Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Goku

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Goku last won the day on September 15

Goku had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

298 Excellent

1 Follower

About Goku

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    25
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

450 profile views
  1. Goku

    We're Being Talked About

    This is just factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how life got here, cause or no cause, natural or supernatural, for evolution to occur once life is here. We know life is here, that is self evident, and describing how life behaves once life is here is not dependent on the explanation of how life got here. There are evolutionary scientists that do not believe all life has a common ancestor once you start talking about domains of life. Besides, if it was found out, for example, that each domain had an independent abiogenesis origin (natural or supernatural), it wouldn't destroy evolution. It would have little to no impact on almost every classic evolution-creation argument/debate. It does not follow that evolution isn't science if all life doesn't have a common ancestor. Literally, the second sentence of Tangle's OP over on EvC says, "Not all religious believers are nutters". I assume this means that you can be a religious person while still accepting science - i.e. not a nutter. I assume he would say that the theistic evolution position would not make one a "nutter", although a given TE may be a nutter for a different reason. I did not get the impression reading the thread that they were trying to say Christians believe lightning is Thor farts or something to that effect. I know, as a Christian, you think your religion is special and you don't like being lumped in the broader category of religion, but the fact is you are a member of the religious group. That doesn't mean you believe every crazy idea every religion has ever come up with, but there are similarities by virtue of you being religious. Let me put it this way, several times over the years you have said that if you are not a Christian you are an atheist. I would argue that is far more a logical sin than pointing out that Christians are religious people (which is at least a true fact). That lightning is not the result of Thor farting is a cautionary tale of subscribing weird and currently unexplained phenomenon into the supernatural category just because it doesn't have a current scientific explanation. What the people at EvC are capitalizing on is the idea that every religion, including Christianity, believes something fantastical on faith irrespective (and often despite) evidence. It is that common thread which they are seizing upon. Regarding main-stream science, when you look at what religious people disagree with, they disagree with things because they go against their religious beliefs. Judaeo-Christian creationists reject evolution because the Earth is too young from their perspective. Hindu creationists reject evolution because the main-stream timeline is too short from their perspective. The underlying, fundamental, point of contention is not actually evidence (even if the evidence supports their claims) - that's just window dressing to bolster their views. Rather, the fundamental issue is that the main-stream position goes against their religious beliefs. Unless someone is willing to entertain that their religious beliefs are wrong, no amount of evidence will convince them they are wrong as they will do whatever mental gymnastics is required to create a story/explanation for why their religious beliefs are still true and/or why the evidence (no matter how correct or well supported that evidence is) is simply wrong or misinterpreted. I know you will likely say atheists suffer from a similar pride as it is human nature. To that, I would say atheists certainly can and do exhibit similar traits. However, regarding science, specifically in the umbrella of "evolution" debate, I'll note that evolution is fundamentally different in that the core ideas are not religiously motivated as seen by the fact that people from many types of religious backgrounds accept evolution as the best scientific explanation, whereas the dissenters of "evolution" fracture into various incompatible camps based on their underlying religious beliefs (like the Christian vs. Hindu creationists).
  2. Goku

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    But Kennedy was a Democrat which makes him an evil Satanist. Not to mention he was a Catholic, which makes him a double Satanist and in on the NASA conspiracy with all the other Jesuit priests. But, yes, KB's "memes" are little more than genetic fallacies and thinking waaaaaaaaay too deep about inconsequential facts like many craters on the moon being named after Jesuit priests or the planets being named after Roman gods. (No one tell him that many stars have Arabic names and that many prominent constellations are Greek.) All these things have mundane explanations that don't require any world-wide, multi-millennium conspiracies.
  3. Goku

    Covid ... we blew it

    I'll also add that this is after we took various measures like social distancing, mask wearing, and shutting down businesses/schools.
  4. Goku

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Here ya go!
  5. This has happened to me several times in my life, minus the "thousands of miles away" part (although some were hundreds of miles away), usually involving death, and has happened with pets too, not just humans.
  6. Goku

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    What's wrong with the muon example? Here is a university lecture note on the subject (I changed the format of the last equation because copy-paste didn't like it; fyi, ^0.5 means square root): http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy140/lecture32_01.pdf Muons are unstable particles created when cosmic rays interact with the upper atmosphere. They move at very high velocities (β ~ 0.9999) and have very short lifetimes, τ = 2 × 10-6 s, as measured in the lab. Do muons reach the ground, given an atmospheric "thickness" of about 10 km? "Classical" answer: distance = velocity × time = 0.9999c × 2 × 10-6 s ≅ 0.6 km ∴ conclude that muons will never reach the ground. However, they do! What is wrong? Because muons move so quickly, relativistic effects are important..... (2) Length contraction approach – from muon frame In reference frame A (now with the muons) lifetime = τ = 2 × 10-6 s velocity of ground = 0.9999c So the distance that the ground travels before the muon decays is 0.6 km. But what is the thickness of the atmosphere that the muon sees? proper length of atmosphere = 10 km length of atmosphere in muon frame is ∆x = ∆x' (1 - V^2 / C^2)^0.5 = 10 (1 - 0.9999^2)^0.5 = 0.14 km i.e., the atmosphere that the muon sees is 70 times thinner 0.6 km > 0.14 km and so the ground will reach the muon. Thus, length contraction and time dilation are real!
  7. Goku

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    I did cite four lines of evidence/observations that support relativity, and even gave a short paragraph description of the muon observation for length contraction in relativity. I noticed that your reply completely ignored all four of them. I don't think it is a bare assertion just because you refuse to engage the supporting content for my statement. I don't know what black holes have to do with this. Please explain. The muon observation, as I explained last post, is evidence for length contraction in relativity being real.
  8. Goku

    NASA fakery? Or truth?

    I watched the whole 3 minute video, and the guy was talking about where he went to high school (while answering a question about what high school was like for him), not where they were filming some fake ISS video. I understand. I wish nothing but the best for you and your family. Feel free to drop by anytime to give us an update or set us straight about reality.
  9. Goku

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    To be fair, relativity also says it requires an infinite amount of energy to take such an object to the speed of light. So there are built-in safeguards, so to say, to prevent these kinds of absurdities in real life. Due to the infinite energy required to get an object to that speed, we wouldn't really expect to have observed such a thing even if relativity is true. You are right that, according to relativity, an object being contracted due to relativistic speeds would not be observed by someone moving with the object to take a picture of it due to their frame of reference, and it is kind of hard to take a picture of something going near the speed of light relative to you. And so, such a thing has never been formally observed. This would be a real problem if it were not for the fact that relativity has been observed and confirmed multiple times, including length contraction, even if this specific type of length contraction has not been observed (nor would we expect to observe it if relativity is true anyway). You have your classic relativity examples like eclipses where you see stars behind the Sun as the Sun's mass bends the light of the stars, the orbit of Mercury, and atomic clocks demonstrating time dilation. For length contraction specifically, the classic example is muons. Muons are particles created when cosmic rays interact with the upper atmosphere. The problem for the muons is that they rapidly decay, and will decay before they have time to reach Earth's surface. However, we do observe muons on Earth's surface. Relativity explains this observation through length contraction. From the muons' perspective, what is happening is that it is moving so fast that it experiences length contraction in the direction that it is going in; the atmosphere is literally contracting in front of it. This allows the muon to reach Earth's surface before decaying, which is what we observe. (From our perspective, the Earth's atmosphere isn't contracting, but the muon is experiencing time dilation and time is slowing down for them. According to relativity, both frames of references are valid.) That we observe muons on Earth's surface is observed evidence of relativistic length contraction being a reality.
  10. Goku

    The Morality Of The Magnavolt

    You're the one that suggested we look to the OT laws and punishment for car theft, not me. I'm not saying you are advocating we practice Judaic law. What I am saying is that a law system that says we should kill people for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week probably isn't a good guide/authority in general on how we should punish people who misbehave. Are you saying the NT is not moral? Because you seem to be saying that only giving a car thief a fine and/or jail time is immoral because it is too soft a punishment, and so I can only imagine what you would think of that Jesus turn the other cheek hippie nonsense. I am not familiar with UK news, nor am I familiar with your criminal justice system. "Godless society" or "Godless morality" is a useless phrase in this discussion; all it means is the absence of God (which from my perspective God is just human reasoning cloaked in the divine anyway), and it gives us zero indication on what the opinions of said society actually are. Jail/prison has two main functions. One of them is punishment for certain crimes that are grave enough to warrant it, but the other is to remove from the general public those that pose a danger to the public - i.e. it's a safety measure. The punishment and safety issues are distinct issues, although they are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, for the safety of the public those people shouldn't have been released, but that is a different question than whether or not those people got a proportional sentence to the crime they committed earlier. What you are describing doesn't seem to be an argument from the "proportional punishment" perspective, but from a "safety" perspective. So it doesn't seem applicable to the original topic of killing someone right after they stole a car as the 'right' punishment. This also touches on the idea of punishing people before they commit a crime. This may be another difference of opinion between us, but I do not think we should punish people for crimes they have not yet committed. I do find it amusing that you complain about people twisting your view of the OT, then turn around and all but say anyone who isn't a Christian is pro rape lol. I myself have never given much thought about rape sentencing guidelines, so I don't really have an opinion on what the fairest punishment would be. I will say, regarding children, I think there is a case to be made that for public safety that person should not walk free again. That doesn't necessarily mean jail forever, but after they finish their sentence in jail they would be transferred to a mental facility or something where it may be nicer than jail (since they have completed their sentence) while still not being able to interact with the general public freely for the general public's safety. Regarding the death penalty I'm not morally opposed to the idea in principle, but in practice I don't think it is working out too well, and I have reservations about giving the government the authority to order the death of its citizens. Of course, if that happened to my family I would want the punishment to be severe, maybe even death. However, as partial to the injured party, most people would say I'd be too biased to be entrusted with dealing out a fair punishment. But we don't live in Heaven; we live on Earth. This kind of thinking is self defeating. The punishment for any sin is ultimately death, and everyone has sinned at one point or another, and so we all deserve death. If we try to replicate this on Earth, we would have to literally kill everyone, and I submit that any system that has everyone dying is self defeating. Assuming the goal is to have a healthy and functioning society. I don't know where you are getting this 4 million figure from. You are also lumping together theft and murder, which I see as categorically different crimes. Your question has too many unknowns to give a proper response. Also, if you recall from our previous discussions on morality, I see God's view of morality to be subjective as well. If God's view is objective, then that objective morality must exist independent of God. So, in theory, if objective morality exists, then God is not needed to find it. To bring this back to the original topic, I do not think the death penalty is appropriate for stealing a car. I'm going to guess you never looked up the punishment for theft in the OT. Out of curiosity I did (Bible in blue). If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep...... 4 If what he stole is actually found alive in his [d]possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double...... 7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him and it is stolen from the man’s house, if the thief is [e]caught, he shall pay double. - Exodus 22:1, 4, 7. There are other passages, but in essence what I found was that the punishment for theft was paying back what was stolen while adding in extra stuff. IOW, the OT solution to theft was monetary in nature, not capital punishment. Ironically, I am much closer to the side of the OT in this thief discussion than you. People shouldn't be killed for stealing cars; read your Bible. Of course, as I said earlier, you probably shouldn't get your moral compass from a code that says to kill people who pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. I think it's also important to point out that Goku never seems to qualify his own morality but is happy to disqualify others according to his own. (but first why is yours qualified?) For example, "every" here is used it would seem as a measure of what is, "lunacy". In terms of God being a, "lunatic", obviously that is just going to be a question-begged epithet., or an insult. If in reality God exists and exists in a purely moral system then who is really the lunatic? Society does not live in a perfectly moral system but a moral decay, but they remain, "sane" I guess? Also if people by majority DON'T say something is "lunacy" should that have meaning? For example in world war two Germany it wasn't "lunacy" to consider Jews second class, the majority had neurotically agreed it was okay. Today even though many fairly well formed babies in the womb did nothing wrong is it, "proportional" that they are murdered. Isn't that, "lunacy" because it happens with doctors and law has passed it? Conclusion; How do you determine what is moral lunacy if you question-beg your own position as the correct one? Why is one moral compass, "lunacy" and another not, under unbelief? isn't that sort of then like saying this; "people that don't like chocolate icecream and prefer banana are NUTS but people that do like it are not. "Every"one will tell you that." But wouldn't that just mean that the majority simply favoured chocolate? Why then is the matter objective, it is still relative it just happened to be that most go with the chocolate. But there may be a region where most go with banana. It should be noted that when I wrote that, we were in the "humor" thread. Also note that I said I found it "kind of funny that....." IOW, I wasn't trying to make some ironclad logical argument about objective moral reality. It's just an observation I find humorous and decided to share it in the humor thread when you brought up how great the OT law is. I mean, can you imagine someone proposing that everyone gets a fitbit, and it is illegal to turn the fitbit off or remove it during the Sabbath, and if you take one too many steps on the Sabbath the fitbit will electrocute you to death. I think just about everyone would find that person to be a lunatic, but I suppose in your view everyone who disagrees is the lunatic ( ). Like I said in the beginning, it all comes down to your perspective. If we want to get all logical, your original assertion that it is moral to kill car thieves as opposed to just giving them a fine and/or jail time begs the question of why that is the case. Your main supporting argument is that the OT is harsh and therefore it is moral to kill car thieves. But, when I actually opened up the OT to see what it says I find a bunch of passages saying thieves should be punished monetarily, and I couldn't find any mention of physically hurting thieves as punishment let alone the death penalty. Your main supporting evidence for your position doesn't support your position, and instead contradicts your position.
  11. Goku

    The Morality Of The Magnavolt

    Stealing a car is wrong and should be punished, but that punishment should be proportional to the crime. I do not think death is a proportional punishment to stealing a car. But, if we are going Old Testament, your God literally wants to kill people for picking up sticks on the wrong day, so I guess it's all about your perspective. I do think it is kind of funny that if anyone actually truly advocated OT law they would be considered a lunatic in every country on Earth. Everyone gets a fitbit, and if you take one too many steps on the Sabbath you'll be meeting Jesus real soon. I would stop eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics if I were you.
  12. Goku

    Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

    I keep hearing from people over the years that they teach trig functions in geometry, but I honestly have zero recollection of it ever coming up in ANY math class until I took trigonometry. Although, oddly enough, I do remember using trig functions in 8th grade science/physics where basic algebra was not a requirement. Our teacher gave us the insightful instruction of sin/cos was beyond our class and to just plug and chug it into our calculator whenever we see an angle and don't think about it.
  13. Goku

    Covid ... we blew it

    While it's been said before that Trump shouldn't advocated hydroxychloroquine before the science is in, I don't think anyone has pointed out that another reason why a President shouldn't advocate drugs before the science is in, especially an extremely polarizing President like Trump, is that it can make the drug political. When Trump first talked about it as a near miracle cure, even the most ardent medical advocates for it said that we need better/larger tests to confirm early results of HQC's beneficial results. Doctors and scientists were already looking into the drug for Covid. All Trump did was put it in the forefront of the public eye before scientists could confirm one way or the other about HQC, and politicized a topic that should not be politicized. You talk about anti-Trump people committing crimes against humanity for getting people to doubt HQC when it is a miracle drug. Let's say HQC is this miracle drug for Covid. How many lives would have been saved if Trump simply kept his mouth shut about HQC while scientists and doctors did their thing looking into it, and were able to say this is the miracle drug without being political?
  14. This works in theory, but these types of angle measurements work based off the object's perceived change relative to the background. In the Sun's case, the Sun is too bright to observe the background change, which is why astronomers need to get creative like the story Pi gave us with Cassini using Mars.
  15. Goku

    Covid ... we blew it

    If you have a coronavirus infection your body will make antibodies for it. If you then come into contact with a different but similar virus, like the new Covid-19 strain, there is a chance that the antibodies you created for your previous unrelated coronavirus infection will be similar enough to the Covid-19 antigens that it will recognize and bind to it. That doesn't disprove the idea that Covid-19 is a new strain.
×

Important Information

Our Terms