| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Sean Trane 
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
 Posted: January 25 2007 at 11:12 |
 IVNORD wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
You don't understand the chance that life evolves on another planet the same is almost nil. Life could be mineral for all you know, or even a gazeic (single molmecules only) or another state we cannot even begin to think of.
You said that something as beautiful as life on earth had to be created. What's beautiful? Have you seen how some life parasites other. how some virus just wait to be dug out of the earth (Ebola virus) to expand... Everything has its purpose. >>>Why? On what grounds? This life as we know it and the whole evelving process it undertook is not only uncontrolled, it is also a complete fluke it turned out the way it did. It may be uncontrolled, it may not. We just don't know There is no way we (humanity and life on Earth) would've been even resembling this life, if there were 2% less O2 in our air or even 3% sulfur (as is on Venus).
life (as we know it on earth) = Complete and utter fluke. Wow!!! That’s super pessimistic >> no actually this is super optimistic. What a fluke we are.   . Hell, we (Earth's life) could've turned much much worse and the most intelligent life on this planet would be worms or even worse. This is what I was saying in the other thread. Mankind is basically good, but flawed because of its fear of the unknown. Other animal reigns and plants don't question what they don't know...
Nobody placed it there according to the Big Bang theory (at least as I understand it).
There was nothing. and out of the Big Bang came out matter and anti matter (obviously in equal quantity since the total result must equal to O). And it just happens that those black holes are supposed to represent the way to anti-matter, but the thing is hyper dense (in matter or anti-matter? who actually knows right?)
So we don't exactly know and will we ever? This leads to anxiety/anguish which in turns leads to fear (of the unknown) and superstitions.
So this is why I am not hostile to the idea of a creator. You contradict yourself. If you’re not hostile to the idea of a creator, then he’s the one who’s provided the matter >> Matter + Anti-matter = 0 >>> empty, nothing, zilch, diddley/squat >>> so there was no matter to bring in the first place. for your beloved Big bang. We can’t say that for sure, but our logic dictates that if the matter could not create itself, then it was created. From that point on, how it evolved into the living matter is a matter for discussion. It’s possible that non-organic matter evolved into organic one, etc., but the point is that the coming into being was performed by someone
But to say therte is one for sure and that he controls life and universe (and orders us to behave according to his rules and force us to adore and obey him) is absolute rubbish . You're at it again - you mix God and religion. well mankind does, why can't I???
So the people that are out there talking to the creator annd telling us these fallacies are charlatans out to exploit our collective fears and superstitions and they extract a power from it.
creator = nothing (since we don't know) For the same token, can we say the matter = nothing?>>> no because Matter + Anti-matter = 0. Let's just say that the sum matter is a positive value and the total sum of anti matter is its negative (and obligatory value in terms of mass/weight but not volume) equivalent.
Religion=power
|
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:02 |
Sean Trane wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
creator = nothing (since we don't know) For the same token, can we say the matter = nothing?>>> no because Matter + Anti-matter = 0. Let's just say that the sum matter is a positive value and the total sum of anti matter is its negative (and obligatory value in terms of mass/weight but not volume) equivalent.
|
|
You’re playing with words. As I have pointed out on the other thread, the anti-matter consists of particles, so it’s the matter, the same substance for the purpose of our discussion. Never mind that they nullify each other. They are just two opposites of the same thing - the matter, thus they are the matter. So who supplied them to feed the big bang?
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:04 |
Moatilliatta wrote:
I am late to the discussion, but this is what I have to say:
Science has already found numerous faults with evolution. But science has a lot more evidence than faults... there are no seriously convincing faults with evolution. Science can not disprove the creation. But as the evidence for evolution mounts, the case for creation weakens (not that it was ever strong).
I don't believe the story in the Bible is meant to be taken word for word; it did not necessarily take 6 of our days to create, day is surely used as a term for a period of time, but not the 24 hour days we have now. Of course... because days only existed after the sun and earth were created. yes another fault in the bible... which also claims (incorrectly) that rabbits chew their cud. Otherwise, I don't see any other way the universe was created. Even if there were a big bang, where did the matter come from that were part of the big bang? In all honesty, we don't know yet, but that doesn't lend any credence to the existence of God. Where did God come from? Darwin himself even said "In spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of species into another is on record." Since then, we have discovered a multitude of fossils that document exactly that. |
Sorry, but you're argument is, in essence, "we don't know everything... ergo God exists"
You assume that because we don't know everything about evolution, it can't be right. You also assume that the only alternative is God, which is wrong. This is not the type of reasoning that will stand up to any serious thought.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:06 |
So far, the most convincing proof of God I've heard is this:
Assume that x is a positive number.
The limit of x divided by an arbitrary number h, as h approaches zero, is positive infinity. Now, mulitply both sides by zero. What you get is that infinity times zero converges on a postive x.
Thus, all positive matter must come from nothing, created by an infinite power (God).
And that's crackpot math.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:15 |
Sean Trane wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
You don't understand the chance that life evolves on another planet the same is almost nil. Life could be mineral for all you know, or even a gazeic (single molmecules only) or another state we cannot even begin to think of.
You said that something as beautiful as life on earth had to be created. What's beautiful? Have you seen how some life parasites other. how some virus just wait to be dug out of the earth (Ebola virus) to expand... Everything has its purpose. >>>Why? On what grounds? Yes, everything living does have a purpose. To procreate and make more offspring with the given organisms genes, thus keeping those genes alive. This life as we know it and the whole evelving process it undertook is not only uncontrolled, it is also a complete fluke it turned out the way it did. It may be uncontrolled, it may not. We just don't know The evolving process is not uncontrolled, and nor is it a fluke. There is very little chance involved in evolution itself. Genes that help an organism survive also survive. That's not chance, that's survival of the fittest, and who is the fittest is determined by set criteria (who can survive best, not a creator). There is no way we (humanity and life on Earth) would've been even resembling this life, if there were 2% less O2 in our air or even 3% sulfur (as is on Venus). Actually, life formed in an oxygen-less world. One type of bacteria started producing oxygen and killed almost everything else off.
life (as we know it on earth) = Complete and utter fluke. Wow!!! That’s super pessimistic >> no actually this is super optimistic. What a fluke we are. . Hell, we (Earth's life) could've turned much much worse and the most intelligent life on this planet would be worms or even worse. This is what I was saying in the other thread. Mankind is basically good, but flawed because of its fear of the unknown. Other animal reigns and plants don't question what they don't know... It's not complete and utter fluke. The only fluke is how events happened in the universe that shaped evolution (such as the killing of the dinosaurs). Evolution itself is the antithesis of chance and is certainly not a "fluke."
Nobody placed it there according to the Big Bang theory (at least as I understand it).
There was nothing. and out of the Big Bang came out matter and anti matter (obviously in equal quantity since the total result must equal to O). And it just happens that those black holes are supposed to represent the way to anti-matter, but the thing is hyper dense (in matter or anti-matter? who actually knows right?)
So we don't exactly know and will we ever? This leads to anxiety/anguish which in turns leads to fear (of the unknown) and superstitions.
So this is why I am not hostile to the idea of a creator. You contradict yourself. If you’re not hostile to the idea of a creator, then he’s the one who’s provided the matter >> Matter + Anti-matter = 0 >>> empty, nothing, zilch, diddley/squat >>> so there was no matter to bring in the first place. God raises more questions than he answered. for your beloved Big bang. We can’t say that for sure, but our logic dictates that if the matter could not create itself, then it was created. Two things: a) who created the creator? b) logic doesn't say that. Science doesn't have an answer yet, but that doesn't mean we won't ever have one. From that point on, how it evolved into the living matter is a matter for discussion. It’s possible that non-organic matter evolved into organic one Actually, it's not possible. Inorganic matter can't evolve. However, organic matter did arise out of non-inorganic matter, as evidenced by the fact that we exist. , etc., but the point is that the coming into being was performed by someone No, it wasn't. You're entire argument is that you don't understand how coming into being could have happened without a creator. Thank God (pun intended) there are scientists smart enough to see through this ruse and curious enough to actually research the matter rather than look for the easy way out.
But to say therte is one for sure and that he controls life and universe (and orders us to behave according to his rules and force us to adore and obey him) is absolute rubbish . You're at it again - you mix God and religion. well mankind does, why can't I??? Of course we mix God and religion. God is, in theory, a testable hypothesis, and science should certainly attack the question, which it has, demonstrating that there is almost certainly no God.
So the people that are out there talking to the creator annd telling us these fallacies are charlatans out to exploit our collective fears and superstitions and they extract a power from it.
creator = nothing (since we don't know) For the same token, can we say the matter = nothing?>>> no because Matter + Anti-matter = 0. Let's just say that the sum matter is a positive value and the total sum of anti matter is its negative (and obligatory value in terms of mass/weight but not volume) equivalent.
Religion=power
|
|
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:17 |
Who supplied God? God does not answer the question, because the very existence of God implies that someone must have created God, and someone must have created God's creator, and on and on endlessly. You accomplish just as much by saying that the particles for matter and anti-matter have always been there, a testable hypothesis that science will presumably one day find the answer to.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:23 |
Majestic_Mayhem wrote:
Everything points to an intelligent design. On the contrary, it all points to evolution. No beautiful thing is ever formed out of, lets say, an explosion. Evolution isn't an explosion. It's a non-random process that occurs over long periods of time. Just consider your own body. I studied human physiology for 4 years, every year, every new knowledge learned points out that there is a creator. You can say this all you want, but how about an explanation. A hurricane won't form a complete and functioning airplaine out of an airplaine junkyard A, the 747 explanation. This argument is probably the most convincing argument for design, and also quite wrong. Because evolution isn't a hurricane. The eye didn't come from a random arrangement of rods and cones, it came from gradual developments over time., even if all the parts are there. A building wont exist unless built. Evolution is a wonderufl builder. You can't form a building by making all the parts explode. Evolution ISN'T an explosion. Reason and logic points out if you want to call your argument "reason" and "logic" go right ahead, but don't expect anyone who gives it any time or thought to believe you. There is no ground for your arguments. You don't understand how evolution works, and thus you are not fit to disqualify it. If I may something, stop listening to creationists and give the matter some serious thought for yourself. , without a doubt that there is an intelligent designer behind all this. This I can agree with. We call it evolution, and it has quite clearly, over the couse of millenia, "designed" and sculpted life to how it is today. And, in a few thousand years, an entire new set of life forms will probably dominate earth.  |
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:24 |
BaldFriede wrote:
Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major scientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.
|
Thank you. Calling evolution "just a theory" is quite high praise, and automatically recognizes its validity. That needed to be said, and you did it admirably.
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:25 |
inpraiseoffolly wrote:
Who supplied God? God does not answer the question, because the very existence of God implies that someone must have created God, and someone must have created God's creator, and on and on endlessly. You accomplish just as much by saying that the particles for matter and anti-matter have always been there, a testable hypothesis that science will presumably one day find the answer to. |
I like your circular reasoning by trying to not accept that there can be something outside the rules of time and space. Why do you think God chose to reveal himself to Moses as I AM ? He was, is , and always will be. No beginning , no end. So trying to say something made God, and something must have made that is circular reasoning and does nothing but add chaos to the debate at hand.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:28 |
Majestic_Mayhem wrote:
Psychedelia wrote:
Majestic Mayhem, your argument that an explosion wont make a fully functioning airoplane is completely flawed as evolution is not a sudden process which quickly makes the desired result. It is more likable to a huge mountain that must be climbed which can only be taken slowly and in stages. |
Well, yeah I understand that. I'm not even talking about evolution here. The whole universe coming into being is not evolution per se. Evolution and the "coming into being" of the whole universe as we know it is completely different. What I'm trying to say here is that the universe is not created by a large chaotic explosion... Can you give me some evidence other than that you can't understand it for this argument? that is not evolution. There are 2 kinds of evolution. One of which is natural selection. It's a process, it's happening and it is without a doubt, true. But the notion that men evolved from some primeval goo is impossible. It's impossible? On the contrary, you don't want to believe it, because you want to think that humans are special. Well, we are special, thanks to communication and higher brain function, but that doesn't change the fact that we evolved from monkeys, who evolved from smaller mammals, who came out of fish, who came out of primeval goo, or something along those lines. As I've said earlier on this thread, logic compells me to believe that there is an intellegent creator. Faulty logic that relies on lack of understanding of how the world work as a premise. Not only that, you're "logic" fails to explain how the creator came into being. Saying he has always been there simply isn't an answer in any way. It raises more questions than it answers. It's a bit ironic, don't you think,that some scientists even try to prove that life can exist without intellegence, yet, there they are, using all their wisdom proving it. Everything out of nothing is just plain impossible. Just because science doesn't have an answer yet doesn't mean that it's impossible. And anyway, by your own "logic," God out of nothing is impossible... |
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:32 |
progismylife wrote:
inpraiseoffolly wrote:
Who supplied God? God does not answer the question, because the very existence of God implies that someone must have created God, and someone must have created God's creator, and on and on endlessly. You accomplish just as much by saying that the particles for matter and anti-matter have always been there, a testable hypothesis that science will presumably one day find the answer to. |
I like your circular reasoning by trying to not accept that there can be something outside the rules of time and space. Why do you think God chose to reveal himself to Moses as I AM ? He was, is , and always will be. No beginning , no end. How can you rationally justify this. So trying to say something made God, and something must have made that is circular reasoning No, trying to say that the universe must have been created by a specific being that wasn't ever created is circular reasoning. and does nothing but add chaos to the debate at hand. Actually, it raises a question that, so far as I know, no religious person has ever been able to answer without falling back on the "was, is and always will be" excuse without any justification for it whatsoever.
|
All I am saying is that God does not answer any questions. You tout God as an answer, but refuse to explain how it works. Perhaps there is a being not affected by the rules of this universe, but even that being is subject to rules, and must have come about in a manner similar to us.
|
|
OpethGuitarist
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 25 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1655
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:33 |
|
My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence.
Do Carry on though.
|
|
back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:34 |
|
I just remembered some article in the Smithsonian magazine that created a paradox in evolution. So we are saying that fish evolved on land and become lizards and stuff which evolved into mammals (or something along those lines). Well this article said they found a fossil that was a lizard that evolved and went into the ocean and became a fish through the evolutionary process. Isn't this anti-evolving?
Edited by progismylife - January 25 2007 at 12:35
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:35 |
BaldFriede wrote:
Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band Because there's no good reason to that relies on any evidence whatsoever (other than a work of fiction written around 4000 years ago), from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way).
When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.
|
|
|
laplace
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 06 2005
Location: popupControl();
Status: Offline
Points: 7606
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:37 |
progismylife wrote:
I like your circular reasoning by trying to not accept that there can be something outside the rules of time and space. Why do you think God chose to reveal himself to Moses as I AM ? He was, is , and always will be. No beginning , no end. So trying to say something made God, and something must have made that is circular reasoning and does nothing but add chaos to the debate at hand.
|
i feel like I've been singling you out unfairly on these boards from time to time. but honestly, every time you make something approaching an argument for or against any point, it's the death of logic. look at what you've written and see if you can't find an equal or greater example of circular reasoning.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:37 |
progismylife wrote:
I just remembered some article in the Smithsonian magazine that created a paradox in evolution. So we are saying that fish evolved on land and become lizards and stuff which evolved into mammals (or something along those lines). Well this article said they found a fossil that was a lizard that evolved and went into the ocean and became a fish through the evolutionary process. Isn't this anti-evolving? |
That's not a paradox. If lizards that took to the ocean and developed qualities of fish were favored by evolution, then it's not anti-evolution. Many snakes have evolved from laying eggs to giving birth back to laying eggs, based on what nature favored at that time.
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:38 |
laplace wrote:
progismylife wrote:
I like your circular reasoning by trying to not accept that there can be something outside the rules of time and space. Why do you think God chose to reveal himself to Moses as I AM ? He was, is , and always will be. No beginning , no end. So trying to say something made God, and something must have made that is circular reasoning and does nothing but add chaos to the debate at hand.
|
i feel like I've been singling you out unfairly on these boards from time to time. but honestly, every time you make something approaching an argument for or against any point, it's the death of logic. look at what you've written and see if you can't find an equal or greater example of circular reasoning.
|
Agreed with Laplace.
|
|
Psychedelia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:38 |
|
no evolution is simply about an organism adapting to a form which suits best its purposes and environments. It is not a deterministic march on the way to humankind. For instance a animal that lived in caves might lose the ability of sight because it has no need for it in an eternally dark area.
|
|
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride
|
|
heyitsthatguy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:38 |
OpethGuitarist wrote:
My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence.
Do Carry on though.
|
because arguing is fun  I'm gonna take an unusual stance here and say monkeys evolved from Adam and Eve, then turned back into people, then got bored with that so were ghosts for a little while, then became people again, a few of them became orangutans though
|
|
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: January 25 2007 at 12:38 |
OpethGuitarist wrote:
My only question here is why? Either side may prove their point, but neither is going to change their minds, regardless of evidence.
Do Carry on though.
|
I disagree, Richard Dawkins has received many letters from people who have become evolutionist atheists because of his books (notably Douglas Adams). People do change their minds.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Creationism/Intelligent Design
