Atheism

Do you challenge yourself to seek answers or do you continue with default answers from your religious affiliations? (Don't bother I know the answer).
I gave you a "Rise of oxygen" graph from evidence. Now heres a graph on the Phanerozoic CO2 levels (with Royers data as a backbone). Both CO2 and O2 are easily interpreted from sediments. fossils, and specific minerals (and ice cores for recent data).
The rise of oxygen was closely tied to the rise of blue green algae , and terretsril plants (The increases were plottable almost as a "thickness of canopy" was hypothesized from the fossil record.

As oxygen rose, CO2 was naturally decreasing . Perturbations of these gases was then seen to track geological events and processes.
SO Im amazed at how an ID explanation is even necessary to explain a series of phenoms that are easily evidenced by strait natural means.

Once again, your Argumentum ad Carborundum has been acknowledged.
I think that what I say is that there is no available data that can be used to underpin ID. Difference

1. How did you come to know, at first, that I am 'religiously biased'?
2. I didn't know that I have had 'default answers' ... but after and as you say it.
3. There is no way for you to know what my answer might be, because:
- you have different declarative knowledge than mine
- you have different procedural knowledge ... & way of thinking
- your understanding of the world is different
- your understanding about my way of reasoning and about my understanding of the world might be wrong ... or let's say, not entirely true, etc.


I may be stupid but I am not an idiot: the 'rise of oxygen' is not the biosphere, it is not the ecosystem that has done the CO2 processing. All in all this is just A-nother indicator from the fossil record. Only another indicator (inter alia the others like temperature, nitrogen content, water vapors & humidity, average speed of the winds, etc.) and nothing else. The biosphere has hardly been drum'n'bass theory: green algae, cyanobacteria, CO2, oxygen ... beer sex and rock'n'roll. There must have been some set of processes, some dis-balance in the biomass ... and/or in the rock formation ... or whatever, driving the process of continuous sending (for over 230 million years) of the carbon from the air into the ground faster than the reverse process. And what about the ocean?


You mean relatively, as a percentage. This may be so, I cannot argue. So you propose in order to cope with the CO2 (from the vehicles and the TPPs) in the air at present to make the atmosphere of the Earth thicker in oxygen or what?!


Nothing with the reverse processing of CO2 is 'strait' and 'natural'. The strait and natural processes have happened on Mars and Venus (and we are between those two, if you pay attention). There is no way for the big bang to have made such negligence (stochastic mistake) with the Earth. It must be something else. Anyway.

Why are you conducting this discussion here? We all want to hear ourselves. This is the wrong venue, el stupido. Or, stupidi, or other.

Start your own threads. I see all of you answering the atheists on this particular thread as a feed lot, including the pulled in atheists.

But you are only considering what you know, or think you know, of the phenomena. You're singing the "whatwherewhen" tune rather than the "why".

The bus doesn't come round the corner because the timetable said it should. One might tell children that it does but children are not debating the meaning of the universe.

You're stuck in a disconnect fm. You want to be seen debating the highest matters and doing so amid mundane banalities derived from your selective reading.

Even the concept of an intelligent designer is trying to straddle the same chasm. It is something our feeble minds cannot comprehend. It would take a lot of university courses to explain why the bus came round the corner. It's a bubble in the "idlest froth amid the boundless main."

Take issue with the social consequences of a belief in the Christian God. Which one might easily do as long as you offer an alternative from the starting blocks the Christian God took off from.

One obvious advantage of a belief in something else is that Dawkins wouldn't be flying from gig to gig spouting fatuous foam.

On all known scientific evidence, osso, your plaintive pleas will fall upon deaf ears.

Orange juice. Moon. Spaghetti. Man.

Nothing is impossible.

Yawn.

The man who knows just one thing repeats it often.

That's you for the life hinge. I have seen the yawn faked many times when ladies feel they are out of their depth. Not a few theatrically.

Many of the people who argue for intelligent design are doing so from the perspective that things are too complicated to have happened via chance…or as used here, the Roulette means.

It appears most of us consider that perspective to be absurd.

You have, in effect, Farmerman, been arguing that it is absurd…and I simply wanted to remind everyone that despite the fact that no intelligence is needed to explain why things are the way they are…that is not evidence of no intelligent design.

Some people seem to forget that it is entirely possible that “the way things are…and the way they got to be what they are”…MAY BE the result of intelligent design. A GOD could easily have intelligently designed things to work the way science is discovering they work.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This discussion is really not about “intelligent design” or “evolution”…it is about whether there is a GOD or not…or to be more precise, it is about diametrically opposed blind guesses about whether or not there is a GOD. That almost certainly is why it is being discussed here in a thread about “Athesim.”

I certainly do not know if there is a GOD or not…and I suspect no one else here knows either. If there is a GOD (a creator GOD)…then this (evolution) apparently is the way the GOD “designed” our progression from original organic matter to what we have become. If there is no GOD…then all this just happened.

All indications are that the best anyone here can say is: I do not know which it is, but my blind guess is ________.

HINGEHEAD: Enjoy your spaghetti and orange juice. Seems like a weird combination to me…but if that is your thing, go for it.

An intelligent design would have to be intelligently designed to be so designated. I submit that there is nothing intelligent involved.

Emily Bronte. The Prisoner.

We atheists are going to have to laugh that fraught, hysterical nonsense to scorn it seems to me. It gets them going all oceanic and all.

I should think we should let Frank go and let him keep placing his boundaries of omnipotence on his "god" argument. He does more to kneecap himself than anything we can do.

So what what?

Start a new thread, man.

You are getting to be insegrevious.

There's no call for that sort of language young lady.

I submit that you almost certainly have no idea if there is intelligence involved or not. But I appreciate your blind guess...no matter how presented.

That certainly seems to appeal to you people more than simply acknowledging that you do not know.

I don't want to start a new thread. I want to post here.

****, you made me laugh again

I understand you want to argue for evermore here, but your interests are not relevant re this particular thread no matter how you bully.

I submit that you are full of ****. Respectfully, of course.