• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Why the definition of marriage matters

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser13838

Nothing in physics suggests that existence is due to an accident. In fact it can't be an "accident" in the sense you seem to be using the term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10415

Nobody's opinions are entirely their own unless they were born in an opaque, sound-proof bubble, and remain there for their entire life, cut off from all external input.

You really missed the point here, or perhaps chose to ignore the point and manufactured one of your own. So to be clear, I'll spell it out to you. Between 80% and 90% of viewers who'd seen those videos are in favor of equal rights for all, rather than just for heterosexuals. Granted, it's just youtube viewers, but youtube is worldwide, except in the more authoritarian areas. The sample size is certainly large enough to consider it a reflection on world opinion. You're the lunatic fringe, Mustapha00. Proven.
 

iamtheemperor

Active Member
If you are fine with believing your existence, as well as that of everything around you, is an accident, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.

What? First, how is that related to your assertion that children lack the ability to make rational, informed decisions? Second, I haven't asked you to convince me of anything.
 

DeletedUser13838

Nobody's opinions are entirely their own unless they were born in an opaque, sound-proof bubble, and remain there for their entire life, cut off from all external input.

You really missed the point here, or perhaps chose to ignore the point and manufactured one of your own. So to be clear, I'll spell it out to you. Between 80% and 90% of viewers who'd seen those videos are in favor of equal rights for all, rather than just for heterosexuals. Granted, it's just youtube viewers, but youtube is worldwide, except in the more authoritarian areas. The sample size is certainly large enough to consider it a reflection on world opinion. You're the lunatic fringe, Mustapha00. Proven.

I wouldn't consider youtube users representative of the general population of anything but youtube users.
 

DeletedUser10415

I wouldn't consider youtube users representative of the general population of anything but youtube users.

"In aggregate, YouTube has a huge audience, reaching 81.2 percent of Internet users in the U.S., according to comScore data. Unsurprisingly, younger visitors tend to spend more time on the site. In March, YouTube drew 31.8 million users aged 18 to 24 (98.3 percent of U.S. Internet users in that age bracket) who spent an average of 10 hours, 15 minutes on the site. Meanwhile, the platform attracted 19.4 million visitors 65 and older (74.4 percent of Internet users in that demo) who spent an average of 3 hours, 54 minutes using the video-streaming service."
http://digiday.com/platforms/demographics-youtube-5-charts/

Non-luddites then?

Or in other words, Internet users. And while it wasn't the case a decade ago, now 86 percent of adults in the U.S. are Internet users. Extrapolate, man.
http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
What? First, how is that related to your assertion that children lack the ability to make rational, informed decisions? Second, I haven't asked you to convince me of anything.

By some unfathomable leap of logic, you equated a video that shows young children purporting to support SSM based on their own knowledge of the subject with the existence or nonexistence of God.

I merely pointed out that the only real alternative to the existence of a creator is to believe that all life which exists came into being as the result of an accident, a fortuitous confluence of random events. Either something is intended to happen or it is not.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Nothing in physics suggests that existence is due to an accident. In fact it can't be an "accident" in the sense you seem to be using the term.

OK...call it a "random confluence of fortuitous events" if you prefer.

Either way, you are suggesting that life just happened to happen, with no plan, no purpose.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Nobody's opinions are entirely their own unless they were born in an opaque, sound-proof bubble, and remain there for their entire life, cut off from all external input.

You really missed the point here, or perhaps chose to ignore the point and manufactured one of your own. So to be clear, I'll spell it out to you. Between 80% and 90% of viewers who'd seen those videos are in favor of equal rights for all, rather than just for heterosexuals. Granted, it's just youtube viewers, but youtube is worldwide, except in the more authoritarian areas. The sample size is certainly large enough to consider it a reflection on world opinion. You're the lunatic fringe, Mustapha00. Proven.

And let's bear in mind that Youtube viewers made Psy's "Gangnam Style" the most-watched video of all time, so relying upon them as a credible measure of...well, anything...simply proves that one has a preconceived hypothesis and is desperately trying to fit the data to confirm that hypothesis. Makes for good emotions but awful science.

In case anyone has forgotten, I long ago said that I really do not care who marries whom. My objection has consistently been with the process by which SSM was forced upon the entirety of the country when the Federal government has no Constitutional interest in the matter. It should have been left up to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

Let's go back some 41 years to when Roe v Wade was similarly forced upon the country by a gross misreading of the Constitution on the part of a majority of SCOTUS Justices. Has the country become more or less supporting of abortion on demand in that time? Has the issue become less or more contentious in that time? SSM could- not saying it will but that it could- follow that pattern, with the country being worse off for it.

But hey.....a bunch of kids on Youtube said that won't happen so I guess it's settled then.
 

DeletedUser13838

Either something is intended to happen or it is not.

The issue is you're presupposing something that has an intention. There is a principle of physics that either something is forbidden by the laws of nature or is inevitable (based on a similar doctrine in english law). Intention isn't necessary. Look at powerball - 3 people won a prize that was 292 million to 1. Was it by design or is it a basic principal of mathematics?
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
OK....but who or what designed the mathematics? Or did it just create itself ex nihilo?

And speaking of mathematics, are you familiar with the theory of irreducible complexity?
 

DeletedUser10415

The mathematics were designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.
 

DeletedUser13838

OK....but who or what designed the mathematics? Or did it just create itself ex nihilo?

And speaking of mathematics, are you familiar with the theory of irreducible complexity?

Is mathematics an invention or a discovery? That's a different sort of topic. On the other hand, irreducible complexity has nothing to do with mathematics. If you want a debate about evolution vs creationism you should really create a separate topic.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Irreducible complexity is absolutely a mathematical concept because it has to do with the statistical near-impossibility of life being the product of random chance.
A very common deflection by those who see evolution as 'settled science'- in much the same vein as those who see 'climate change' as 'settled science' (and for the same reason) is to pretend that the concept is not worth examining. It used to be that data shaped the theory; now, it is theory shaping data.

But I would agree, save for the religious overtones of the SSM debate, evolution versus creationism has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

As for your initial question- an excellent one, I might add- I tend to think that it was, and continues to be, a discovery. No aspect of science is- or ought to be- ever "settled". I just today read a story on a potentially entirely new classification of black hole. It was not all that long ago that we knew of only one type of black hole- and that only by indirect observation- and that its cause was the collapse of a star virtually once all of its fusion elements were exhausted. That is no longer the case.
 

DeletedUser13838

Irreducible complexity is absolutely a mathematical concept because it has to do with the statistical near-impossibility of life being the product of random chance.
A very common deflection by those who see evolution as 'settled science'- in much the same vein as those who see 'climate change' as 'settled science' (and for the same reason) is to pretend that the concept is not worth examining. It used to be that data shaped the theory; now, it is theory shaping data.

But I would agree, save for the religious overtones of the SSM debate, evolution versus creationism has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

As for your initial question- an excellent one, I might add- I tend to think that it was, and continues to be, a discovery. No aspect of science is- or ought to be- ever "settled". I just today read a story on a potentially entirely new classification of black hole. It was not all that long ago that we knew of only one type of black hole- and that only by indirect observation- and that its cause was the collapse of a star virtually once all of its fusion elements were exhausted. That is no longer the case.

What is your evidence that there is a "statistical near impossibility" (whatever that is) of life by random chance? The concept of "irreducable complexity" is a pseudoscientific idea that has no evidence to support it.

Regarding black holes (sorry to go off topic) what class of black holes are you referring to? I took a very basic course in general relativity and my understanding is that the only traits of a black hole are mass spin and charge (and I only studied the ones with no mass or spin). I think
it would be huge news if there is a different kind of black hole that is not predicted by GR.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
All one need do to prove the statistical near improbability of life forming as a completely random event is to consider each and every single factor that goes into the creation of life, multiply that times the statistical improbability that all the factors happen on the single order which results in life being created times the number of locations in the multiverse with conditions consistent with the creations and sustenance of life. Only that last portion of that equation has a value above zero.

As to the black hole issue: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/636120/New-type-of-BLACK-HOLE-discovered-in-the-Milky-Way

Every story I've read refers to this as a "new type" of black hole rather than a derivation of an existing type. Every time we think we are on the path to figuring out something, it seems Something throws us a curveball.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/re...tianity-has-the-power-to-defeat-radical-islam

Richard Dawkins, who is known all over the world to be a very strict atheist, as well as the author of the very famous and best-selling book The God Delusion had made certain comments about Christianity in the year 2010. He said that Christianity can be the best defense for fighting against all the Islamic jihad that is taking place all over the world.

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

So much for the claim that there is no difference between Christianity and Islam. Even a militant Atheist knows that is complete nonsense.
 

DeletedUser13838

All one need do to prove the statistical near improbability of life forming as a completely random event is to consider each and every single factor that goes into the creation of life, multiply that times the statistical improbability that all the factors happen on the single order which results in life being created times the number of locations in the multiverse with conditions consistent with the creations and sustenance of life. Only that last portion of that equation has a value above zero.

You still haven't defined your terms. What does statistical near impossibility mean? Free neutrons are known to be unstable with a half life of about 10 minutes but protons have not been shown to have any decay. Some theories suggest that free protons have a half life of 10^31 years, with a probability of individual decay that's almost certainly smaller than any value you're thinking of. But proton decay should be detectable with a relatively small mass in a relatively small amount of time which is why most of these proposals have had to be discarded or altered to fit with empirical evidence (ie no decay events have been detected).

As I said, the concept of "irreducable complexity" is pseudoscience like astrology and homeopathy - ill-defined terms and no evidence. To suggest it is mathematics shows a lack of understanding of mathematics.

As to the black hole issue: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/636120/New-type-of-BLACK-HOLE-discovered-in-the-Milky-Way

Every story I've read refers to this as a "new type" of black hole rather than a derivation of an existing type. Every time we think we are on the path to figuring out something, it seems Something throws us a curveball.

Thanks for clarifying. Black holes are black holes and this doesn't change the underlying physics (ie my understanding that black holes are completely described by mass spin and electric charge). This article refers to a new classification of blackholes by size between stellar and supermassive, kind of how someone classifies a green finch with pink polka dots and a pink finch with green polka dots as different species. The question for intermediate black holes is if they are formed in a different process than supermassive black holes or if the supermassive black holes form out of the intermediate variety.
 

DeletedUser

Wow...just wow
Read the entire thread and must say while there were a number of interesting posts made I sincerely hope I never have to spend any time IRL with some of the posters here, both those Pro SSM and those Anti SSM.

Certainly a lot of very narrow minded intolerant rhetoric on both sides.

When I first started reading I was figuring on posting my own views on subject but have changed my mind as I have little to no hope of swaying the entrenched opinions of the most radical parties on either side of this debate.

Only thing I will say is people need to open their minds and start using them to come to their own personal "truth" on any subject. Too many, even those who claim to be free thinkers, fall back on the views and opinions of someone else without questioning the source and possible agenda behind it.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Mustapha, I'm not saying it's likely that evolution in a few billion years goes from sludge to landing on the moon. However saying something is not possible because the odds are against just ain't right. Random things DO happen.

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

Anybody remember decades of bloody war in the last half of the 20th century in Northern Ireland?

There is a lot of history of Christian intolerance, death and destruction. is it a primary tenet of Christianity? I don't think so. But it happens way too often. Niven's law applies, "There is no cause so noble it does not attract fuggheads."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top