PDA

View Full Version : Good take on atheism


Pages : 1 [2]

Irish Stout
01-27-2009, 05:08 PM
*sigh* am I really the only one here who gets solipsism?

BroncoBuff
01-27-2009, 05:19 PM
hedonism?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2009, 05:21 PM
Knowledgeable does not equal truth or even the best explanation. If a child wanted to know where she/he came from then you wouldn't just say "go talk to a scientist." I know it's over simplifying things but so far there is a lot more theory behind the creation of the universe than known fact and laws.

Why the foregone conclusion that the universe was "created" at some point or period in linear time?

This is an artifactual model that assumes matter is inherently stupid and requires some sort of external intelligence to shape it.

How about the model of a self-sufficient, self-generating cosmos that has always been and always will be?

Inkana7
01-27-2009, 05:22 PM
Why the foregone conclusion that the universe was "created" at some point or period in linear time?

This is an artifactual model that assumes matter is inherently stupid and requires some sort of external intelligence to shape it.

How about the model of a self-sufficient, self-generating cosmos that has always been and always will be?

Bingo.

Irish Stout
01-27-2009, 06:12 PM
Why the foregone conclusion that the universe was "created" at some point or period in linear time?

This is an artifactual model that assumes matter is inherently stupid and requires some sort of external intelligence to shape it.

How about the model of a self-sufficient, self-generating cosmos that has always been and always will be?

It could be like a never ending spiral, or a ring... one ring to rule them all.

The assumption that the universe was created, leads us on to a timeline of the universe, and thus leads to the question of how (and when) was it created. Regardless of whether you believe in a higher being or a mass explosion of matter out of nothingness, you have the same unanswering questions:

If a higher being created the universe, who/what created the higher being? If the higher being always existed prior to the creation of the universe, then what universe have they always existed in? And you come to the conclusion that there is no explainable way of explaining a beginning point of time as a whole, because something must always have existed prior to the existance of whatever it is that is currently in existance. Thus our spiral.

If the universe was created out of nothingness, how can that nothingness be construed as nothingness if it can spontaniously create mass? And if there truly was nothingness, how exactly did that nothingness exploded into the universe? Something had to have created the spark of nothingness that popped... so what did that and what created that spark of nothingness? and what created that spark of nothingness.... and was there time before there was a universe? Even if time is a relative concept, if someone had a good rolex and was hangingout prior to the nothingness that exploded could they have timed it? Would they have eaten a big mac while they waited? and what would they have sat on?

I had a point, but im done now.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2009, 06:26 PM
It could be like a never ending spiral, or a ring... one ring to rule them all.

The assumption that the universe was created, leads us on to a timeline of the universe, and thus leads to the question of how (and when) was it created. Regardless of whether you believe in a higher being or a mass explosion of matter out of nothingness, you have the same unanswering questions:

If a higher being created the universe, who/what created the higher being? If the higher being always existed prior to the creation of the universe, then what universe have they always existed in? And you come to the conclusion that there is no explainable way of explaining a beginning point of time as a whole, because something must always have existed prior to the existance of whatever it is that is currently in existance. Thus our spiral.

If the universe was created out of nothingness, how can that nothingness be construed as nothingness if it can spontaniously create mass? And if there truly was nothingness, how exactly did that nothingness exploded into the universe? Something had to have created the spark of nothingness that popped... so what did that and what created that spark of nothingness? and what created that spark of nothingness.... and was there time before there was a universe? Even if time is a relative concept, if someone had a good rolex and was hangingout prior to the nothingness that exploded could they have timed it? Would they have eaten a big mac while they waited? and what would they have sat on?

I had a point, but im done now.

Yep. The idea that the universe was created implies that the universe is some sort of construct or artifact.

I like the idea that phenomena and nothingness arise mutually in the same manner as all forms of energy, i.e., cycles of on/off, light/dark, sound/silence, alternating current, etc., and that we are all God playing hide and seek with Himself.

The universe is not so much a noun as a verb, i.e., a dance of energy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2009, 06:37 PM
Even if time is a relative concept, if someone had a good rolex and was hangingout prior to the nothingness that exploded could they have timed it? Would they have eaten a big mac while they waited? and what would they have sat on?



Our perceptions and ideas re: space-time might be nothing more than intellectual conventions which don't really represent any sort of "objective" reality (just like our perceptions of "solid" or "fixed" objects in our environment say more about our perceptual limitations than the nature or behavior of the objects themselves.)

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 06:46 PM
Why?
Why do so many seem to believe that a theory is simply an unsupported hunch or speculation.

In sciences other than mathematics the word theory denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain. In science a theory is defined as

"A comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining, and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigorous observation experimentation and logic." - my dictionary

Scientific ideas aren't a matter of common sense and scientific knowledge isn't something that just falls in your lap. It requires effort. The principles behind many scientific theory's can be grasped without too much difficulty when you are prepared to try and understand the explanations. Whether or not you decide to accept them is up to you.

But many people dont get as far as even listening to the explanations due to a preexisting belief that whatever they are they must be wrong. It should be immediately obvious that this approach of preemptive rejection has serious repercussions for ones ability to make accurate statements about reality.

One reason a theory remains a theory is because there is evidence of other possible theories that prove other possibilities. In other words, it's disputible. We know the universe is expanding, that is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's petty much accepted as fact.

However the big bang theory is not. These are not two theories. One is stating a measurable fact. The other is science trying to piece together a puzzle without having all the pieces.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 06:57 PM
Do you have a PHD in football too, because if you don't STFU AZZZZZZZHOLE!

:rofl: :thumbs: :rofl:

Let me guess... the college you got your "degree" at offers a Grad program in Football.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:01 PM
Let me guess... the college you got your "degree" at offers a Grad program in Football.

My point still stands. Did you ever play football at the JH, HS or college level? How about coaching?

Houshyamama
01-27-2009, 07:03 PM
Read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

TheDave
01-27-2009, 07:05 PM
My point still stands. Did you ever play football at the JH, HS or college level? How about coaching?

yes, yes, yes, and yes... now are you really trying to compare football to astrophysics or is this the alchohol talking?

The reason i ask, is that i have read a number of your posts over the years and you have never struck me as a dumb person... BUT... to seriously compare Phd level physics to football is all kinds of stupid.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:07 PM
yes, yes, yes, and yes... now are you really trying to compare football to astrophysics or is this the alchohol talking?

The reason i ask, is that i have read a number of your posts over the years and you have never struck me as a dumb person... BUT... to seriously compare Phd level physics to football is all kinds of stupid.

where you'd play your college ball?

TheReverend
01-27-2009, 07:09 PM
where you'd play your college ball?

For curiosity's sake, WTF does that have to do with it?

TheDave
01-27-2009, 07:10 PM
where you'd play your college ball?

Cal State Fullerton... Last year of the program.

and yes it was partially my fault. ;D

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:13 PM
For curiosity's sake, WTF does that have to do with it?

Just asking, just curious.

2KBack
01-27-2009, 07:17 PM
No go ahead.
Go ahead and publish your ideas and back them up with evidence.
Scientists will have to take you seriously then.
But people who argue for intelligent design, or some other silly concept dont ever back their claims up.
ever.
There is a process you have to go through.
You have to publish your ideas in peer reviewed scientific journals.
That is what a lot of religious people dont get.
They dont understand how picked and prodded these ideas and theories have been.
You have no idea how science works if you think a scientist will reject evidence because it disagrees with his "doctrine"


Ah but the kicker is, you have to go through the institutions to get published/funded for research. College professors have been fired over the very mention of intelligent design. You can't get your research out without the help of a review board, base your doctoral research on something that the professors controlling your destiny disagree with, and guess how far you'll get?

I wish it was as simple as the scientific method anymore. It's equal part politics now.

TheReverend
01-27-2009, 07:20 PM
Cal State Fullerton... Last year of the program.

and yes it was partially my fault. ;D

WTF? Fullerton? Right outside of Pendleton?

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:20 PM
Cal State Fullerton... Last year of the program.

and yes it was partially my fault. ;D

Really? I didn't know they had a program, cool. But I think my point is still valid, that is, just b/c I don't have a phd in something does not mean I can't have an intelligent dicussion on it.

Congrats Dave on all your hard work in the sciences, I envy you. However just because you are not on the same level as Shanny in your football acumen doesn't mean you could not sit down and talk football with the man, yes?

You don't need a phd to question modern scientific theory.

Dedhed
01-27-2009, 07:21 PM
I'm not sayng that either. Fact is, for every question science answers, or thinks it answers, it creates yet more questions. Extreme science, for lack of a better name, is nothing more than philosophy, because nothing can be proven. Its all allot of conjecture and imagination.

Have you ever flown in an airplane, or seen one in the sky? Are you imagining they got there by conjecture and imagination. Nope, sorry, that would be science unraveling the laws of aerodynamics.

You can imagine that the science that explains away religion is different from the science you use and see every day of your life, but that would be actually imaginary.

TheReverend
01-27-2009, 07:22 PM
Really? I didn't know they had a program, cool. But I think my point is still valid, that is, just b/c I don't have a phd in something does not mean I can't have an intelligent dicussion on it.

Congrats Dave on all your hard work in the sciences, I envy you. However just because you are not on the same level as Shanny in your football acumen doesn't mean you could not sit down and talk football with the man, yes?

You don't need a phd to question modern scientific theory.

This is an athiesm thread right? If there is a God, He isn't on the same level as Shanny in his football acumen, so that's far from fair to make that assumption RJ, and you know it.

alkemical
01-27-2009, 07:24 PM
Why?
Why do so many seem to believe that a theory is simply an unsupported hunch or speculation.

In sciences other than mathematics the word theory denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain. In science a theory is defined as

"A comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining, and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigorous observation experimentation and logic." - my dictionary

Scientific ideas aren't a matter of common sense and scientific knowledge isn't something that just falls in your lap. It requires effort. The principles behind many scientific theory's can be grasped without too much difficulty when you are prepared to try and understand the explanations. Whether or not you decide to accept them is up to you.

But many people dont get as far as even listening to the explanations due to a preexisting belief that whatever they are they must be wrong. It should be immediately obvious that this approach of preemptive rejection has serious repercussions for ones ability to make accurate statements about reality.


No, i was citing specifically that questioning things, things that aren't 100%.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:25 PM
Have you ever flown in an airplane, or seen one in the sky? Are you imagining they got there by conjecture and imagination. Nope, sorry, that would be science unraveling the laws of aerodynamics.

You can imagine that the science that explains away religion is different from the science you use and see every day of your life, but that would be actually imaginary.

uh, ok

alkemical
01-27-2009, 07:26 PM
Read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

Hey, i posted that THEORY earlier too - but it keeps being selectively ignored. :wiggle:

2KBack
01-27-2009, 07:26 PM
No, i was citing specifically that questioning things, things that aren't 100%.

Question everything

alkemical
01-27-2009, 07:32 PM
Question everything

Always. Reality is the original Rorschach.

NUB
01-27-2009, 07:34 PM
I'm sorry if this seems short: But that's f'n stupid.

It most certainly is not.

Theory of relativity is a little important to our understanding of our universe, to say the least.

One of the fundamental foundations of biology? The cell theory.

Fundamentals of pretty much everything? A theory; also known as the atomic theory or theory of atoms.

Plate tectonics. A theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation, still used to this day.

Evolution? A theory. Without it is pretty much universally agreed that biology would be completely lost.


Just in case someone wants to judge something on the basis of it being called a "theory".

alkemical
01-27-2009, 07:40 PM
It most certainly is not.

Theory of relativity is a little important to our understanding of our universe, to say the least.

One of the fundamental foundations of biology? The cell theory.

Fundamentals of pretty much everything? A theory; also known as the atomic theory or theory of atoms.

Plate tectonics. A theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation, still used to this day.

Evolution? A theory. Without it is pretty much universally agreed that biology would be completely lost.


Just in case someone wants to judge something on the basis of it being called a "theory".


Yep, and i'm just supposed to stop thinking about them, and questioning them and finding where they go.

Cool, i got it! :thumbsup:

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 07:51 PM
It most certainly is not.

Theory of relativity is a little important to our understanding of our universe, to say the least.

One of the fundamental foundations of biology? The cell theory.

Fundamentals of pretty much everything? A theory; also known as the atomic theory or theory of atoms.

Plate tectonics. A theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation, still used to this day.

Evolution? A theory. Without it is pretty much universally agreed that biology would be completely lost.


Just in case someone wants to judge something on the basis of it being called a "theory".

Or, here's another theory: The Earth is flat.

How about this theory: The Sun rotates around the Earth.

Also, I think your getting a wee confused about the diff between a proven theory that then becomes accepted as fact, and a working theory that is still debatable.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 07:52 PM
Really? I didn't know they had a program, cool. But I think my point is still valid, that is, just b/c I don't have a phd in something does not mean I can't have an intelligent dicussion on it.

Congrats Dave on all your hard work in the sciences, I envy you. However just because you are not on the same level as Shanny in your football acumen doesn't mean you could not sit down and talk football with the man, yes?

You don't need a PhD to question modern scientific theory.

Sorry to be a stickler on this, but football (a spectator sport) and PhD level physics have NOTHING in common. Matter of fact Shanahan was able to discuss and explain his theories to several guys that had an IQ slightly above a plant. Try explaining differential equations, multivariable calculus and quantum geometry to the majority of players on our roster... Yet this same group are able to digest shanny's theories on a semi regular basis.

additionally, we are not talking about simple matters of scientific theory here. The math that creates theories such as the big bang is WAY over our heads (notice i said our... I'm not qualified for it either). That is my main gripe here... physics is little more than applied mathematics, to say that there are holes in a particular theory must be backed up with the numbers.

The link below is an example of a paper published in 2002 that tries to explain a mathematical model (geometric quantum theory) that could help explain the effects of gravity on the space time metric. this is about 1/1,000 of the science that has helped to forge theories such as the big bang. Take a moment and read it... If after that you still think you know enough to accurately comment on this theory then you are VASTLY smarter than me.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0202/0202008v1.pdf

Eldorado
01-27-2009, 07:54 PM
*sigh* am I really the only one here who gets solipsism?

You would have to be...

Eldorado
01-27-2009, 07:58 PM
Always. Reality is the original Rorschach.

doood. It totally looks like a pair a tits. Just sayin.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Or, here's another theory: The Earth is flat.

How about this theory: The Sun rotates around the Earth.

Also, I think your getting a wee confused about the diff between a proven theory that then becomes accepted as fact, and a working theory that is still debatable.

This is why i want to slap your HS science teachers... It's not your fault those knobs never taught you the difference between Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories...

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.




In your example above about the "Flat Earth" and a "Geocentric solar system" would be compared to a hypothesis on a good day... The rest of the time they would be labled religious influenced bull****.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 08:02 PM
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0202/0202008v1.pdf

dude, I love this stuff, thanks!

alkemical
01-27-2009, 08:03 PM
doood. It totally looks like a pair a boobies. Just sayin.

bbblllblblblblblblblblblblblbbbbllblb

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 08:08 PM
This is why i want to slap your HS science teachers... It's not your fault those nobs never taught you the difference between Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories...

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.




In your example above about the "Flat Earth" and a "Geocentric solar system" would be compared to a hypothesis on a good day... The rest of the time they would be labled religious influenced bull****.

Oh gee whiz Dave, so I got some terminology wrong, I haven't been in the classroom in a long time, your just nit picking.

Eldorado
01-27-2009, 08:08 PM
bbblllblblblblblblblblblblblbbbbllblb

You motorboating son of a bitch...

alkemical
01-27-2009, 08:09 PM
You motorboating son of a b****...

I'd say guilty...but i don't feel that way.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 08:12 PM
Oh gee whiz Dave, so I got some terminology wrong, I haven't been in the classroom in a long time, your just nit picking.

nit picking?

You just compared modern scientific theory with a 4th century guess on the shape of the earth. thats a little more than getting a term wrong.

Eldorado
01-27-2009, 08:16 PM
It most certainly is not.

Theory of relativity is a little important to our understanding of our universe, to say the least.

One of the fundamental foundations of biology? The cell theory.

Fundamentals of pretty much everything? A theory; also known as the atomic theory or theory of atoms.

Plate tectonics. A theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation, still used to this day.

Evolution? A theory. Without it is pretty much universally agreed that biology would be completely lost.


Just in case someone wants to judge something on the basis of it being called a "theory".

No dude, what he meant was if we didn't question theories the world would still be flat.

Br0nc0Buster
01-27-2009, 08:20 PM
Oh gee whiz Dave, so I got some terminology wrong, I haven't been in the classroom in a long time, your just nit picking.

no it isnt nitpicking.
Take the time to learn about something before claiming it false.

I am sorry if this seems harsh but it gets annoying seeing religious people constantly challenging and attacking science when they lack even a basic understanding of it.

I apologize to those religious people who do understand science.
I wish they could be a bit more proactive in helping their peers get into the 21st century.

Br0nc0Buster
01-27-2009, 08:25 PM
Ah but the kicker is, you have to go through the institutions to get published/funded for research. College professors have been fired over the very mention of intelligent design. You can't get your research out without the help of a review board, base your doctoral research on something that the professors controlling your destiny disagree with, and guess how far you'll get?

I wish it was as simple as the scientific method anymore. It's equal part politics now.

So you have tried then?
It is about evidence, and if you have some then I encourage you to present your case to scientists.
I am assuming though if you believe in Intelligent Design that you have a degree in biology, obviously you would have to know a lot about the subject to deem evolution false.
I mean if you can see what all the top scientists in the world cant in regards to evolution, then surely you must have an overwhelming amount of evidence in your favor.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Ah but the kicker is, you have to go through the institutions to get published/funded for research. College professors have been fired over the very mention of intelligent design. You can't get your research out without the help of a review board, base your doctoral research on something that the professors controlling your destiny disagree with, and guess how far you'll get?

I wish it was as simple as the scientific method anymore. It's equal part politics now.

Stop that... there isn't some devilish conspiracy keeping ID from being published. With the money behind christian organizations getting published in scientific journals would be a breeze. Unfortunately ID is 100% devoid of ANY science.

TheDave
01-27-2009, 08:32 PM
No dude, what he meant was if we didn't question theories the world would still be flat.

Science has known the earth was round since the 6th century... what are you talking about?

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 08:35 PM
good stuff:

The equation implies that the universe must have
‘originated from a big-bang’: if we evolve the solution backwards in time, the scale factor a must
eventually go to zero and the curvature must diverge as 1/a2. At this ‘initial instant’, Einstein’s
equation breaks down; classical physics stops. As discussed in the Introduction, the general belief is
that this singular behavior is an artifact of our insistence of applying general relativity beyond the
domain of its validity. Quantum effects are thought to intervene and dominate the ‘real physics’
in the high curvature regions. The question then is: what replaces the big-bang in this new, more
accurate theory?

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 08:38 PM
nit picking?

You just compared modern scientific theory with a 4th century guess on the shape of the earth. thats a little more than getting a term wrong.

my point was simple, you choose to miss it.

NUB
01-27-2009, 08:41 PM
No dude, what he meant was if we didn't question theories the world would still be flat.

I'm talking about questioning theories because they are theories. Which is what too many people do. Hence why I brought up a bunch of theories that are widely accepted.

For instance, the most often argument I ever see by far is "evolution is JUST A THEORY", well then, have at it with these things... they're just theories too.

In no way would I say not to question intelligently as that is the very point of science. However, questioning a theory because it is a theory is just ridiculous which is what I was getting at.

Eldorado
01-27-2009, 08:47 PM
Science has known the earth was round since the 6th century... what are you talking about?

Exactly. Look, I interjected on a conversation, and now you are interjecting on the interjection. So this might be a little convoluted. Just follow the quotes back. The initial objection came from nub suggesting that if you question a theory, you might as well crawl into a corner and die. Or something. Somebody said that was stupid (or something) and then there was a response that pointed out how profound all these 'modern' theories are (undisputed). I just suggested a quick perusal of history as a note of caution. That is all.

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

:pimp:

DeuceOfClub
01-27-2009, 08:53 PM
http://packphour.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/1.jpg

thoughts? opinons?

Probably one of the worst take on atheism you'll find outside of preschool discussions.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 08:57 PM
I luv this little tidbit:

Preliminary indications are
that the state does not become pre-classical there. If this is borne out by detailed calculations,
then the ‘big-bang’ separates two regimes; on ‘our’ side, classical geometry is both meaningful
and useful at late times while on the ‘other’ side, it is not.

Our side is moving forward, hence, positive time. I remember reading a, uh, hypothesis that stated the universe will stop expanding and start shrinking, then we will be moving backwards in time...

Willynowei
01-27-2009, 09:11 PM
Earth was discovered to be round before the advent of the scientific method.

"The world is flat" theory up untill the Magellan (SP?) Voyage is pure classroom based myth. The theory of a round earth is almost as old as mathematics itself, atleast the pythagorean theorem. Eratosthenes caculated the circumference of the earth over 700 years before the fall of Rome.

Trying to some how logically prove or disprove the existence of God is futile.

I think the pursuit is senseless in many ways, especially for belivers as the conviction of their faith in God should in no way be affected by such empirical knowledge.

For Atheists, if you really believe that God doesn't exist, do you really think the best way to spend your life is in a most likely feeble attempt to disprove him?

And the Agnostics will join either group as they become more curious and dive into the discussion themselves.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 09:19 PM
4There is thus a qualitative similarity to the phenomenon of phase transitions in magnets. ‘Our side’ of the
big-bang is analogous to the ferro-magnetic phase (the role of the ‘magnetization’ mean field —the vector pointing
from the south to the north pole of a ferro-magnet— being played by the classical geometry) and the ‘other side’ is
analogous to the para-magnetic phase (where ‘magnetization’ is no longer a useful concept.

Golly, ya think?

NUB
01-27-2009, 09:22 PM
Earth was discovered to be round before the advent of the scientific method.

"The world is flat" theory up untill the Magellan (SP?) Voyage is pure classroom based myth. The theory of a round earth is almost as old as mathematics itself, atleast the pythagorean theorem. Eratosthenes caculated the circumference of the earth over 700 years before the fall of Rome.

Made for a good Cosmos episode too.

Willynowei
01-27-2009, 09:23 PM
I'm talking about questioning theories because they are theories. Which is what too many people do. Hence why I brought up a bunch of theories that are widely accepted.

For instance, the most often argument I ever see by far is "evolution is JUST A THEORY", well then, have at it with these things... they're just theories too.

In no way would I say not to question intelligently as that is the very point of science. However, questioning a theory because it is a theory is just ridiculous which is what I was getting at.

I wouldn't say that is the case when you trying to create some type of epistemologic proof for or against the creation of the universe as per a creator.

There are instances where even scientific laws falter. This whole discussion is in some ways is rediculous. If people stopped at the notion of rediculous then we'd be rediculously behind.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 09:32 PM
damn, this writer makes some huge leaps Dave:

A systematic approach requires that we first specify the class of black holes of interest. Since the
entropy formula is expected to hold unambiguously for black holes in equilibrium, most analyses
were confined to space-times with ‘eternal’ black holes admitting a global time-translation isometry,
rather than the astrophysical ones which result from a gravitational collapse. From a physical
viewpoint however, this assumption seems overly restrictive. After all, in statistical mechanical
calculations of entropy of ordinary systems, one only has to assume that the given system is in
equilibrium, not the whole world. Therefore, it should suffice to assume that the black hole itself
is in equilibrium; the exterior geometry should not be forced to be time-independent.

Yah, ok.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 09:42 PM
more ramblings:

Figure 2: Quantum Horizon. Polymer excitations in the bulk puncture the horizon, endowing it with
quantized area. Intrinsically, the horizon is flat except at punctures where it acquires a quantized deficit
angle. These angles add up to endow the horizon with a 2-sphere topology.

translation: there is a 2 dimensional demple in a geometric plane

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 09:53 PM
oh, I LOVE this:

In particular, one can calculate eigenvalues
of certain physically interesting operators using purely bulk quantum geometry without any
knowledge of the Chern-Simons theory, or using the Chern-Simons theory without any knowledge
of the bulk quantum geometry. The two theories have never heard of each other. Yet, thanks to
the isolated horizon boundary conditions, the two infinite sets of numbers match exactly, providing
a coherent description of the quantum horizon.

You mean once in a while, after manipulating the numbers, these theorems jibe? Well golly Mr. Wizard, you don't say!

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 09:59 PM
yet more:

For a solar
mass black hole, a typical horizon state would have 1077 punctures, each contributing a tiny deficit
angle. So, although the quantum geometry is distributional, it can be well approximated by a
smooth metric.

whew! I was getting worried there for a minute!

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 10:13 PM
well, now I can sleep good tonight knowing:

Thus, for large black holes, entropy is indeed proportional to the horizon area. This is a non-trivial
result; for examples, early calculations often led to proportionality to the square-root of the area.
However, even for large black holes, one obtains agreement with the Hawking-Bekenstein formula
only in the sector of quantum geometry in which the Barbero-Immirzi parameter γ takes the value
γ = γo. Thus, while all γ sectors are equivalent classically, the standard quantum field theory
in curved space-times is recovered in the semi-classical theory only in the γo sector of quantum
geometry. It is quite remarkable that thermodynamic considerations involving large black holes can
be used to fix the quantization ambiguity which dictates such Planck scale properties as eigenvalues
of geometric operators. Note however that the value of γ can be fixed by demanding agreement
with the semi-classical result just in one case —e.g., a spherical horizon with zero charge, or a
cosmological horizon in the de Sitter space-time, or, . . . . Once the value of γ is fixed, the theory is
completely fixed and we can ask: Does this theory yield the Hawking-Bekenstein value of entropy
of all isolated horizons, irrespective of the values of charges, angular momentum, and cosmological
constant, the amount of distortion, or hair. The answer is in the affirmative. Thus, the agreement
with quantum field theory in curved space-times holds in all these diverse cases.

translation: after nit picking through the data enough, I have pieced it all together, and coalaced it all down to fit my thesis, aren't I great!

TheDave
01-27-2009, 10:22 PM
how does that phrase go... "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt..."

I give up... You win :thumbs:

Karenin
01-27-2009, 10:22 PM
Wow, not going to read this whole thread, but mega-lol at the OP referring to that stupid crap as a "good take" on atheism. I guess it takes that low of intelligence to believe in crap like intelligent design, so I suppose it makes sense.

Tombstone RJ
01-27-2009, 10:28 PM
how does that phrase go... "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt..."

I give up... You win :thumbs:

please, I'm just a lowly pleeb, have mercy!

BroncoInferno
01-27-2009, 11:11 PM
Nothing about evolution can be explained neatly or else we wouldn't even be discussing this. The purpose of cannibal sharks and spiders is so some European scientist can make a TV show about it and air it on the National Geographic channel.

I hate to be blunt, but that is pretty stupid. If your god exists, he created these monsters to do what they do for a purpose. What is that purpose? Evolution is a fact of nature. Any serious scientist will tell you that. There are MOUNDS of evidence proving evolution. Not one shread to support the god hypothesis. It explains these things. Religion shrugs its shoulders.

BroncoInferno
01-27-2009, 11:13 PM
this whole big bang thing just leaves alot to be desired. We know the universe is expanding, but expanding into what? What was there, before the big bang? Nothing? What is nothing?

So, a particle, a minute particle, full of energy and mass, explodes into a vacuum where there is nothing? So, where did this particle come from? Why did it exist and nothing else?

So many questions...

Yep. But the god hypothesis explains none of them. Sometimes we just have to say, "I don't know sans supporting evidence."

BroncoInferno
01-27-2009, 11:15 PM
This thread is retarded. Just because humans don't have a scientific explanation for cosmology DOES NOT mean such an explanation does not exist.

That said, atheism is a shallow philosophy, much like fundamentalism. To claim to know whether or not god exists is asinine.

That said, a-unicornism is a shallow philosophy, much like fundamentalism. To claim to know whether or not unicorns exists is asinine.

Pretty dumb construct, huh?

BroncoInferno
01-27-2009, 11:22 PM
As for atheists/theists/etc:

Each need the other to exist

Of course. If there were no theists claiming there was a god, then atheists would not exist. You've just confirmed the point many of us have trying to show you and you don't even realize it, and will no doubt have an inane comment in response. ;)

Dedhed
01-28-2009, 03:41 AM
One reason a theory remains a theory is because there is evidence of other possible theories that prove other possibilities. In other words, it's disputible. We know the universe is expanding, that is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's petty much accepted as fact.

However the big bang theory is not. These are not two theories. One is stating a measurable fact. The other is science trying to piece together a puzzle without having all the pieces.

Your lack of a grasp on how science works shows through here. I don't mean to condescend, but you aren't talking about science.

Scientific theories are, by definition, never proven. A "theory" is an idea that has not been proven false. If there is any evidence to disprove a theory, that theory ceases to exist. That is why the Big Bang remains a theory- there has been no scientific evidence to disprove it.

dbfan21
01-28-2009, 05:03 AM
I hate to be blunt, but that is pretty stupid. If your god exists, he created these monsters to do what they do for a purpose. What is that purpose? Evolution is a fact of nature. Any serious scientist will tell you that. There are MOUNDS of evidence proving evolution. Not one shread to support the god hypothesis. It explains these things. Religion shrugs its shoulders.

As soon as you are able to provide me with the mounds of evidence, then I will take you seriously. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one, my friend.

Br0nc0Buster
01-28-2009, 05:24 AM
As soon as you are able to provide me with the mounds of evidence, then I will take you seriously. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one, my friend.

talk to any scientist.
Go look at a fossil
go look at fossils or talk to a geneticist.
Genetics easily confirms evolution, as you can clearly see the process through all the similarities between the DNA of us and our animal cousins.

Or you can choose to believe in a book that contains stories of talking donkeys and virgin births over modern science.
Your understanding of science though would be about the same as the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.

Broncosmang
01-28-2009, 05:44 AM
talk to any scientist.
Go look at a fossil
go look at fossils or talk to a geneticist.
Genetics easily confirms evolution, as you can clearly see the process through all the similarities between the DNA of us and our animal cousins.

Or you can choose to believe in a book that contains stories of talking donkeys and virgin births over modern science.
Your understanding of science though would be about the same as the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.

I've been observing quietly for a while, but feel at this point that I need to at least speak up or a moment. There is a common misconception among the mainstream that no man or woman of any substance and intelligence could accept any methodology other than Darwinism and the idea of a something from nothing origin of the universe theory. While our education establishment and media would have us believe this misinformation, it couldn't be further from the truth.

Is it possible to have this conversation without the condescending attitude that I find so typical in evolution elitists? There is plenty of research out there which hammers at the core of Darwinism and many respected researchers have openly begun to question the idea of this universe being derived from nothing.

And before you determine to ignore these works as the unsupported ramblings of a mindless religious fringe element please be aware that many of these works have been written by self proclaimed agnostics whose agenda was never to prove creationism, but rather to address huge problems with Darwinism and other commonly accepted theories.

A great place to start if you're willing to is with Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
by Michael Denton. Also, I'm sure many will discount the credibility because of its avowed commitment to Creationism, but the Institute for Creation Research has very good material which provides a science based alternative to evolution.

alkemical
01-28-2009, 05:55 AM
Of course. If there were no theists claiming there was a god, then atheists would not exist. You've just confirmed the point many of us have trying to show you and you don't even realize it, and will no doubt have an inane comment in response. ;)

No, it actually coincides with my whole Belief System thing, that you don't understand :p It's the nature of belief. Some people are so dogmatic about it.

Willynowei
01-28-2009, 07:04 AM
Of course. If there were no theists claiming there was a god, then atheists would not exist. You've just confirmed the point many of us have trying to show you and you don't even realize it, and will no doubt have an inane comment in response. ;)

This is absolutely not true. As proven by the counter-proofs against the arguments of Aquinas. If the admission of the existence of God required first the belief in the existence of God, then any man of modal logic could prove every agnostic to be a theist.

There are no doubt men of faith who oppress or have oppressed their religious practice on other members of society. Yet, when I read the opinions and thoughts of self-labeled atheists, i have no doubt that if the roles were reversed, persecution against people of faith would be no less prevelant, if not much worse than how it was the other way around.

JJG
01-28-2009, 07:08 AM
talk to any scientist.
Go look at a fossil
go look at fossils or talk to a geneticist.
Genetics easily confirms evolution, as you can clearly see the process through all the similarities between the DNA of us and our animal cousins.

Or you can choose to believe in a book that contains stories of talking donkeys and virgin births over modern science.
Your understanding of science though would be about the same as the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.

why does it have to be one or the other? The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God, nor does it try to. You have created the distinction for your own purposes. In this case, it's to put down people who have a different faith then you. congratulations.

Willynowei
01-28-2009, 07:18 AM
That said, a-unicornism is a shallow philosophy, much like fundamentalism. To claim to know whether or not unicorns exists is asinine.

Pretty dumb construct, huh?

This would largely depend on your definition of a unicorn. If the word unicorn were attached to an object whose existence is said to be observable at a time, place X - for instance, if Unicorns are said to be breed at the North Pole between January and February; then we can prove or disprove their existence through observation.

If such is not the case, if for instance you defined the unicorn as a mystical beast who would successfully escape any feeble attempts by humanity to observe it then, yes - you may only doubt the existence of a unicorn and it would certainly be asnine to say that you know it does not exist - because you simply don't.

dbfan21
01-28-2009, 08:36 AM
talk to any scientist.
Go look at a fossil
go look at fossils or talk to a geneticist.
Genetics easily confirms evolution, as you can clearly see the process through all the similarities between the DNA of us and our animal cousins.

Or you can choose to believe in a book that contains stories of talking donkeys and virgin births over modern science.
Your understanding of science though would be about the same as the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.

Talking donkeys do exist....you proved that via your last few posts.










I'm just kidding man! If you were one of my buddies, I would have teased you the same way. You just opened the door and I couldn't resist. No harm, no foul! :welcome:

alkemical
01-28-2009, 08:57 AM
why does it have to be one or the other? The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God, nor does it try to. You have created the distinction for your own purposes. In this case, it's to put down people who have a different faith then you. congratulations.

Because people are stupidly non-objective.

Tombstone RJ
01-28-2009, 09:13 AM
Your lack of a grasp on how science works shows through here. I don't mean to condescend, but you aren't talking about science.

Scientific theories are, by definition, never proven. A "theory" is an idea that has not been proven false. If there is any evidence to disprove a theory, that theory ceases to exist. That is why the Big Bang remains a theory- there has been no scientific evidence to disprove it.

Again your arguing semantics. I never claimed to be an astrophysisest (sp?)

Br0nc0Buster
01-28-2009, 09:36 AM
why does it have to be one or the other? The Theory of Evolution does not disprove God, nor does it try to. You have created the distinction for your own purposes. In this case, it's to put down people who have a different faith then you. congratulations.

No Creationists create the distinction.
They are the ones claiming it is wrong and that the book of Genesis is the more accurate description.

If their "faith" leads them to think dinosaurs lived with people, or that changes in genetic traits does not occur in nature, then their faith is stupid.
I dont care if they get offended, just because someone says that is their belief doesnt mean I am obliged to respect it.

TheReverend
01-28-2009, 09:43 AM
Why can't we be friends?

TailgateNut
01-28-2009, 09:48 AM
Why can't we be friends?

Because friends don't allow friends to believe in imaginary **** (hallucinate).;)

alkemical
01-28-2009, 10:17 AM
Why can't we be friends?

I'm your friend. Don't be sad. lol

Houshyamama
01-28-2009, 10:29 AM
Because people are stupidly non-objective.

Stop your thinking. It's dangerous!!

Peoples Champ
01-28-2009, 10:47 AM
Just watched "The Last Templar" last night. It was a pretty good movie for a made for TV movie on NBC. Its about this kind of stuff, believing and non believing.

kappys
01-28-2009, 12:15 PM
No Creationists create the distinction.
They are the ones claiming it is wrong and that the book of Genesis is the more accurate description.

If their "faith" leads them to think dinosaurs lived with people, or that changes in genetic traits does not occur in nature, then their faith is stupid.
I dont care if they get offended, just because someone says that is their belief doesnt mean I am obliged to respect it.

QFT.

I believe in both evolution and God, go figure.

BroncoBuff
01-28-2009, 12:26 PM
Wow, pushing 350 posts. It seems like just yesterday Dortoh asked a simple question in his normal demure fashion. :curtsey:


LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE, DORTOH!

rugbythug
01-28-2009, 01:29 PM
talk to any scientist.
Go look at a fossil
go look at fossils or talk to a geneticist.
Genetics easily confirms evolution, as you can clearly see the process through all the similarities between the DNA of us and our animal cousins.

Or you can choose to believe in a book that contains stories of talking donkeys and virgin births over modern science.
Your understanding of science though would be about the same as the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.

Correlation is not Causation. Your Mounds of Evidence is a heap of poo. There is nothing in the fossil record to confirm Evolution.

TheDave
01-28-2009, 01:32 PM
Correlation is not Causation. Your Mounds of Evidence is a heap of poo. There is nothing in the fossil record to confirm Evolution.

Looks like we need to slap your HS science teachers also...

rugbythug
01-28-2009, 01:34 PM
Looks like we need to slap your HS science teachers also...

Luckily I studied Genetics in College. This overcame my poor High School Education.

Fedaykin
01-28-2009, 01:40 PM
Luckily I studied Genetics in College. This overcame my poor High School Education.

So then, ostensibly, you are familiar with Endogenous Retroviruses and their exceptionally solid, independent support for common descent?

TheDave
01-28-2009, 01:40 PM
Luckily I studied Genetics in College. This overcame my poor High School Education.

You may want to mix in an Anthro class then... there is quite a bit of evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

alkemical
01-29-2009, 05:30 AM
Correlation is not Causation. Your Mounds of Evidence is a heap of poo. There is nothing in the fossil record to confirm Evolution.

Doesn't that violate occam's razor? ;)

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 06:13 AM
Again your arguing semantics. I never claimed to be an astrophysisest (sp?)

I'm not arguing about semantics. You're using improper definitions to support your take, and I am pointing that out.

If I call a donkey a horse to support my belief that horses are small and have disproportionately large ears, that isn't a matter of semantics, but ignorance.

You aren't dealing with the actual meaning of words like "theory" and "science". That has nothing to do with semantics.

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 06:22 AM
Ah but the kicker is, you have to go through the institutions to get published/funded for research. College professors have been fired over the very mention of intelligent design. You can't get your research out without the help of a review board, base your doctoral research on something that the professors controlling your destiny disagree with, and guess how far you'll get?

I wish it was as simple as the scientific method anymore. It's equal part politics now.

There's a reason I wouldn't get funding for a research project based on a hypothesis that the world is actually flat.

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 06:26 AM
Doesn't that violate occam's razor? ;)

Not at all.

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 06:29 AM
There's a reason I wouldn't get funding for a research project based on a hypothesis that the world is actually flat.

what about the scientific Community who is hushed and ignored over the Global Warming hoax? Just because an issue becomes Common Knowledge in the pop Culture does not make it fact.

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 06:32 AM
You may want to mix in an Anthro class then... there is quite a bit of evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

There is more definitive evidence supporting the existence of the Yeti. If there was good evidence you would simply need to say. Ah but the xxxx. There is no xxxx.

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 06:39 AM
So then, ostensibly, you are familiar with Endogenous Retroviruses and their exceptionally solid, independent support for common descent?

I worked with Plant Genetics. During that time Roundup Ready was just beginning. Nearly all-and this is still the case-Varieties were developed via selective breeding. The amount of recombinant DNA research was very low.

The Point that seems to be missed is this. Even if DNA is similar Specie to Specie how would this preclude a creator?

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 07:06 AM
Correlation is not Causation. Your Mounds of Evidence is a heap of poo. There is nothing in the fossil record to confirm Evolution.How do you explain fossils of animals that don't exist?

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 07:10 AM
what about the scientific Community who is hushed and ignored over the Global Warming hoax? Just because an issue becomes Common Knowledge in the pop Culture does not make it fact.

My point exactly. It's fact that makes something fact, and spending money trying to disprove a clear fact is stupid.

alkemical
01-29-2009, 07:10 AM
I worked with Plant Genetics. During that time Roundup Ready was just beginning. Nearly all-and this is still the case-Varieties were developed via selective breeding. The amount of recombinant DNA research was very low.

The Point that seems to be missed is this. Even if DNA is similar Specie to Specie how would this preclude a creator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

:devil:

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:15 AM
How do you explain fossils of animals that don't exist?

extinction

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene



http://www.starmagazine.com/

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 07:21 AM
There is more definitive evidence supporting the existence of the Yeti. If there was good evidence you would simply need to say. Ah but the xxxx. There is no xxxx.

Or, in the case of the Bible, just write it in a book, and it will magically be true.

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 07:21 AM
extinction

How do things go extinct without the concept of evolution?

alkemical
01-29-2009, 07:24 AM
http://www.starmagazine.com/

You want me to go back into the goddess/god worship we attrib to "idols"

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:30 AM
How do things go extinct without the concept of evolution?

45-15=30

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 07:35 AM
extinction

So, in your view, God created all species that have ever existed on earth at one time? Or did he kill off some and then create others at different time intervals?

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:36 AM
Or, in the case of the Bible, just write it in a book, and it will magically be true.

No different than writing it in Origin of the Species.

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 07:37 AM
No different than writing it in Origin of the Species.

Except that the Origin of Species was crafted based on observation and evidence.

TheReverend
01-29-2009, 07:41 AM
How do things go extinct without the concept of evolution?

Jesus stops loving them.

alkemical
01-29-2009, 07:42 AM
Jesus stops loving them.

http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/gallery/jesus_on_raptor.jpg

It's true

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:42 AM
So, in your view, God created all species that have ever existed on earth at one time? Or did he kill off some and then create others at different time intervals?

IMO God created everything at once and then set in motion. This is the only plausible explanation. There is no other way. Evolution is a theory applied to a small data set and then extrapolated to include everything. It is attractive because in this theory Humans are the top rung. But it has huge holes.

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 07:47 AM
IMO God created everything at once and then set in motion. This is the only plausible explanation. There is no other way. Evolution is a theory applied to a small data set and then extrapolated to include everything. It is attractive because in this theory Humans are the top rung. But it has huge holes.

You do realize that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, don't you? How did all of these creatures fit on a relatively small planet?

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:48 AM
Except that the Origin of Species was crafted based on observation and evidence.

2,4,...

The Observation and Evidence is very limited and evolution became its fatally flawed a theory.

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:51 AM
You do realize that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, don't you? How did all of these creatures fit on a relatively small planet?

Yes, I realize this. Although at this time what percentage of all species exists in what percentage of the planet surface area?

rugbythug
01-29-2009, 07:52 AM
http://www.sciencepunk.com/v5/gallery/jesus_on_raptor.jpg

It's true

ah condescension the last bastion of a bad argument

alkemical
01-29-2009, 08:03 AM
ah condescension the last bastion of a bad argument

Praise be bob!

If you can't take a joke, *** you.

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 08:11 AM
2,4,...

The Observation and Evidence is very limited and evolution became its fatally flawed a theory.

You are clearly woefully ignorant of evolutionary theory. There is more evidence in support of evolution than the Theory of Gravity. Is gravity a "fatally flawed theory"? Or are you perhaps a proponent of Intelligent Falling Theory?

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 08:13 AM
Yes, I realize this. Although at this time what percentage of all species exists in what percentage of the planet surface area?

The planet is pretty crowded right now. Where do you suppose God put the 99% that is now extinct? Did he shrink the planet at some point?

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 08:19 AM
IMO God created everything at once and then set in motion. This is the only plausible explanation. There is no other way. Evolution is a theory applied to a small data set and then extrapolated to include everything. It is attractive because in this theory Humans are the top rung. But it has huge holes.

Ah, the "It can only be this way because that is what I want to BELIEVE" argument. Talk about holes- Why no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? Yours is the only plausible explanation if you choose to ignore a huge amount of evidence, common sense, and science.

So dinosaurs, Jews, and Gentiles roamed the earth together? "The Flintstones" was a documentary? I take it you think carbon dating is a hoax too?

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:21 AM
evolution is the devils greatest lie to date.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:21 AM
Ah, the "It can only be this way because that is what I want to BELIEVE" argument. Talk about holes- Why no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible? Yours is the only plausible explanation if you choose to ignore a huge amount of evidence, common sense, and science.

So dinosaurs, Jews, and Gentiles roamed the earth together? "The Flintstones" was a documentary? I take it you think carbon dating is a hoax too?

Carbon dating is not only a hoax but witch craft

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 08:23 AM
evolution is the devils greatest lie to date.

LOL

TailgateNut
01-29-2009, 08:31 AM
You do realize that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, don't you? How did all of these creatures fit on a relatively small planet?

They must have been in "time release capsules".Hilarious!

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:33 AM
They must have been in "time release capsules".Hilarious!

Explain the ark then Mr. Smarty there were 2 of everything on there.

Br0nc0Buster
01-29-2009, 08:38 AM
You do realize that 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, don't you? How did all of these creatures fit on a relatively small planet?

It was all Satan you see.
The reason megladon fossils are not found hext to homo habilus fossils is Satan put them apart to confuse us.
The reason the human retina is backwards is sin, sin causes the mistake.
The reason humans appear to adapt to their environment, like say people near the equator have dark skin compared to those near the poles who have fair skin is because Satan wanted us to think evolution is correct, scientists are tools of the devil you see.

The reason humans share 97% of the same DNA with chimps and have a chromosome that is a combination of two other ape chomosomes is so we would be busy learning about science instead of learning the glorious lessons the bronze age sheep herders wrote down for us.

OABB
01-29-2009, 08:39 AM
It's funny. I have been into the kaballah, judaism, lutherinism, aliens, evolution, creationism, catholicism, buddhism, big bang theory, you name it....

finally, after a lifetime of questioning I have found the truth:

here it is:







WHO CARES?





you see, when you REALLY think about it, you'll realize it doesn't really matter anyhow when, where OR why. nothing will change. people and life will be the same.

these questions will NEVER be answered.

NEVER EVER EVER EVER.

so have fun talking about it, but don't fight or get worked up because it is an argument with no possible victor.

and at the end of the day we still have to eat, sleep and sh*t the same anyhow so who cares.

TailgateNut
01-29-2009, 08:40 AM
Explain the ark then Mr. Smarty there were 2 of everything on there.


The Ark was required because of the tidal wave caused by the parting of the sea. That same tidal wave chased (by luck) not only 2 of each type of animal but 1 of each sex in the direction of the Ark. Once abourd they magically got along and sang Kumbayah.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:40 AM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:41 AM
The Ark was required because of the tidal wave caused by the parting of the sea. That same tidal wave chased (by luck) not only 2 of each type of animal but 1 of each sex in the direction of the Ark. Once abourd they magically got along and sang Kumbayah.

sounds legit to me :)

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 08:43 AM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???

Because we did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. They are our cousins.

OABB
01-29-2009, 08:44 AM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???

because we are genetic mutations of the monkey, present day monkeys are actually real monkey's where we are the retarded cousin monkey that grew up across town.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 08:45 AM
Because we did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. They are our cousins.

I knew I was going to look retarded but thanks for that explanation.

Br0nc0Buster
01-29-2009, 09:03 AM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???

its ok
Evolution doesnt work like a ladder, more like branches from a tree.
Humans and monkeys share a common trunk, but we are different branches.
Modern monkeys are just as "evolved" as us, but they just went in a different direction.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 09:09 AM
its ok
Evolution doesnt work like a ladder, more like branches from a tree.
Humans and monkeys share a common trunk, but we are different branches.
Modern monkeys are just as "evolved" as us, but they just went in a different direction.

Ok then would that not tend to lead to more speices instead of less??? or is that where the darwin theory comes into play???

TheDave
01-29-2009, 09:38 AM
I knew I was going to look retarded but thanks for that explanation.

You're not retarded we just need to slap your HS science teachers as well...


This countries inability to comprehend math and science is going to kick our ass one of these days.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 09:41 AM
You're not retarded we just need to slap your HS science teachers as well...
This countries inability to comprehend math and science is going to kick our ass one of these days.

If for no other reason then he actually wore 1960's style polyester suits. Hilarious! The man was a freaking pimp

TheDave
01-29-2009, 09:46 AM
If for no other reason then he actually wore 1960's style polyester suits. Hilarious! The man was a freaking pimp

Dude they are all freaks (except me of course)... I actually had one the was an identical twin to Kermit the Frog. Really creepy **** to learn chem from a muppet.

NUB
01-29-2009, 10:18 AM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???

We didn't evolve from monkeys, nor did we have a common ancestor.

Or lineage is in line with primates. I think chimps are the closest to us right now but I'm not entirely 100% on that.

TailgateNut
01-29-2009, 12:12 PM
Dude they are all freaks (except me of course)... I actually had one the was an identical twin to Kermit the Frog. Really creepy **** to learn chem from a muppet.


Speaking of Creepy ****. My daughter told me that yesterday in gym one of the other girls fell on the floor, hit her head, and started to have a severe seizure. The moron gym teacher turns her over, holds her down and then while she is still "convulsing" proceeds to carry her to the main office. WTF kind of teachers are we letting loose on our children.

Have you ever heard of 911, ya ****ing moron, would be my first question if I were the parent of this child. I did call the main office this morning and left a message for the principal to call me. When she does return my call I will have to ask what kind of credentials this idiot has. I could possible understand a your run of the mill (english, math, ....) teacher not having any type of first aid training, but a gym teacher should be required to have a basic knowledge of what the **** to do when someone gets injured in his class.

bombay
01-29-2009, 12:14 PM
I always believed religion was a private matter, and appreciate those who keep it to themselves.

TheDave
01-29-2009, 12:16 PM
Speaking of Creepy ****. My daughter told me that yesterday in gym one of the other girls fell on the floor, hit her head, and started to have a severe seizure. The moron gym teacher turns her over, holds her down and then while she is still "convulsing" proceeds to carry her to the main office. WTF kind of teachers are we letting loose on our children.

Have you ever heard of 911, ya ****ing moron, would be my first question if I were the parent of this child. I did call the main office this morning and left a message for the principal to call me. When she does return my call I will have to ask what kind of credentials this idiot has. I could possible understand a your run of the mill (english, math, ....) teacher not having any type of first aid training, but a gym teacher should be required to have a basic knowledge of what the **** to do when someone gets injured in his class.

Unfortunately there are idiots everywhere... That is pretty stupid.

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 12:20 PM
Speaking of Creepy ****. My daughter told me that yesterday in gym one of the other girls fell on the floor, hit her head, and started to have a severe seizure. The moron gym teacher turns her over, holds her down and then while she is still "convulsing" proceeds to carry her to the main office. WTF kind of teachers are we letting loose on our children.

Have you ever heard of 911, ya ****ing moron, would be my first question if I were the parent of this child. I did call the main office this morning and left a message for the principal to call me. When she does return my call I will have to ask what kind of credentials this idiot has. I could possible understand a your run of the mill (english, math, ....) teacher not having any type of first aid training, but a gym teacher should be required to have a basic knowledge of what the **** to do when someone gets injured in his class.

Thats pretty messed up.

Funny story, I was taking a first aid class once. This idiot friend of mine was also in the class. So the instructor tells my buddy that we just came across an auto accident and one driver is laying on the side of the road. They had an actor laying there. Anyway my buddy runs over to the guy, drags him futher off the road and proceeds to slap him on the back. WTF Ha!

TailgateNut
01-29-2009, 12:22 PM
Unfortunately there are idiots everywhere... That is pretty stupid.


Considering the type of person I am:angel: . I will definately have a man to moron talk with him, just to clarify my take on his response. My 14 YO daughter knows better than to restrain someone who is having a seizure.

TheDave
01-29-2009, 12:24 PM
Considering the type of person I am:angel: . I will definately have a man to moron talk with him, just to clarify my take on his response. My 14 YO daughter knows better than to restrain someone who is having a seizure.

That was bad... worse was picking them up and running to the office. Hilarious!

The guy obviously stressed and forgot what little he already knew.

TailgateNut
01-29-2009, 12:28 PM
That was bad... worse was picking them up and running to the office. Hilarious!

The guy obviously stressed and forgot what little he already knew.

I go through 1st aid and CPR training annually do to my position, but it's something everyone should consider at least once. Over the years I've had to respond to some "ugly" injuries, and am glad I took the time to go through the training.

#1 Stay Calm!

brother love
01-29-2009, 12:58 PM
There has to be a God.
He sent us his only son!
http://www.johnelway.com/images/ECF%20-%20STILL%20-%20Victory%20fireworks,%20SBXXXII.jpg

Bronco Nut
01-29-2009, 02:17 PM
Sooo...I don't really post much, although I lurk around here pretty much EVERY day (busy enough at work to keep from posting, not busy enough to keep from readin) but this is interesting stuff, so I'll chime in.

First of all, let's clear something up. It's asinine to believe anybody is unintelligent because they are a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or a Jets fan. Christians like to say Atheists are stupid because they can't see the evidence of a Creator right under their nose, while Atheists shout that Christians are just hanging on to superstition because they're scared of the alternative.

Personally, I respect anybody that honestly searches for truth with an open mind. My personal search pointed me to Christianity; I think the weight of evidence pointing to the God of the Bible is overwhelming if you pursue your search without bias. However, I'm not about to call anybody else stupid for believing something else; everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

Believe it or not though, if you do some research on science and the Bible, you'll be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in science that contradicts the Biblical record.

TheDave
01-29-2009, 03:02 PM
Believe it or not though, if you do some research on science and the Bible, you'll be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in science that contradicts the Biblical record.

Oh boy...

Dedhed
01-29-2009, 03:08 PM
On a serious note and without fear of looking totally retarded (oh who cares) why if evolution (which I think can exist along side of religion but that is another can of worms) if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys??? Did they miss the train/boat or what is the deal???
This is a commonly put forth question by those who are completely ignorant of evolutionary theory. Congratulations!

NUB
01-29-2009, 03:12 PM
Because I'm stupidly lazy right now, here's Wikipedia:

The Hebrew Bible reflects the geocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentricism) view of the universe(Hab. 3:11 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Hab.&verse=3:11&src=niv), Josh. 10:12-13 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Josh.&verse=10:12-13&src=niv), Ps. 93:1 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Ps.&verse=93:1&src=niv), 1 Chron. 16:30 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=1%20Chron.&verse=16:30&src=niv)) and describes the moon as giving off light, perhaps meaning reflecting light from the sun. (Eze 32:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=32&verse=7&version=31&context=verse;), Gen 1:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=16&version=31&context=verse;)) As in Babylonian cosmography, the Hebrew Bible imagines a flat Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-4)</sup> covered by a solid sky-dome<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-5)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-6)</sup> (the Firmament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament)) to which the stars were attached. Isaiah refers to "the circle of the earth" (40:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:22;&version=49;)), the "four quarters of the earth" (11:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2011:12;&version=49;)), and the "spread out earth"(44:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2044:24;&version=31;)).

One approach of reconciliation is that God implanted a soul into a hominid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid) approximately 6,000 years ago.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-11)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-12)</sup> Although humans in the biological sense of the term have existed for over 100,000 years, humans according to the Jewish definition only began when one, Adam, received a soul.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-13)</sup> In fact, the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) records that there were 974 generations before the appearance by man as described by Genesis.<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-14)</sup>
This explanation, however, serves to create a somewhat greater inconsistency. If only one individual was given a soul a mere 6,000 years ago, it would indicate that many of the people in the world today are not human according to the Torah definition, because it couldn't be that all of the people in the world today are descended from a single ancestor who lived less than 6,000 years ago.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-15)</sup> (The biblical flood in Noah's day may have killed all but the descendents of Adam, as Noah was). To settle this inconsistency, Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedalyah_Nadel) proposes that references to "Adam" in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis) do not always refer to the same person. Sometimes, a reference "Adam" is really to all of mankind.<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-16)</sup> Maimonidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonidies) similarly understood the Six Days of Creation as describing "a conceptual hierarchy of the world, rather than a historical account of creation."<sup id="cite_ref-17" class="reference">[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-17)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-18)</sup>


Leviticus 11:20-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:20-23;&version=49;) inaccurately describes locusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locusts), grasshoppers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper), beetles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetles), and crickets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crickets) as four-legged creatures. Although the specific references in this passage indicate that insects were the creatures under consideration, the Hebrew word `owph here translated "winged" or "flying" is the same word used six times in the creation story (Genesis 1:20-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201:20-30;&version=49;)) and used twelve times in the Genesis account of the flood<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-19)</sup> to refer to birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird). In the KJV and ASV, the word is translated "birds" or "fowls" in all of these places.<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-20)</sup> The KJV, in fact, uses "fowls" to open the Leviticus passage (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011:20-23;&version=9;) cited above: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."
Deuteronomy 14:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014:7;&version=49;) also described hares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hares) and rock badger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_badger) as cud-chewers. While they have no compartmentalized stomachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumen) that the modern definition of ruminants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminants) includes in order to be determined cud-chewers, the close relation to rumination is apparent in many English translations of the Bible, which use the word cud in an expanded sense to indicate food that is re-chewed through the coprophagy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagy) process used by lagomorphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagomorph).<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference">[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-21)</sup> <sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Bible#cite_note-22)</sup>

BroncoInferno
01-29-2009, 03:20 PM
Believe it or not though, if you do some research on science and the Bible, you'll be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in science that contradicts the Biblical record.

You can't make it out of the first chapter of Genesis without finding contradictions. The whole creation process is assbackwards. For just one example, God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation, but at this point God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation. How can there be night and day without the sun?

There is also the example of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still. Of course, at this time people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Wrong.

Br0nc0Buster
01-29-2009, 03:26 PM
Ok then would that not tend to lead to more speices instead of less??? or is that where the darwin theory comes into play???

yes you are right it would lead to more species.
But as animals adapt to their environment, they get better at killing prey, or escaping from predators, etc..
The species that cant adapt quick enough get weeded out because nature is a giant arms race.
As someone already correctly pointed out, 99% of all known species are extinct for this reason.
The strong survive and pass their genes on to their offspring, the "weak" die off and become no more.
Natural disasters and changes in the environment also come into play

Tombstone RJ
01-29-2009, 03:29 PM
I'm not arguing about semantics. You're using improper definitions to support your take, and I am pointing that out.

If I call a donkey a horse to support my belief that horses are small and have disproportionately large ears, that isn't a matter of semantics, but ignorance.

You aren't dealing with the actual meaning of words like "theory" and "science". That has nothing to do with semantics.

Semantics. So I got some terminology wrong, big deal. Like I said, I'm not a scientist.

Wiki:

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.

Formal semanticists are concerned with the modeling of meaning in terms of the semantics of logic. Thus the sentence John loves a bagel above can be broken down into its constituents (signs), of which the unit loves may serve as both syntactic and semantic head.

Have you ever taken a linguistics course? I have, I've studied linguistics, its facinating stuff.

All reality (human reality) is based on language, but that is for a whole diff. thread!

Kid A
01-29-2009, 03:39 PM
QFT.

I believe in both evolution and God, go figure.

Millions do, including many of my close friends. I respect that position plenty.

Personally, I see a lot of irreconcilable differences between accepting that life developed in through a naturalistic process and the concept of a personal god.

An article I recently read in the latest New Republic addresses this very well. It's pretty long, but worthwhile to anyone interested in the subject of science and religion. The author argues that they are not, in fact, completely separate or complementary concepts--they contradict in crucial areas. This is a strong stance to take, but I think he states his case respectfully enough. Anyway, good read if anyone interested has the time.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472&p=1

Hotrod
01-29-2009, 03:41 PM
yes you are right it would lead to more species.
But as animals adapt to their environment, they get better at killing prey, or escaping from predators, etc..
The species that cant adapt quick enough get weeded out because nature is a giant arms race.
As someone already correctly pointed out, 99% of all known species are extinct for this reason.
The strong survive and pass their genes on to their offspring, the "weak" die off and become no more.
Natural disasters and changes in the environment also come into play

Interesting but then how would you explain the existance of chiefs fans???

Br0nc0Buster
01-29-2009, 03:43 PM
Interesting but then how would you explain the existance of chiefs fans???

Inbreeding has been proven to cause genetic defects.....

USMCBladerunner
01-29-2009, 04:44 PM
I think the weight of evidence pointing to the God of the Bible is overwhelming if you pursue your search without bias. However, I'm not about to call anybody else stupid for believing something else; everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

Believe it or not though, if you do some research on science and the Bible, you'll be hard pressed to find ANYTHING in science that contradicts the Biblical record.

Something tells me that your research may be looking in the wrong places. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that contradicts the Biblical record. So much so that the majority of Christianity takes an interpretive approach to the Bible, because a literal one puts a face of stupidity and obstinant ignorance on their faith.

Dedhed
01-30-2009, 06:27 AM
Semantics. So I got some terminology wrong, big deal. Like I said, I'm not a scientist.

Wiki:

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.

Formal semanticists are concerned with the modeling of meaning in terms of the semantics of logic. Thus the sentence John loves a bagel above can be broken down into its constituents (signs), of which the unit loves may serve as both syntactic and semantic head.

Have you ever taken a linguistics course? I have, I've studied linguistics, its facinating stuff.

All reality (human reality) is based on language, but that is for a whole diff. thread!

Yes I've taken semantics, and this is not semantics. Calling the color black, "white" is not a matter of semantics.

If you're going to call assigning your own meaning to words in order to support your argument "semantics", then there would be no argument that isn't outside that realm. Your ignorance of what scientific terms denote has nothing to do with semantics.

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 06:42 AM
yes you are right it would lead to more species.
But as animals adapt to their environment, they get better at killing prey, or escaping from predators, etc..
The species that cant adapt quick enough get weeded out because nature is a giant arms race.
As someone already correctly pointed out, 99% of all known species are extinct for this reason.
The strong survive and pass their genes on to their offspring, the "weak" die off and become no more.
Natural disasters and changes in the environment also come into play

How does this make sense.
1,2,3,4,5,.......

5^10, 5^9

Why would we start from one then magically get up to some gigantic number and then begin to narrow down from that.

Mogulseeker
01-30-2009, 06:57 AM
I enjoy theological discussion, and I figure after reading the posts here, I would trhow in my two cents:

I'm fed up with this whole thing... I went from fervent evangelical to fervent atheist. Now I'm in between. I think religion is an attempt to grasp at a concept that no-one will understand, and therefore any sort of hardcore adherance to faith has to be open for error.

That doesn't mean that Islam or Christianity or Judiasm or even Atheism are bad. It's more a matter of seeing what you need and how you approach it.

This thread has gotten messy... so I'll stay out.

fontaine
01-30-2009, 07:14 AM
I enjoy theological discussion, and I figure after reading the posts here, I would trhow in my two cents:

I'm fed up with this whole thing... I went from fervent evangelical to fervent atheist. Now I'm in between. I think religion is an attempt to grasp at a concept that no-one will understand, and therefore any sort of hardcore adherance to faith has to be open for error.

About freakin' time!!!

ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US!!!!

TheReverend
01-30-2009, 07:57 AM
Hasn't everyone realized that this whole discussion is just exhausting and gets no where?

???

Hotrod
01-30-2009, 08:02 AM
Hasn't everyone realized that this whole discussion is just exhausting and gets no where?

???

Actually I was just about to make a post asking someone PM me once a final decission was made in this thread Ha!

TheDave
01-30-2009, 08:03 AM
Hasn't everyone realized that this whole discussion is just exhausting and gets no where?

???


I believe you just described every internet discussion. :spit:

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2009, 08:08 AM
Yes I've taken semantics, and this is not semantics. Calling the color black, "white" is not a matter of semantics.

If you're going to call assigning your own meaning to words in order to support your argument "semantics", then there would be no argument that isn't outside that realm. Your ignorance of what scientific terms denote has nothing to do with semantics.

Dude, it's understood that I got some terms mixed up due to the fact that I have not taken a science course, or any classes, in 15 years or so. If that is acknowledged, then we can move on. But you keep harping on it, and ignoring all my other posts.

alkemical
01-30-2009, 08:11 AM
Hasn't everyone realized that this whole discussion is just exhausting and gets no where?

???

Boobs are great!

Br0nc0Buster
01-30-2009, 08:12 AM
How does this make sense.
1,2,3,4,5,.......

5^10, 5^9

Why would we start from one then magically get up to some gigantic number and then begin to narrow down from that.

What the hell are you talking about?
All species did not exist at once.
Animals will have offspring, some of those offspring may go one direction, and others may go another.
Fast forward 80 millions years or so and you have ducks and crocodiles, but their ancestor the archeopetryx(or something like that) is extinct.

Also there was 5 known rapid climate changes that resulted in the extinction of most species alive at the time, so life would obviously have to start from what is left and go from there.

Why dont you go read a biology book instead of assuming you have have "figured out" evolution while all these biologists who study it for a living are confused.

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 09:06 AM
The problem Is you are blind to the holes in your own theory. You say 99% of All species are extinct. And also that Biological Diversity is in decline. You also so that all beings began from a single source. If you Take what you are saying it is contradictory. Population models do not go 1,2,3,4,5,up to whatever number. 10^x And then Steadily Decline. Take whatever model population model and you will find that diversity begins high and then declines. It never Begins low, increases and then declines. My understanding of biology is solid, your grasp of your own concepts is shaky at best. You have blindly accepted whatever evolution crap you have been spoon fed.


Hear is a thought concept.

Take an isolated lake. You start with algae. It is growing Great. It needs water and H2o. One Algae mutates into a Fish that eats algae. You say that before that fishes off spring eat all the algae and die of starvation. A bigger fish is mutated to control the Population. This is not how it works in reality only in half backed theories.

Br0nc0Buster
01-30-2009, 09:26 AM
My understanding of biology is solid, your grasp of your own concepts is shaky at best. You have blindly accepted whatever evolution crap you have been spoon fed.



no, you dont know wtf you are talking about.
We cant notice the changes occuring except in like bacteria and flies because it is a process that is slow and gradual.
An algae is not going to all of a sudden mutate into a fish and then start eating all the algae. I never implied anything of the sort and no biologist would ever say that is how the theory of evolution works.

Organisms change and adapt based on what their environment is like and what other organisms are doing. Changes occur within every species, they are all adapting and changing so your algae fish analogy is just stupid.

This is stupid, because just like Tombstone you would rather argue science on a message board instead of actually learning about it for yourself.

I guess I learned my lesson, not to argue with the willfully ignorant.

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 09:41 AM
no, you dont know wtf you are talking about.
We cant notice the changes occuring except in like bacteria and flies because it is a process that is slow and gradual.
An algae is not going to all of a sudden mutate into a fish and then start eating all the algae. I never implied anything of the sort and no biologist would ever say that is how the theory of evolution works.

Organisms change and adapt based on what their environment is like and what other organisms are doing. Changes occur within every species, they are all adapting and changing so your algae fish analogy is just stupid.

This is stupid, because just like Tombstone you would rather argue science on a message board instead of actually learning about it for yourself.

I guess I learned my lesson, not to argue with the willfully ignorant.

Mark yourself down. Your concept looks at the end. And extrapolates to the beginning. The fact that it breaks laws of physics be damned. You criticize me for believing with faith in something with out acknowledging your own faith required to believe in evolution. On top of this you attempt to take the higher ground by playing the "I am smarter than you are Card" despite having no evidence of my background in Biology.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 09:50 AM
Mark yourself down. Your concept looks at the end. And extrapolates to the beginning. The fact that it breaks laws of physics be damned. You criticize me for believing with faith in something with out acknowledging your own faith required to believe in evolution. On top of this you attempt to take the higher ground by playing the "I am smarter than you are Card" despite having no evidence of my background in Biology.

If you believe that man and dinosaur existed at the same time, it is pretty safe to conclude that you know next to nothing about biology. Where did you go to school, Bob Jone University? Liberty?

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 09:54 AM
If you believe that man and dinosaur existed at the same time, it is pretty safe to conclude that you know next to nothing about biology. Where did you go to school, Bob Jone University? Liberty?

Ah not believing the Status Quot now questions ones intelligence. I went to the U Wyo.

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2009, 10:01 AM
If you believe that man and dinosaur existed at the same time, it is pretty safe to conclude that you know next to nothing about biology. Where did you go to school, Bob Jone University? Liberty?

can't attack his position so you attack him personally?

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 10:10 AM
can't attack his position so you attack him personally?

I can't attack his position? His position is that all species existed at the same time. Meaning man and dinosaur lived at the same time, in his view. It's scientifically ignorant. Hell, it would not even be logistically possible.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 10:14 AM
Ah not believing the Status Quot now questions ones intelligence.

It doesn't have anything to do with the status quo. It has to do with the science, and you're piss poor knowledge of it. I doubt that even among the rare scientists who are skeptical about evolution you would find a single one who would try to claim that all the species that ever existed were on earth at the same time.

TheReverend
01-30-2009, 10:17 AM
Anyone got a pillow I can borrow?

alkemical
01-30-2009, 10:21 AM
Anyone got a pillow I can borrow?

I just want a pile of bricks....

Hotrod
01-30-2009, 10:21 AM
This thread is going so well. Stay tuned for my Official thunderdome abortion thread :)

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 10:23 AM
I can't attack his position? His position is that all species existed at the same time. Meaning man and dinosaur lived at the same time, in his view. It's scientifically ignorant. Hell, it would not even be logistically possible.

Here is the Deal. I don't know how Dinosaurs and Man Interacted nor whether they were alive at the same time. Of course neither do you. I do know. That evolution is not possible. It is not the end that is the problem. No the end (what we see today makes evolution even probable) But it has giant fatal flaws in the beginning, problems you just gloss over. You love to poke a stick at the belief in god and say see you can't explain this. And then pick preposterous, implausible, unprovable simulations for your own beginning point.

1.God Created the Earth.

2.Earth Created itself from nothing.

You seem to think 1 takes more faith than 2. That is a lie your perpetrate on yourself.

BMF Bronco
01-30-2009, 10:24 AM
I can't attack his position? His position is that all species existed at the same time. Meaning man and dinosaur lived at the same time, in his view. It's scientifically ignorant. Hell, it would not even be logistically possible.

according to the museum of the rockies, Jack Horner and other professors, avian are still considered dinosaurs, so yes, they did/do exist at the same time.

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 10:24 AM
It doesn't have anything to do with the status quo. It has to do with the science, and you're piss poor knowledge of it. I doubt that even among the rare scientists who are skeptical about evolution you would find a single one who would try to claim that all the species that ever existed were on earth at the same time.


Consider the Point Missed. Or you are being dense on purpose.

TheReverend
01-30-2009, 10:25 AM
This thread is going so well. Stay tuned for my Official thunderdome abortion thread :)

I can't wait to be the first in with:

"This thread is Worthless Without Pics"

/vomit

TheReverend
01-30-2009, 10:26 AM
according to the museum of the rockies, Jack Horner and other professors, avian are still considered dinosaurs, so yes, they did/do exist at the same time.

Cool. We live in Jurassic Park :)

BMF Bronco
01-30-2009, 10:29 AM
Cool. We live in Jurassic Park :)

That's almost exactly what I told my daughter when I read it.

Kid A
01-30-2009, 10:34 AM
I do know. That evolution is not possible. It is not the end that is the problem. No the end (what we see today makes evolution even probable) But it has giant fatal flaws in the beginning, problems you just gloss over.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how matter came into being. This quote sums is up:

One of the most common misrepresentations of evolution is to extend it beyond its boundaries, claiming it says more than it actually does. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth or even the origin of life. Evolution concerns itself only with the subsequent development of life once it already existed. The manner in which life first came into being is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, though it is covered in a related field, abiogenesis. (If God had miraculously created the first living cell in the primordial soup, evolution could have taken over normally from there.) The origin of the universe and other cosmological bodies is not biology at all; it is sometimes referred to as stellar evolution, but it is an unrelated branch of science and has nothing to do with the theory first proposed by Charles Darwin. Statements such as "Evolution says that hydrogen gas turned into people," "Evolution says that particles develop into people" or "Evolution says that life and/or the universe came out of nothing" are all examples of this faulty type of argument.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 10:36 AM
Here is the Deal. I don't know how Dinosaurs and Man Interacted nor whether they were alive at the same time. Of course neither do you. I do know. That evolution is not possible. It is not the end that is the problem. No the end (what we see today makes evolution even probable) But it has giant fatal flaws in the beginning, problems you just gloss over. You love to poke a stick at the belief in god and say see you can't explain this. And then pick preposterous, implausible, unprovable simulations for your own beginning point.

1.God Created the Earth.

2.Earth Created itself from nothing.

You seem to think 1 takes more faith than 2. That is a lie your perpetrate on yourself.

Whoever said the earth created itself out of nothing? Your piss poor scientific knowledge is on display again. Evolution does not attempt to explain what made life materialize in the first place. It only explains what happened to life once it did exist. And, furthermore, who created god? The same problem that you seem to believe exists with atheism (i.e. that something came from nothing) is still there when you posit the existence of a god.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 10:38 AM
Consider the Point Missed. Or you are being dense on purpose.

You don''t have any point. There is not a credible scientist anywhere on the planet who agrees with your take--not even among those infinitesimal few who still question evolution.

rugbythug
01-30-2009, 10:46 AM
Whoever said the earth created itself out of nothing? Your piss poor scientific knowledge is on display again. Evolution does not attempt to explain what made life materialize in the first place. It only explains what happened to life once it did exist. And, furthermore, who created god? The same problem that you seem to believe exists with atheism (i.e. that something came from nothing) is still there when you posit the existence of a god.

It does not work- Unless you start from 10^x Life forms. Evolution only works as a reducing agent. Get it through your head.

Show one case where a Life form is introduced into a system and the system gets more complex.

Once something that has a competitive advantage is introduced it begins to take over it dominates making for less and less diversity.

See Plant-Salt Cedar
See Animal Man
See-Rats
See-Cock Roaches

Alkazar
01-30-2009, 10:51 AM
according to the museum of the rockies, Jack Horner and other professors, avian are still considered dinosaurs, so yes, they did/do exist at the same time.

Actually no, he says they are the direct decendants of dinosaurs, but are not dinosaurs themselves.

BroncoInferno
01-30-2009, 10:53 AM
It does not work- Unless you start from 10^x Life forms. Evolution only works as a reducing agent. Get it through your head.

Show one case where a Life form is introduced into a system and the system gets more complex.

Once something that has a competitive advantage is introduced it begins to take over it dominates making for less and less diversity.

See Plant-Salt Cedar
See Animal Man
See-Rats
See-Cock Roaches

You are hopeless.

BMF Bronco
01-30-2009, 10:57 AM
Actually no, he says they are the direct decendants of dinosaurs, but are not dinosaurs themselves.

Actually no, in the museum there is a display that says that they are dinosaurs and yes that dinos still walk/fly the earth. I am looking for a link, but i have seen it myself.

Fedaykin
01-30-2009, 11:05 AM
I worked with Plant Genetics. During that time Roundup Ready was just beginning. Nearly all-and this is still the case-Varieties were developed via selective breeding. The amount of recombinant DNA research was very low.

The Point that seems to be missed is this. Even if DNA is similar Specie to Specie how would this preclude a creator?

ERVs demonstrate not that DNA is similar, but that a single individual's *exact* DNA pattern exists in multiple non genetically compatible species. ERVs are undeniable evidence that common descent (aka Evolution) is true.

As far as Evolution precluding a creator, it doesn't and it doesn't try because

a.) Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life

and

b.) A negative cannot be proved.

Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that best fists the evidence (including but not limited to ERVs). Perhaps God does exist and is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth, but if that is the case his tool set is, clearly, Evolution.

Tombstone RJ
01-30-2009, 03:59 PM
I can't attack his position? His position is that all species existed at the same time. Meaning man and dinosaur lived at the same time, in his view. It's scientifically ignorant. Hell, it would not even be logistically possible.

Oh yah, take a philosophy course, you'll be suprised at just how wrong you might be...

ohiobronco2
01-30-2009, 09:47 PM
After reading this entire thread, I've determined that there are a lot of arrogant MF'ers on this site and that The Dave has personally assaulted 4-5 high school science teachers.

BroncoBuff
01-30-2009, 10:17 PM
After reading this entire thread, I've determined that there are a lot of arrogant MF'ers on this site and that The Dave has personally assaulted 4-5 high school science teachers.

You are wise beyond your posts.

TheDave
01-30-2009, 11:24 PM
After reading this entire thread, I've determined that there are a lot of arrogant MF'ers on this site and that The Dave has personally assaulted 4-5 high school science teachers.

Including other threads and in my personal life... 19

rubaiyat
01-31-2009, 01:38 AM
I just dont understand the belief that ones long term goal is to become worm food. How depressing.

Worms eating your eyes is your destiny......really???

So then I should believe in a singular notion of some possible afterdeath scenario of which we've never gotten confirmed and verified reports? Or even if just faith in SOMETHING is enough, which one should I go for?

Death...the high price of living. Great title, and a decent thing to go by. I'd imagine LIVING is worth eventually dying for. If that isn't enough then I guess I'm sorry for you then. And if we have enough leisure and resources to be debating it on an internet message board, then I think that it's going alright for most of us.

An alternative (admittedly only one of many) is to get teary eyed about heaven and wishing for the end times. Which I've had espoused by otherwise perfectly rational highly intelligent individuals. Which I think honestly a misplaced need to feel especially special. Hence the perplexing need I've found in those individuals of finding out the end times are nigh, (which at least I can anecdotally remember being presented as coming soon to a theater near you for the last 20 years) ie in YOUR lifetime will you be vindicated in your faith. I can't honestly state that is a healthy view, especially given what the end times will be like for those individuals. But that is merely my opinion.

ohiobronco2
01-31-2009, 08:33 AM
Including other threads and in my personal life... 19

:rofl: :spit:

Mogulseeker
01-31-2009, 11:00 PM
About freakin' time!!!

ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US!!!!

Gooble gobble, gooble gobble.

I thought it was necessary to post how my opinions have evolved since I figured I'd probably pissed off most of the people on this forum at one point or another. Until I stopped hanging out here, you have to admit, I was one of the more controversial (not in a good way) maners.

BroncoInferno
02-01-2009, 07:19 AM
Oh yah, take a philosophy course, you'll be suprised at just how wrong you might be...

I actually have quite an extensive background in philosophy studies (double major along with English). I don't recall any philosopher of any remaining relevance ever try to argue that man and dinosaur existed at the same time.