Precisely, and I also don’t believe for one second that @Sid doesn’t understand that, his sophistry was so ludicrously tenuous, and his dishonest semantics too pervasive thus far, to accept for one minute it wasn’t contrived on his part.
3 Likes
Does anyone ever do this every second of their lives? I must say I am dubious, and I certainly have not.
1 Like
I am so sorry TM. Delete protein in your case.
However as your designer so obviously plagiarised the perfect image of this ancient creator thing, their multitudinous flaws are inherently yours plus metal fatigue. At least your circulatory system is powered by that spanky new titanium pump with a 100 year plus service interval.
My “perfectly designed image” pump is wearing out. Currently working about 35% of normal. Yep, great design.
1 Like
New fangled magic, I’ll have no truck with it.
Prayzzz be 2 Jeeeezuz for keeping you alive this long.
It’s a miracle you’re still alive then, all prayzzzzz to Jeeeezuz…even at 35% he livesssssss, a miracle!!!
2 Likes
Sarcastic old fuck, No wonder I like you!!! I do wish I could come back to that grey mess they call Tory Engurland, cross the border and have a good few Welsh pints with you.
I see the Scots have awarded their Doctors 14.5% pay rise while Tory England barely managed 2%…WTFF???
1 Like
Maybe they’re paying them in oats and whiskey?
No, and once more, atheism is simply an answer to the question, do you believe in a god and/or gods.
Nothing more.
You believers in christ and the other bollocks are equally atheistic… you hold a position of atheism toward Thor, Odin, Apollo, Zeus etc… this really isn’t difficult.
I used to think not, but so many theists seems to struggle with it I am left wondering if I haven’t underestimated how hard it is to read a fucking dictionary. 
1 Like
I also noted his entirely predictable and mendacious attempt to twist your words about the possibility of life forms based upon a system other than our brand of organic chemistry.
Of course, he comes from a background where unchanging assertions are treated as purportedly consituting “axioms” about the world, regardless of how much reality pisses on this presumption from a great height, so it’s no surprise that he doesn’t understand relevant elementary concepts, Such as the fact that new data doesn’t automatically mean we have to flush vast swathes of current postulates into the bin.
He doesn’t understand (almost certainly wilfully and dishonestly) that any new data that arrives, could still be consistent with our current postulates, and reinforce our confidence in said postulates. Or that reality would have to throw us a serious curve ball, in order for decades’ worth and exabytes’ worth of previous data to be overturned.
Indeed, the history of the transition from Newtonian physics to General Relativity, about which I’ve expounded much in the past here and elsewhere, teaches us several important lessons in this very vein. Newtonian physics was, in a very real sense, killed off by its own success (a point that flies over the heads of the mythology fanboys), because application thereof allowed scientists to develop technology, bringing into reach observational data that began to diverge from the Newtonian model.
Of course, any new model that was generated to explain this new data, would also be required to explain all the old data as well - another point that flies over the head of mythology fanboys. It was a part of the genius of Einstein, that he not only devised a model (at least for large scale interactions) that was successful in this regard, but also provided an explanation as to why Newton’s ideas appeared to be successful for so long.
That explanation centres upon the Lorenz Gamma Factor, which is defined thus:
γ(v) = (1 - (v2/c2) )½
where v is the velocity of a system of interest through spacetime, and c is the speed of light in vacuo.
Now, one key fact to remember is that Newton devised his physics, in an era when the fastest form of transport was the horse. It should not surprise anyone aware of this fact, that his physics reflected that historical origin. But, and this is the important point, when experimental tests were conducted in that era of his postulates, those postulates passed the empirical tests that we were capable of conducting. This situation persisted for the best part of 250 years, until of course physicists started encountering data that pointed to the need for a new theory.
Einstein’s genius lay in recognising that the coordinate transformations we need to apply, in order to integrate both the new and the old data, are the Lorenz transformations, involving that Lorenz Gamma Factor defined above. Now, it transpires that in the case of low velocities and weak gravity fields, γ(v) is extremely close to 1, which means that as a multiplier in the transformation equations, it generates results for those scenarios that are observationally indistinguishable from the Newtonian calculations under most circumstances. In the case of everyday velocities and gravity fields, the difference between Newton and Einstein doesn’t show up, until you’re able to measure quantities to fifteen decimal places. Not surprising that Newton himself, with 16th century measuring tools, couldn’t detect this.
Indeed, detecting that difference is an expensive and laborious task for 21st century scientists, but that’s a separate issue. The important point is that thanks to the presence of the Lorenz Gamma Factor in relativistic coordinate transformations, the divergence of Einstein from Newton doesn’t become readily observable, until one is dealing with speeds close to that of light, or gravity fields of the sort only encountered in the near vicinity of black holes.
This also brings me to a second point I reinforce in discussions of this topic. Namely, that the reasons we still teach Newton’s ideas in classes, are:
[1] They constitute an excellent approximation in everyday situations, one good enough to be useful;
[2] The underlying mathematics is far simpler, and capable of being mastered by high school students.
This tells us an important fact - namely, that any new scientific model is required not only to explain the new data, but all of the old data as well, and ideally, should inform us why the old data supported the previous model for so long. Of course, this is a level of work mythology fanboys will run away from, precisely because it IS hard work. Instead, they want to resurrect an old, failed idea, via lying about the current scientific models, and then asserting that their old, failed idea suddenly magically becomes valid “by default”. Proper, rigorous development of ideas doesn’t work like that, hence much of the butthurt from the requisite mythology fanboys.
For people who are happy to posture as being “more moral” than us, it’s instructive to see the mythology fanboys engage in egregious duplicity on a grand scale, to try and peddle their attachment to a Bronze Age mythology. Indeed, no less a person that Judge Jones at the Dover Trial, issued public remarks to this effect about the creationists who were called to give evidence on oath.
The sham of creationism is one of the most pernicious and toxic pollutants of the arena of discourse to have arisen in recent years, and the sooner this pestilence is consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.
2 Likes
Well the resident chemist should explain to you that when you are talking about “Hair” you are only talking about chemicals in a certain arrangement , so yes, the universe does contain chemicals which can arrange themselves into something we use the descriptive term “ Hair” to identify.
Yes Sheldon , the semantics and sophistry is all yours .
I can only wholeheartedly concur.
1 Like
So no then, @Sid you have nothing beyond lies and semantics to support your baseless assertion that the universe has any meaning or purpose, thought so.
I’m gladdened that you have finally dropped the pretence that inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity is needed.
2 Likes
Except that hair is a feature of specific, well-defined entities within the universe, not the entire universe itself.
Are you really too stupid to understand this elementary distinction?
No, it’s all yours. Pot calling kettle black much, mythology fanboy?
Indeed, though it is as laughable to claim the universe “has hair” because humans have hair, as it is to claim the universe “has meaning” just because humans subjectively perceive meaning in their lives. Evolution could easily explain the presence of both, without the addition of any unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic.
1 Like
Oh I sense it is duplicity, and not stupidity that is the primary motive there. Though of course I like to keep an open mind…
I think @Sid and his word-gymnastics has played out.
Yes, I have assigned meaning to my life, therefore there is meaning in the universe. Yes, I have hair. Snow white hair, btw, down to my ass (that I frequently color parts of with red, yellow, indigo, teal, etc.). Therefore there is hair in the universe. Rather colorful hair at that!
@Sid was oh, so clever in his tripping up of the local atheists with his semantics. I suspect he is tickled with himself. Ho, hum.
Where I think @Sid made a mistake is in thinking (or acting like) the words “in the universe” and “the universe has” are the same.
3 Likes
1 Like
It’s all chemicals innit .