Posts by Coded Logic

8

Heliocentric Hole #1: Start of the Universe

by Coded Logic in

adjective.

having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.. .

the idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the big bang happened.

Heliocentric Hole #1: Start of the Universe

by Coded Logic in

adjective.

having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.. .

the idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the big bang happened.

Coded Logic

he·li·o·cen·tric

ˌhēlēəˈsentrik/

adjective

having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.

The idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the Big Bang happened. I know that a lot of you guys on this thread are going to say the evidence for Heliocentrism is independent of the Big Bang - that the Big Bang could turn out to be completely wrong and we would still know the earth orbits the sun. But since I just said something about it here in my OP any legitimate points you make on the topic I'm just going to accuse you of not being able to read.

My personal view is that the only thing crazier than believing in Geocentrism is believing in Heliocentrism.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

Just because laws can be subjective doesn't mean that truth is subjective. Just because people can agree on the consequences to a certain behavior doesn't make those consequences "true".

Laws, in the criminal sense, can only ever be imposed. They're never true. It can be true that certain laws exist. But the laws themselves aren't true.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

Wow, this Rorty guy sounds like a genuine idiot

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

Answers should be judged on whether they are useful

Useful at what?

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

How can we know we are any better at picturing reality than a dog?

Great question! And one with an easy answer.

We can know this the same way we can know which computer models work better than others - by their explanatory and predictive abilities. Models which give us useful explanations and have the ability to predict outcomes that match up with reality are considered good. And models which give inconsistent explanations or can only predict very short term outcomes - are considered not so good.

Our sense of reasoning is a tool. And the validity of any tool is how well it works to carry out a desired task.

Remember what I said before, truth is the label that we apply to claims that match reality.

Reasoning isn't a claim. It's a set of cognitive tools we use to make determinations about the world we inhabit. Tools aren't "true". They're useful.

13

A Thought Experiment

by InjusticeSystem in

i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

Coded Logic

If as the wt believes, the flood covered the entire earth to the height of Mt Everest for example, then every living thing aboard the ark would have died from lack of oxygen and/or pulmonary embolism at close to 25,000 ft.

I'm not sure this is true. I would just expect the atmosphere to continue sitting on top of the water and Noah and friends would be at sea level pressure. You can still breath even if you're floating over the Mariana Trench (36,000 ft deep - deeper than Mt. Everest is tall). It's not the distance from land that determines pressure. It's the distance from sea level.

13

A Thought Experiment

by InjusticeSystem in

i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

Coded Logic

Here are just a few things we could expect and some links showing how they're demonstrably wrong:

1.) We would expect every humans mitochondrial DNA to share a common ancestor around 6000 years ago. And we would expect to see this in the Y chromosome as well. Instead, we see our common ancestors being much older than that. In fact, we have to go back 150,000 years before we all share the same grandmother.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5878996/how-mitochondrial-eve-connected-all-humanity-and-rewrote-human-evolution

https://www.genome.gov/27555170

2.) We wouldn't expect humans and apes to share any endogenous retrovirus. Instead, we share at least 19.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001186/

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

3.) We wouldn't expect any Bristlecone Pine trees to predate the biblical flood (2304 B.C.). Instead, we see some of these trees that were supposedly under miles water for 370 days predating the flood by 500 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)

4.) We would expect there to be no written records of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Romans, Grecians, Chinese, etc. before 2304 B.C. In fact, we would expect them to have no cultural history before that time at all. Instead, we see records of their societies forming long before the flood and continuing for thousands of years after the flood.

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3139/1/PAGE_31-71.pdf

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/egyptian.htm

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-writings-ancient-places-europe/dispilio-tablet-oldest-known-written-text-00913

http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/mulu/oracle.html

5.) We wouldn't expect humans to have any atavisms or vestiges. Instead, we're chock full of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014134/

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/atavistic.html

6.) As birds were made on the fifth day and land animals weren't made until the sixth day we wouldn't expect to find any land animals in the fossil record before birds.

The evidence here is so common and overwhelming I won't bother posting any links. Birds don't show up until the late Cretaceous Period (about 65 million years ago). This would mean that we shouldn't see any land animals (like dinosaurs) before then. But that's not the case at all. We find them far earlier in the Jurassic Period (145 million years ago) and even earlier than that in the Triassic Period (200 million years ago). We also see other land animals (like amphibians and reptiles) living before long before dinosaurs in the Carboniferous Period (300 million years ago).

The idea that birds came before land animals is one of the most obvious blunders of the Genesis account. If the story is meant to be literal - then it's literally wrong. If it's metaphorical - then it gets the metaphor wrong.

62

Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

by Island Man in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

Coded Logic

I don't think it's particularly rational or reasonable to say the human mind is the ultimate source of all truth.
- SBF

(strawman argument)

Who's saying the human mind is the "ultimate" source of truth? I feel like you're just making up straw man positions so you can attack them instead of dealing with the real issues being raised on this thread.

Truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. Individual claims are either true or they are not true. When you say "ultimate truth" no one knows what you're talking about.

This would be like me making up some non-existent problem and then trying to use it to disprove Yahweh, "God can't account for Intrinsic Theocracy therefore all beliefs in God are self refuting."

Either the human mind is the product of undirected evolution, in which case there is no reason to suppose it has a particular capacity for identifying truth. Or else the human mind is the result of divine direction

(false dichotomy)

Having the ability to process information is hugely beneficial to living organisms. No supernatural appeals required. Creatures that understand their environments have a distinct advantage over creatures that don't understand their environment. Wolves that know how to can track a herd of bison are going to fare better than the wolves that can't track the herd of bison and/or that do so incorrectly.

Thus wolves that have a better understanding of reality are more likely to raise offspring. And more likely to pass on that ability. Whereas the wolves that don't understand reality as well are less likely to raise offspring and less likely to spread their genes.

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Coded Logic

or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions

I'm sorry, but this must be one of the absolute stupidest things you could say on this forum. Almost every single person on here used to reject evolution. Our preconception was that evolution was FALSE!

It was only because of evidence based arguments that we changed our minds!

And I really don't know what to say here, it's like someone asking me, "What are the holes in the theory of gravity?"

"What are the holes in Atomic Theory?"

"What are the holes in Cell Theory?"

As far as I know, there aren't any holes in any of these. Or in evolution. And if I could find a hole in any of them, I would write a peer reviewed paper on it and win myself a Noble Prize!