assertion, while species evolution utterly refutes the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions, it is not my reason for disbelieving in any deity. That is and will remain that there is no objective evidence or any rational argument, that any deity exists outside of the imagination of those who believe in them, or that any deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
I have also stated this plainly, and others have explained that atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, so you’re being pretty disingenuous here again.
You have offered neither objective evidence nor rational argument, thus I remain disbelieving of your claims for a deity.
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. However it is an objective fact that life and natural phenomena exist, and you are the one adding inexplicable magic, from an unevidenced deity, so the burden of proof is yours, and until you have anything beyond unevidenced subjective belief, Occam’s razor applies.
You’ve already been told, they are human creations, they are descriptive not proscriptive. You then falsely tried to equate the descriptive scientific laws, with the natural phenomena they describe and explain. You are again adding unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, and again Occam’s razor applies. This is another of your god of the gaps polemics, using an an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
You’ll no doubt now roll on to the usual creationist rhetoric, like laws requiring law givers, even though it has been explained that humans and science gave us these laws. If you want to claim a deity or anything else created the natural phenomena those laws explain and describe, then you will need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, not subjective beliefs and vapid rhetoric.
At least on here anyway, as the atheists here don’t accept unevidenced claims, or irrational argument uncritically.
They were created by scientists, and there is no objective evidence that the phenomena they describe were created using inexplicable magic, or unevidenced deities.
So what? How in the wide, wide world of sports does this demonstrably indicate your god/s exist?
I think you’re quite bright. And I think you believe you have always thought your god/s are real. But I’ve read your posts and would bet that you are struggling with that belief, that doubt is creeping in, and it scares you. So please don’t go away. The crowd here will do a lot to challenge you. Take it in. Mull it over. Use it.
All forms of life that we are aware of, we don’t know that non-carbon based life forms are impossible for example, so you’re using another appeal to mystery here, and this would still get a great big so fucking what? Since this does not remotely represent objective evidence for any deity or deities, or anything supernatural.
No belief can rationally be asserted as true because there is no evidence against it, this, as has been explained multiple times, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Ignoring this won’t make it go away.
You just don’'t fucking get it do you? Put your fingers in your ears and shout, ‘La la la…’ Poor poor ignorant soul.
Indeed, how often do we see this from the mythology fanboys?
Meanwhile, I see the in tray of duplicity is full again:
Oh look, more bare faced lies.
First of all, Darwinian evolution only occurs when a population of imperfect replicators exists. Much of prebiotic chemistry deals with the events before said replicators exist. Do you once bother to engage in honest thinking about the concepts at work here? Or is all your thinking driven by “what shit can I make up to peddle my beloved cartoon magic man?”
I already provided you with a sample of relevant thinking on this matter from cosmological physicsists, in the form of that article by Thomas Hertog I posted earlier. To which you responded with your usual mendacity, by falsely assertion the relevant exposition to be an “appeal to authority”. For someone who is so keen to peddle the fatuous notion that a goat herder mythology and its assertions dictate how reality behaves, it’s hilarious to note how frequently you ignore the Ninth Commandment therein.
Hoyle alighting upon this doens’t validate a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, written by piss-stained nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.
Poppycock. Anyone who has worked in genuine engineering circles, will tell you that a need to conform to strict tolerances increases maintenance labour and costs. By contrast, systems that can function within a wider range of tolerances are less likely to fail, are likely to be less expensive to maintain,and require less skilled labour.
You really don’t have a fucking clue how reality works, do you?
I’ll say it again, it’s awesome having you on our side. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid.
You really don’t get it do you? Are you that ignorant of the world around you? How in the hell do you dress yourself in the morning?
I worked on a reliability project where the tolerance was causing issues not one one component but multiple so yes i think i know what i am talking about. If you have a part that has a strict tolerance you will improve quality.
Sounds like you have strong faith in your religion and it’s leaders. I thought atheists were about facts and reality not hope and assumptions.