Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 11, 2012 at 1:05am

In fact though the Himalaya is still being formed. The Indian plate is still continuing to move upward like this. The Eurasian plate above is drawn how it is situated now for clarity. (The Indian plate is not identical to the Indian landmass of course.)

(By the way, that's a piece of the Himalaya in the background of my picture.)

Permalink Reply by Wintershade3001 on January 11, 2012 at 11:16am

Of course it's still being formed, just like any other tectonic phenomena on Earth :D

The difference between saying "tectonics have been formed" and "tectonic are being formed" is just the same as saying "life has evolved" and "life evolves".

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 11, 2012 at 2:19pm

Yes wise guy, I'm aware of plate tectonics, I know how it works, well to a certain degree at least. I thought it might possibly be however that not everybody knows exactly how Mount Everest was formed and put some perspective on the timescales involved.

Myself I am amazed by the process and the awesomeness of the whole range there in northern Nepal. If you fail to be impressed you must be either dead or have never seen it.

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 11, 2012 at 2:51pm

Yes Albert, it is pretty impressive, isn't it? You know, the simplest way I've found, to teach the "awesomeness" of mountain building to children, if you have or know any, is to lay a sheet of paper flat on a smooth, level surface, place each hand on opposite sides of the paper, then slowly bring them toward each other, dragging the paper with them - the kiddos can actually watch the paper buckle and the mountains form. Just FYI.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 12, 2012 at 1:18am

Yes that's a nice way. But you make me feel sorry now for the theist teacher who I suppose has to throw a bucket of water over the paper and then let the kids wait in their wet pants to watch how the paper automatically buckles.

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 10, 2012 at 8:57pm

Sorry Angelo - I forgot your world was only 6,000 years old. Guess that means Everest was here 59,994,000 years before the earth was created. Your Big Guy probably needed someplace to sit, or maybe a footstool.

Are you finally getting all of the attention you came here for? Have you considered getting a real life - maybe, I don't know, move out of your mother's basement?

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 10, 2012 at 8:35pm

I just don't know what to say Kir, first you criticize my conversations with Godzilla (so I'm not even going to mention my chats with Mothra) and then you want to take away my teddy bear! What's left?!

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 10, 2012 at 11:58pm

Hey Arch (can I just call you that?),

Nah, I just took away the heroin :-)

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 11, 2012 at 12:54am

Kir --

"Sure," to the first; "Shhhh," to the second!

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Michael Gage on January 10, 2012 at 9:59pm

I'm not offering this answer for the OP, but for everyone else because he doesn't seem worth debating. I would start with something both parties can agree upon - there are 500 gods that do not exist, but people claimed they existed (see here: http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/dead-gods.html).

Now, if we start with that, we can start constructing a model of proper reasoning using Bayes' Theorem. The 500 gods sets up a good case for a low prior probability using Laplace's Law of Succession, which is (s+1)/(n+2). You can look that up on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession. That gives us a very low number.

Then, the argument just follows that from that low probability, we would need to have evidence that is uniquely explained by the god hypothesis in order to raise the probability that god exists significantly (i.e., extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). You can see my own Bayesian formaulation of that here: http://foxholeatheism.com/extraordinary-claims-really-do-require-ex.... The onus at this point is on the person trying to overcome the ridiculously low prior probability.

Again, I'm not going to argue with the OP about this. I just offer this to help others if they're looking for a very formal and defensible argument.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on January 10, 2012 at 10:16pm

Cool, I'm gonna bookmark this one, :D

Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 10, 2012 at 11:53pm

the hipotheses that everything came from nothing would be the most extraordinary claim of all. 

a nice website presenting arguments, why its most rational to believe in God :

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 59
• 60
• 61
• 62
• 63
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page