The Incredible Exploits of www.allaboutscience.org
Created on: August 9th, 2006
Not an attack on anyone, only a boring boring rebuttal
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.04) | 405 | 24 | 220 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8,350 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 54 | https://www.bing.com |
| 9 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 6 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | http://www.google.com/ |
| 2 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
You are absolutely right. Also pointing out that their argument is ludicrous: 1) The universe is to complex to simply exist by chance, therefore God made it. 2) This God is infinitely more complex than the universe in order to have created it. 3) However, this God simply exists. |Now logically, the complex universe as explained by science began simply and became complex, whereas apparently God has always been infinitely complex. That doesn't work, I could say "God is too complex to just be", too.
2 factors that are required for the existence of anything: the possibility and the sufficient conditions. They admitted that it was possible, we know that we have the sufficient conditions (given that you accept that we are alive and exist), so their argument about likelihood doesn't really say anything. They could say that the probability that life exists is 1 in (total number of planets in all universes). That neither means that we do not have life nor that life doesn't exist anywhere else.
I'm fiving on principle, but here are my gripes. You're preaching to the choir here... the ignorant people who don't alreday know this stuff won't take the time to read everything you've included. They're not ignorant because of a lack of information... they choose to ignore the facts because they can't handle the truth.
5'd for understanding and reminding others that science is only a method of learning, not a system of beliefs. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists (if not the greatest) was credited to have developed such a complex theory so well because he didn't take for granted anything he was taught up into college. This is also why he was known for failing courses. He didn't show up to class, didn't "honor" his professors, and didn't just regurgitate information.
awesome, pay no attention to the ignorant. Just because science cannot yet explain something does not make it supernatural, it just means we don't yet have sufficient data or capabilities. Single celled organisms weren't believed to exist until somebody finally proved it by inventing a microscope. So don't shrug off the unexplained as "god's magic finger".
I think a major problem here is assuming that intelligent design and scientific theory have to be mutually exclusive. true in a scientific work religion should be irrelevant. But the big bang does not disprove creation by a higher power. The Drake equation actually calculates the probability of life on other planets based on star qualities. Pretty interesting if you want to look it up.
I agree with all your points except in your last frame. It is NOT as easy as sending a scientific article to a University/Think Tank/Scientific Journal. In this day and age, when everyone is trying to come up with the Theory of Everything based upon the String Theory, it is almost impossible to lead people out of that. Because people have worked so hard and gotten so far in the string theory, no one wants to admit defeat and go back. There are currently hundreds of seperate, viable theories to explain...
everything we haven't already proven, yet, people scoff at it because it's not what the majority think. So, while I do completely agree with what you say, just remember that we still have our animal instincts: If we hide in a pack and follow the non-existant leader, then we're less likely to be hurt or killed in the long run. But, besides that, I'm glad you made this rebuttle. Thank you.
I'm all about rebuttals, and this was well concieved and very well done. I especially enjoy how you flipped the role, while peterguy's ytmnd is satirical to the point that it makes fun of the people who believe in the big bang theory, you do a good job in accepting the chance of god into your explanations, bravo.
5'ed.
Very nice. I personally believe that theology has a place in our lives because of what it does for people, and I think it's possible for it to co-exist with science because of all the ambiguity tied up in religion. Anyway, this was very tastefully done and I would like to give you major props.
Hmmmmmmmmm... I most certainly agree with you, and I realize that you cannot scientifically prove the existance of god (or really anything metaphysical, for that matter), but that doesn't mean whoever still holds these beliefs is delusional or anything. Science and religion just don't mix. I respect people for their various beliefs (for the most part) but ultimately, you're right--claiming that you can scientifically "prove" the existance of god, no matter what you believe, is still nonsense.
I am a christian, I believe in the christian god, but I also believe in everything science has proven. What I think the other site and this site have missed is what happened to make "SOMETHING." I have no question in my mind that science is right, that things can happen by random chance, and that we're not alone in the universe.
What the scientifically inclined christian believes as "god's work" would be the transition from "NOTHING existing" to "something existing." From there, science does the rest. It's not the complexity argument, it's the "Unmoved mover" or the "uncaused cause." Saying that everything happened because something else made it happen, and if you trace it back far enough, there is something that happened to start it all that had no cause.
if you believe that the universe has always existed forever and that nothing started the universe at any time... and you are OK with there being nothing that put everything in motion (as in, it's really hard to have anything before anything exists... as in the universe not existing) If you'd really like my take on this, I could shoot you an email, but it's really not a comment driven conversation.
In principle I'll 4 this to maintain the status quo. Your arguments to leave science for the scientists is counter productive. All that seeks to do is polarize us. Scientists should try and study religion, and religious folk should try and study science, they would learn a lot from each other. All Scientists now just want to prove that God doesn't exist to shut the religous wackos up, and all the religous wackos want to do is censor the scientists. All this does is mar the true beauty of both S & R.
"good stuff! its funny all the downvoters dont have anything intelligent to
say, just "boring" lol i think you hurt them. They were prolly looking
for the lohan facial expression YTMND anyways!" Was that the best you could come up with, twit? This is YTMND, a place for laughs and fads, not people bickering about something that won't change anyone's mind. Had you any brain at all, you would know that other than joining in the circle jerk because you have nothing relevant to add on your own.
I can appreciate the fact that you put a lot of time and effort into this, and that a lot of the original poster's information either WAS ignorant or at the very least came off as both obnoxious and slightly retarded. I think that a lot of the people that are upvoting you are doing so because they believe themselves to be "open-minded" when they won't spend any time to examine Christianity or any religion outside of Darwinism for that matter. 4'd for your effort and non-aggressive stance.
My problem with creationism is...OK, if science is wrong, how does that make creationism all of a sudden correct? I mean shouldn't the site be, Evolution is wrong, who knows what's right? if you want to talk about chance, what are the odds a convoluted religion that has changed over the years and years is *correct*?
This is one of the most amazing YTMND's I have ever seen. I love this site for the humour but you restored my faith in humanity today! Are you sure you aren't related to Sagan in some way?
Great use of logic and showing the 'true nature' of science - a tool that can be used for logic and reason not only within the realm of science and technology but also in other fields. AMAZING!!!
sorry, but these guys are " professionals " what they say is what they do for a living, I am not intrested in listening to the opinion of a simple " YTMND user " , I am sorry but I believe in the christ no matter what you say, and I don't downvote to be evil I just do it because I think it's the right thing to do.
I had this argument with a theist once. I said, "why is it that the universe itself cannot have the property of necessary existance while God can?" He didn't really know what to say to that. (btw, some scientists argue the big bang wasn't the beginning, but was a point where 2 string-universes collided, as in, our universe simply is and always will be... sound familiar?)
And how! Also, it might interest you to know that Behe's argument about the flagellum got owned a while back, I forget who debunked it. Behe says the flagellum can be thought of as a mouse trap - if any one part is removed the trap won't work. A real scientist pointed out that if you take a mouse trap apart, you don't have a mouse trap but instead parts to other useful things with other useful purposes (ex: the baseboard makes a kickass paperweight). The same is true for the parts of the flagellum.
In the end, a good, wholesome argument free of biased, opinions and feelings will always be the better one from my perspective. The problem with people who are very religious is that they rarely argue rationally and never consider the facts from any other point of view. Though you may be downvoted my short-attention spanned 10 year olds and angry chriastians, I enjoy ytmnd that attempt to educate and present a rational viewpoint.
"Makes you think. You can tell by the 1 stars Who is lower on the
Evolutionary Ladder" Judging by your response, it's pretty clear you're braindead and nearly illiterate. Most of the people downvoting this isn't because they disagree with the info, but don't think something like this belongs here. Next time, kid, at least pretend to have those brain cells given to you through evolution.
Thank you Tenacious A. You have expressed my entire belief system. However I do consider myself a devout Christian. I do not believe everything in the Bible though, such as the creation, the wisdom is what is infallible. There should be no religion, only beliefs. Science and religion should meld to become one open-ended belief system.
Wow, I'm amazed this stayed on up and coming for so long without getting pummeled too badly by downvotes. Thanks for all the support. Realistically, I never intended for this to be on the front page. I figured it would just be for people who were going through peterguy’s comments and they wanted to see a rebuttal. I only made it into a YTMND because it would have been impractical to make these points in comments. Cheers to everyone that actually took the time to read it!
And jeers to those who didn’t bother to read and just assumed it was against religion. I have no problem with people’s religious beliefs. If you’re gonna downvote, do it because it had no business being on the front page! Or because you actually read it all and you have a disagreement that you can back up.
It is possible that there is a smaller chance of life, and (I forgot the name, Hawking's dead pal.)'s theory that every possible action has been taken out in another universe, makes life impossible not to be created. An infinite amount of chances will create anything. We just happen to be the byproducts of a life producing chance. So there. :P
Three for effort but you're only going to convince the people who understand science already, and those people would never believe some bs propoganda like allaboutscience.org. I am baffled though why there are smart christians out there, yet the religious leaders that get all the attention are like rejects from the dark-ages.
It's always good to see all sides. I also liked how you were extremely open-minded and didn't insult anyone by this. Personally I believe there is a God and a complex system which supports a form of evolution. I have no proof of this, but this belief leads me to not waving my hand off at theories. ^^
I find it just amazing how incredibly stupid both sides are on this issue of science vs. religion. Religion trying to "prove" that God exists is ludacris. It defeats the purpose of faith. Speaking from a Judeo/Christian standpoint, I think God cares a lot more about you being a good person than wasting your time trying to misuse the scientific method to prove whether he exists. Science observes, it doesn't explain, so trying to use it to explain the existence of the universe is futile. Stick to faith, there
there's more merit to it. And science claiming that is has all the answers is equally stupid. It's called the Big Bang THEORY instead of the Big Bang LAW for a reason. The hypothesis that the the universe was created from an explosion 15 billion years ago is unrejectable. (Evolution isn't a law either.) So speaking as if it's fact when in reality it could be totally wrong is also abuse of the scientific method. With the advent of Intelligent Design, the majority of the science community has been actively tr
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." -Albert Einstein
"so poorly presented. break up your ideas into chuncks we can read, not a
clusterf*ck of scattershot, desultory ideas. a honest to god awful, awful,
awful, awful ytmnd--and not because i'm too lazy to read, but because i
did, and it was horrid." there is probably no way to do this given the size restraints of ytmnd. it's like taking a complex law and saying what it means without simplifying it too much.
I feel the need to say this as possibly one of the only Christians willing to post a comment:
1. Good argument.
2. Good use of of a Christian artist's music.
3. Thanks for not bashing Christianity or any religion just because you believe something else.
No, I don't believe in evolution or that God created evolution. I take the Bible as it is and I'm not going to yell at you for saying something I don't like. I'm sorry for those Christians that will. Just know that a real Christian's focus is on Jesu
Ok, so I'm not the only Christian who posted a comment. I'm sort of with the8ball on the stance that it's not about proving God exists (that's a little silly for a Christian, amirite?) it's about faith. Yup... I hope people read these comments. I also hope they'll go to blueletterbible.org, but who knows.
While it's true that there are Billions of galaxies and thus planets, the odd's of sustaining life are indeed great. However, you yourself have also omitted very important information. Though it's very possible for a planet to sustain life, the actual evolution of a one celled organism to a two celled organism represents a similar chance of occurance. Now, a human being is made up of millions upon millions of cells, and when the odds of just human evolution (forgetting all other animals) are added up, th
Good comment!
In Response:
So far, science has been unable to tell the circumstances that caused one cell to work symbiotically with another, and therefore it is impossible to calculate the odds of such an occurrence, however, once 2 cells began to work together it cannot be suggested that the odds of 3 cells, 4 cells and 5 cells working together is against the odds.
^^This is all suggested by fossil evidence which supports the claim that cells working together is ridiculously against the odds. There is about a 2 billion year gap between the appearance of the first single celled organism and the rise of multi-cellular organisms (in comparison, multi cellular organisms have only existed for between 1.5 billion to 6 hundred thousand years).
^^When it comes to the odds of something as complex as a human being, we are no longer dealing with random chance. Millions of generations undergoing natural selection ensures that the organism who is best suited for the surrounding environment survives and adapts. It is an unimaginably long and complex process and it is often oversimplified by people who assume that all of a sudden a fish gave birth to a duck and so forth.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link