Printable View
It's all random.
The physical laws here on earth led to the chemical laws. The chemical laws led to biological laws ("life"). The biological laws led to societal laws.
Physics-->Chemistry-->Biology-->Society-->?
What's next? "The Matrix"? Maybe.... The point is, that's evolution to you. ~:)
I always wondered, how can anyone that believe in God ever be insulted over his belief ?? Frankly speaking, I really strong belief would make any attempt to mock it impossible.......
I believe in one omniscient, benevolent but not omnipotent Lord, and that all evil in the world stems from the devil. I believe in His Son, Our Saviour Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. I believe that God has helped me on several occasions.
Our planet has a very special position. It is in that thin strip of the solar system where life is actually possible, and it is a wonder that we have not been destroyed by meteorites. If the stars created everything, the what created the stars? Not even the greatest scientists know that.
Religion is the basis of our laws. It is the basis of our ideas of good and evil, right and wrong. Naturally Man himself has manipulated religion to his advantage, but is that not Man's fault instead of religion?
I believe that atheism is root of the degeneration of modern society. It is the root of yobbism, of crime, of promiscuity, of the increasing number of single mothers and of the lack of morality. The world has lost its sense of right and wrong.The Pope is right: the best way to prevent AIDS is sexual abstenance.
God made the big-bang, therefore God made everything.
So evolution and universe expansion are true, but so is Genesis. Judgement day will come when the universe contracts again (assuming that the universe will contract and that it will not stagnate or continue to expand indefinately depending on the Hubbel constant).
Scientific discovery doesn't have to disprove God, it only enhances his reputation that so many miracles could occur out of random chance. Does that make everyone happy?
So where did God come from?Quote:
God made the big-bang, therefore God made everything.
Personally I don't believe but mainly because I don't care. If believing in God helps you that's fine with me, just don't try to force it on me and we'll get along fine.
I don't believe in God and I don't like biggots (Christian, Jew and Muslims biggots), though I enjoyed reading the Bible and the Koran.
You want to see the activity levels of some people in my office, its more than plausable that Humans evolved form Innert objects ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
On topic i myself do not believe in god but that doesnt mean my beliefs are right.........
To be honest religion has no real influence on my life. I was Christened Roman catholic as my grand mother was irish and very devout. But i dont really think about it and i dont really talk about it so it doesn't affect me.
What i do beleive is that people are free to beleive in wha they wish and if they derive some form of comfort from this then it cannot be a bad thing.
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator. A number of these astrophysicists have converted from athiesm/agnosticism following this discovery/reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
On the other hand, however; a number of equally revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have theorised that there is this theoretical multiverse, which contains an infinite number of universes, each with different laws,then the existence of our universe is an inevitability. Since there is no proof of a multiverse, then we have no way of knowing if the theory is true.
So, you can see, that the laws have not got the experts any where in the great theological debate.
Sigh... From Gods mom of course... Everyone knows that.... ~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
So where did................nah, nevermind :dizzy2: ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
There has to be something.
Coffee --> comp screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Don't do that, Frag! ~D
Just when I was going to get philosophical that cursed lama from rotterdam rains on my parade. Begone heathen for I will smite thee.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
The smiting on this web site is getting out of hand lately. I've been smitted, smoten and smuttered at least three times this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:dizzy2:
Ahhh you got the tripple s huh? Well let me tell you, no means no, even in the TMF chatrooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
pervert.
'Yays' top 'nays' by 39:28. Bebekung Mampa Hoonanooga withdraw from world till next avatar.
:kiss2::sultan::kiss2:
Damn you. Just when I had a witty reply you edit the post :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
F**** again! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Those are highly illogical points, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
1) If there were "intelligent designs", then you would have "life" or other creatures in other planets.
2) Billions of years of evolution. That's a shade long for something intelligent. Why not spontaneous creation? Because evolution is random as well as mutation.
3) All these energy and matter in the whole universe just to create "life" in (what I usually refer to as) a 'ball of nothing' (nee' earth). The earth is so tiny, calling it a blip is an astounding exaggeration. So your god is ineffiecient too? ("Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent" and 'ineffiecient' lol ~;) Excellent!).
There's no proof of god either. Watch, people refer to him as human-shaped. That's because he's patterned to man's likeness as imagined by people.Quote:
Since there is no proof of a multiverse, then we have no way of knowing if the theory is true.
Exactly, that's why it is random. The earth is full of freaks. It's all an accident if you will. Random collision of molecules, random chemical reactions fueled by the sun. Life evolved over billions of years.Quote:
A number of revered, and esteemed astrophysicists have shown that these laws are so finely-tuned (should they be in the slightest bit different, this wouldn't be here), that it cannot be random, and that there must be/have been a Creator.
Can you win a lottery in 50 years if you buy 10 tickets a day? Likely not. If anybody can win a lottery instantly, then it's not random. Fact is, it is random.
If life happened spontaneously, then call me converted, but no, it had to take billions of years in a little planet called earth that is insignicant compared to the rest of the universe. That's random!
~:) :charge:
Well, I don't know if anybody has made this point, but I don't have the time or the inclination to read through 4 pages of "yes there is", "no there isn't", although the Frag & Aid show is entertaining, as always.
But for strictly selfish reasons, you should find a way to come to grips with a higher being. I'm going to make the Soren Kirkegaard argument. There's only four possible scenarios:
1) There's no God and you're an atheist
2) There's no God but you believed there was
3) There is a God, but you were an atheist.
4) There is a God, and you believed in him.
Of all possible outcomes, only 1 is positive. If you're an atheist, you'll either never know you're right, or you're going to have a lot of explaining to do. If you're a believer, you'll either never know you were wrong, or you're on the good foot coming into the after life.
What'd be really funny would be if there was an afterlife, but no-one got the right religion... so everyone went to hell apart from that insane guy from Aliens.
That reminds me of a show by rowan atkinson, where he plays the devil. He calls for the christians: 'sorry the jews were right' ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
I'd be fuming if the scientologists were right in the end. Eternal damnation would kind of lose its bad side in such a heaven.
I'm not sure what Scientoligists believe in for an afterlife. And this is why I think you're judged by your own conscience. That's not the same thing as moral relativisim, because in that, as long as you can rationalize your behaviors, they're not immoral. I'm talking about what you held to be right & wrong in your heart of hearts. I cannot imagine a God with any sort of mercy or understanding acting in any other way.
Not points, facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
You just contradicted yourself here. Read through points one and three...Quote:
1) If there were "intelligent designs", then you would have "life" or other creatures in other planets.
2) Billions of years of evolution. That's a shade long for something intelligent. Why not spontaneous creation? Because evolution is random as well as mutation.
3) All these energy and matter in the whole universe just to create "life" in (what I usually refer to as) a 'ball of nothing' (nee' earth). The earth is so tiny, calling it a blip is an astounding exaggeration. So your god is ineffiecient too? ("Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent" and 'ineffiecient' lol ~;) Excellent!).
Read Genesis, or perhaps the whole pentateuch, it all makes good reading. God created man in His own image.Quote:
There's no proof of god either. Watch, people refer to him as human-shaped. That's because he's patterned to man's likeness as imagined by people.
Life may have evolved (note that I am an agnostic, by-the-by) but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse, for which there is as much proof as God. Only then shall the chemical reactions and laws of science be random.Quote:
Exactly, that's why it is random. The earth is full of freaks. It's all an accident if you will. Random collision of molecules, random chemical reactions fueled by the sun. Life evolved over billions of years.
Can you win a lottery in 50 years if you buy 10 tickets a day? Likely not. If anybody can win a lottery instantly, then it's not random. Fact is, it is random.
If life happened spontaneously, then call me converted, but no, it had to take billions of years in a little planet called earth that is insignicant compared to the rest of the universe. That's random!
:charge: :duel:
Quietus,
Where did anyone in this thread hold to a terra-centric universe? Of course intelligent life could (and probably does) exist on other planets. Assuming they were advanced enough to be capable of inter-stellar travel, they almost certainly would observe our communications prior to an initial contact, and almost certainly would (rightfully) conclude that the experience would generate global termoil. We're simply not ready for that level of eye-opening. As much as I thought they were the coolest, I cannot believe a species like the Klingons would ever come about... that's a LOT of effort, energy & resources spent, just to go find new people to kill. This is why I don't believe in all of this 'abduction' business, I believe we're under quarantine.
But then a lot of people who are really good people but judge themselves by too high standards wouldn't be good enough for heaven. For example "I saved 1000 people from burning buildings but there was one little girl I couldn't save and I'll blame myself forever"...Quote:
I'm not sure what Scientoligists believe in for an afterlife. And this is why I think you're judged by your own conscience. That's not the same thing as moral relativisim, because in that, as long as you can rationalize your behaviors, they're not immoral. I'm talking about what you held to be right & wrong in your heart of hearts. I cannot imagine a God with any sort of mercy or understanding acting in any other way.
Also you'll have people with really bad moral codes going to paradise. Some people are really really bad people through and through. These people would be rewarded over people who do bad deads occasionally but know they've done wrong.
Personally I quite like the Grim Fandango idea of an afterlife. Anyone who's played the game must surely agree. "The Gate opens, the Gate closes, it does not help."
but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse,
i don't understand how the laws of science being precise can't be random without a multiverse ?
Where? Give something concrete, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Billions of years of evolution vs. Spontaneous creation in a flash. As a human being that is undeniably smart, which do you prefer? If god made that choice of 'billions of years of evolution' over spontaneous creation. Is he being petty or inefficient? There was no plan, it's random.Quote:
You just contradicted yourself here. Read through points one and three...
Every single feature of our body resulted from mutation (which is random), there no outright plan or formula. Our features evolved over time, just like the chicken's features evolved over time or any other creature in this planet, even a virus, which by the way is NOT living.Quote:
Read Genesis, or perhaps the whole pentateuch, it all makes good reading. God created man in His own image.
Whichever mutation is favored in an environment is selected for to survive and reproduce, that's all. If trees in a certain island produce only tough seed that is bird food, those who have large enough beaks will strive, those will smaller beaks will be outcompeted and eventually wither.
God did not plan that. That's just evolution and mutation which are both random. Now, if twenty years from now, those trees were all burned out by an accidental lightning and subsequent fire. Then smaller plants that replaced those trees have small seeds that are too tiny to be picked by large beaks. Guess who will strive then? The bird with beaks that can pick.
God has nothing to do with it at all. Just because we are currently at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we will stay there. The dinosaurs used to be the main predators too. Where are they now? Certainly, god didn't create those beast in his image.
What I meant by random is by billions of years of chemical reaction. There's a lot of energy from the sun driving all these chemical reactions. There's no blueprint from the start. We're just an anomaly. An aberration. Evolution is `winging-it`.Quote:
Life may have evolved (note that I am an agnostic, by-the-by) but the laws of science are so precise, that should any one of them have been different, then this universe would not exist. So it can't be random unless there is a multiverse, for which there is as much proof as God. Only then shall the chemical reactions and laws of science be random.
:charge: :duel:
:charge:
That was on South Park once. God's chosen religion was Mormonism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
One can also look at the issue of god's existence from a sociological and historical perspective. Religions, as expressions of a culture's norms and beliefs, were undoubtedly shaped after a very long time. However, this leaves every separate culture on the planet with their own Gods and their own forms of orthodoxy. Religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism are illegitimate in the sense that they do not help reinforce cultural norms by reiterating the beliefs, values and morals of the culture; rather, they are culturally subversive and seek to create their own values and morals. This is ironically another case of creation versus evolution - Paganism evolved, Monotheism was created.
..I know I had a point when I started this rant, but it's gone now..
I personally believe there are other "living" creatures in other pockets of the universe. however, I do not believe they are anything like use. Our line of evolution is unique and so will their evolution. Heck, not even carbon-based.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Do you know what "intelligent design" means? It means a 'God' designed everything from the start and he knows the final product, which is US. Now that is the dumbest, most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
A being that powerful will opt for spontaneous creation instead. But no, there are no spontaneous creation because there is no god. As a lowly human being, do you use a remote control or do you stand up all the time? snail-mail or e-mail?
What's the purpose of Mars? Venus, Mercury, Pluto? 8 out of 9 in our solar system have no life whatsoever. Where's the "intelligent design"?
I think you're vastly oversimplifying, and there's no need to belittle people who don't subscribe to your theories 100%. Okay, I'm done with this conversation... clearly Quietus already has all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is ridiculous :dizzy2:
Don Corleone, no, I'm calling the "intelligent design" term (which is the by-word of the moment) ridiculous. Perhaps, you'd like to google it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
No, no, I'm not calling you. ~:)
That many astrophysicists believe that there is a Creator, because they believe the laws are so "finely-tuned", that they cannot simply be random.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
or
that there is not a Creator, and that there are an infinite number of universes each with different laws, so the existence of this universe is inevitable.
And that there is as much proof for a multiverse, or the lack of God, as there is for an abundance of God
To be honest, I prefer Spontaneous creation. I don't like to think that my ancestors used to be apes and lived up trees...Quote:
Billions of years of evolution vs. Spontaneous creation in a flash. As a human being that is undeniably smart, which do you prefer? If god made that choice of 'billions of years of evolution' over spontaneous creation. Is he being petty or inefficient? There was no plan, it's random.
Is there not also the possibility that God created the laws of science, to create the universe as he sees fit? He started the ball rolling, and now it is in motion until it comes to his chosen design? Maybe to God, billions of years pass quickly...
No, only man was created in his own image. As I said, read Genesis. The theory of evolution still has not been fully proven, by-the-by. Could it also not be that evolution is God's way of finding the best creature. Perhaps God creates a change whenever He feeld one is necessary, perhaps He kills of species which he doesn't like because they are not suited.Quote:
Every single feature of our body resulted from mutation (which is random), there no outright plan or formula. Our features evolved over time, just like the chicken's features evolved over time or any other creature in this planet, even a virus, which by the way is NOT living.
Whichever mutation is favored in an environment is selected for to survive and reproduce, that's all. If trees in a certain island produce only tough seed that is bird food, those who have large enough beaks will strive, those will smaller beaks will be outcompeted and eventually wither.
God did not plan that. That's just evolution and mutation which are both random. Now, if twenty years from now, those trees were all burned out by an accidental lightning and subsequent fire. Then smaller plants that replaced those trees have small seeds that are too tiny to be picked by large beaks. Guess who will strive then? The bird with beaks that can pick.
God has nothing to do with it at all. Just because we are currently at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we will stay there. The dinosaurs used to be the main predators too. Where are they now? Certainly, god didn't create those beast in his image.
Chemical reactions are not necessarily random, so billions of years' worth of chemical reaction are not necessarily random either.Quote:
What I meant by random is by billions of years of chemical reaction. There's a lot of energy from the sun driving all these chemical reactions. There's no blueprint from the start. We're just an anomaly. An aberration. Evolution is `winging-it`.
It's random because molecules collide randomly.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
The universe is huge and expanding, the earth is too tiny to be God's plan all along.Quote:
To be honest, I prefer Spontaneous creation. I don't like to think that my ancestors used to be apes and lived up trees...
Is there not also the possibility that God created the laws of science, to create the universe as he sees fit? He started the ball rolling, and now it is in motion until it comes to his chosen design?
You're giving human characteristics to god. Even the way human senses. ~:)Quote:
Maybe to God, billions of years pass quickly...
No. Every part of our body mutated randomly and evolved slowly.Quote:
No, only man was created in his own image.
It's already proven genetically.Quote:
As I said, read Genesis. The theory of evolution still has not been fully proven, by-the-by.
Survival of the fittest but god has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Could it also not be that evolution is God's way of finding the best creature.
All the forces around us are already present. There's no divine hand. If you throw an object in the air, it will keep on moving, unless it is acted upon by another force which is in our instance is gravity.Quote:
Perhaps God creates a change whenever He feeld one is necessary, perhaps He kills of species which he doesn't like because they are not suited.
Different molecules collide randomly in nature. There's no special collision. ~:)Quote:
Chemical reactions are not necessarily random, so billions of years' worth of chemical reaction are not necessarily random either.
Yaaay atheists. This must be one of the few times we're in the majority. Good to be around so many fellow heathens!
~:grouphug:
Right-ho, first off, I don't know where you get half of the stuff you are replying to, such as the forces being present, the molecules colliding, Earth being too tiny, and giving God human characteristics.
Anyhoo, Molecules may appear to collide randomly, but are guided by the endless laws, such as the infamous Laws of Motion, the theories of General and Special relativity (which also include the Laws of Gravity). If one does physics, and sees the equations, and how everything fits together, then it can hardly be sheer randomness that produced this universe. There surely must be either an inevitable combination produced within the multiverse, or a finely-tuned by a Creator. We can predict the motion of molecules, disproving their random movements.
I don't know what that is about a "special collision", and I don't see how molecules appearing to collide randomly has anything to do with the revelations in astrophysics I have pointed out.
And also, it is a popular scientific belief that the survival of the fittest theory is also wrong. Read The Selfish Gene for further information.
Which part are you unsure of?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
That's not what I meant. I meant, all molecules do collide randomly. Elements collide randomly.Quote:
Anyhoo, Molecules may appear to collide randomly, but are guided by the endless laws, such as the infamous Laws of Motion, the theories of General and Special relativity (which also include the Laws of Gravity). If one does physics, and sees the equations, and how everything fits together, then it can hardly be sheer randomness that produced this universe.
What do you mean by multiverse? You have a large number of mass or elements. It's random.Quote:
There surely must be either an inevitable combination produced within the multiverse, or a finely-tuned by a Creator. We can predict the motion of molecules, disproving their random movements.
Well, "life" as we know it is just a sophiticated set of chemical reaction that has built up over time. If you want to be specific with these revelations, feel free. All I know is elements and molecules collide randomly. Collision is different from binding by the way, if that's what you mean.Quote:
I don't know what that is about a "special collision", and I don't see how molecules appearing to collide randomly has anything to do with the revelations in astrophysics I have pointed out.
Sorry, that's already a mistake. Evolution and survival of the fittest are sound principles. We are the greatest proof to this, we already own the earth!Quote:
And also, it is a popular scientific belief that the survival of the fittest theory is also wrong. Read The Selfish Gene for further information.
Can you tell me what the "Selfish Gene" is saying in short?
Yaaay atheists. This must be one of the few times we're in the majority. Good to be around so many fellow heathens!
Was there ever any doubt?
Exactly my thoughts about Molecules, Malcolm.
There´s not much in science that seems to be random and even if there is, maybe we just didn´t find the right law. 2000 years ago there was not as much scientific knowldge as today, but nobody said "Everything is random and that proves there is no god". Just because we can´t explain something doesn´t mean there is no explanation at all.
Ah yes, and why does it have to be a creator?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Why are these astrophysicists so arogant as to think they figured everything out and everything is in perfect order?
When you say that the Earth is tiny. I nkow that, everyone know that. But it may just be one small part of the whole. One small part of God's plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science.Quote:
That's not what I meant. I meant, all molecules do collide randomly. Elements collide randomly.
Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity)Quote:
What do you mean by multiverse? You have a large number of mass or elements. It's random.
It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on. The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain. But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,Quote:
Sorry, that's already a mistake. Evolution and survival of the fittest are sound principles. We are the greatest proof to this, we already own the earth!
Can you tell me what the "Selfish Gene" is saying in short?
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive.
In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted.
I don't know. I just know that these is one of their reasonings. It seemed silly to me at first, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
that's because it is silly. obviously these revered, esteemed astrophysicists can't look at simple probabilities without getting all starry eyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
They have their arguments, but to me, there is as much reason to suggest that there is a Creator as there is to suggest that there is not a Creator, so Agnosticism is the chosen path for me.
Why not I ask? Things in science are goverened by rules are they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Evolution is not totally random, neither is anything else...they are governed by the rules of physics or some other rule. Therefore, can not the universe be governed by rules? Our lives are governed by things like the laws of motion and perhaps in the future Quantum Mechanics...I don't presume to understand such laws but they do exist and it is proven...thus is there not order?
Perfect order is in the eye of the beholder...it depends whether you can see the strands in seemingly meaningless data...all the things I learn by reading AS papers and A level papers in physics before GCSE level...nothing ~D
Haha!!!
Non-believers - 44
Believers - 33
I don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical.
Just because there are rules doesn't make them have order. Evolution is completely random. Just because we think that we have figured out some rules and things that hapen often doesn't mean these rules were made by someone neither does it mean we cannot bend these rules. Just like the man flying. Gravity would have you think it's impossible but there you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ah_dut
And it was another set of rules, referred to collectively as 'Bernouli's princple' that made flight possible. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
The defintion of random, according to my friend Mr. Webster, is 'lacking aim or method, purposeless, haphazard". Defintion 2 "Not unform, of different sizes". Definition 3 "from statistics, of, pertaining to, or characterizing a set of items every member of which has an equal chance of occurring or of occurring with a particular frequency".
Clearly, definition 3 would be the most appropriate in this case, and it does not define evolution. All outcomes are not equally likely, and there are some clearly observable patterns that impact the outcome, such as weather. Just because the outcome is not deterministic doesn't mean it's random.
You guys on the "No God" side need to be careful not to hinge all of your arguments on the "universe is chaotic & random". You certainly should see that the arguments that around an ordered universe and around the existence of God are two independent considerations. I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).
Hehe, ok Corleone, I'll bite your argument. Even though I don't agree with it I can see why you are posing it. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.
Rules are not the same as order. Rules can be bent by other rules that we don't yet know. What we don't know is infinite. Every rule is bendable.
Does that make sense? I think it does.
God has not created rules. There's no indication for that. God's existence is the eyes of most believers comes from some sort of prophet who does a couple of crazy tricks (Jesus turning water into wine etc...) , NOT science.
So we are winning again. May it be that one day God's believers will be extinct and us rational human beings(liberals ~D ) inherit the earth.
After the rapture, when we're all brought home, you're welcome to it. Based on what I've read, you might want to find someplace else to vacate to, however. ~D (And before every jumps me up, that's a joke, I personally don't believe in an 'End of Days'. I take it as an allegory for the end of YOUR days).
You completely missed my point BP. I wasn't offering the argument on the ordered vs. disordered universe as any kind of statement on the existence of God. Quite the contrary, I have several times, including in that post, allowed as how any answer to either question is congrous to any answer to the other.
I can think of working models for any of the four possible combinations (ordered universe/chaotic & God/no God).
I agree i don't see why whether the universe is choatic or not has a bearing on whether theres a god ?
Thank you Griz. Holy crap! I think that's the first time you've ever agreed with anything I've had to say. ~:cheers: God, I must be catching that Socialist bug! EEEEEEWWWWWW ~:eek: That, or you're catching the 'Conservative' bug, muhahahaha. ~D
*looks at Biochemistry degree* *clicks NO*
Sorry, but you´re not winning anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
You say that believers just follow someone who did some crazy tricks.
And you follow scientists who work with rules, but you said yourself that every rule is bendable. If rules are bendable and scientists work with them, how can you say that science can be believed, maybe all the rules they use are wrong?
You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.
there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?
You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.
Don´t get me wrong, I like physics very much, and I´m not saying it´s all wrong, but there are topics where even scientists can only guess and have no proof for what´s going on.
An example from our physics-lessons:
If you have a screen to display positions of incoming photons and then you send single photons through a single hole, one after the other, you will see on the screen that they arrive just as if you would spray paint through that hole.
Now if you send these single photons through two holes, you will get an interference-figure on your screen, even though you sent all photons alone.
Can anyone tell me how a single photon can know if there is just one hole and it can do what it wants or if there are two holes and it has to create the interference-figure?
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation for this other than micro-tiles having their own rules we can´t understand.
:bow:
I never said what people should or should not do. What right do you have to judge me on things I didn't say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Did I mention any theories such as big bang? NO! I was talking about things like attraction and thermodynamics, not the far out stuff. Again you have no right to judge me on this.Quote:
You say that religion is based on thoughts or stories that cannot be proven, but the theory about the big bang has not been proven yet as well, that´s why it´s called a theory.
I didn't!Quote:
there have been a lot of scientific "proofs" that were later found to be wrong, so how can you say that today´s scientists are right?
I don't!Quote:
You cannot see science as the ultimate source of wisdom.
You might not realize this but I don't give a crap about science. I trust philosophy more then any physics. I was simply responding to Don Corleone's silly argument that the world has rules that are now accepted and that therefore god must exist.
Of course like the coward he is he then backed off saying that there was no relation and that he wasn't trying to make any point at all. BS! He was trying to prove exactly that and he failed.
I didn´t want to judge you, although the thought of that is quite attractive. ~;) ~D
Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me, but then again the later parts of my post were omnidirectional, not only aimed at you.Quote:
I didn't!
If you were never talking about the big bang, but trust philosophy(which to me is like trusting The Holy Bible or Quran), what does philosophy say about how life started/was created/popped up?
Don't you have better ways to waste your useless energy then correct things that aren't even crooked?Quote:
Yes, you didn´t, you just made the impression on me,
I trust trust modern philosophy which you probably never heard of, but if you want take the ones on my sig as you start into consideration.
Philosophers don't bother with the technicalities like physics because that would make them scientists wouldn't it? They look at the big picture in terms of the human perspective although they never ignore physics when it comes to the possibility of being contradicted by it.
BP, look man, not for nothing, but your insane ramblings mean very, very little to me. If you want to call me a coward, or any other name you can think of, have it. I'll even help you come up with some original ones because you seem to have this lack of ability to form your own thoughts, though you do parrot what you read quite well, I'll give you that.
Before you start though, you do realize of course, that other people have followed what I've been saying through the course of the thread and recognize that at no point was I arguing that an ordered (or a disordered for that matter) universe offers an iota of a clue to the existence of God. If it were a priori knowledge that said God exists, it would offer insight into his nature, but as I said, physical phenomenon can not be used in an argument to prove or disprove God's existence.
Now, where were we... ah yes, you were calling me a coward and misrepresenting my argument. Unfortunately, as usual when you do your own thinking, you weren't doing a very good job. Let me help...
You could call me: chicken, weakling, yellow, lilly-livered, sissy, jellyfish, mouse, poltroon (that's what Khafir meant, good to know) the ever classic 'fraidy-cat' , or punk. That's about all I can come up with that are still politcially correct. But, just to make sure you get your point across, and again, as you're not copying this out of a book, you'll probably need some help with original thoughts at first, maybe you should add North Carolina residents, Christians and cowards to your death list when you become generalissimo. Is that the title you've taken for yourself, or should we refer to you in another form? Grand Poobah :sultan: perhaps?
So basically you have no point you are trying to make. Well thanks for making that as unclear as possible.
Anyways atheists win! Hooray! :balloon2: :balloon2: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~;) ~;) ~:cheers: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :balloon2:
Well, I'm glad you finally got around to asking me what I actually meant, even if in a roundabout way.
You had said that the "law" of gravity was trumped when man learned how to fly, thus proving that there was no order tot he universe. I answered that the Bernouli principle, a very orderly, defined principle, explains the phenomenon of flight to a "T". My most sincere apologies if you confused that explanation for evangalism.
Tiny as in insignificant and isolated. How many other lifeforms do you see?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.Quote:
Firstly, molecules are not elements. But nevertheless, they do not collide randomly. They may appear to collide randomly, but they follow the laws of science.
~:confusedQuote:
Sorry, perhaps I should have explained earlier. The theoretical multiverse is another sort of univers, which theoretically contains an infinite number on universes (or a very very very very very very large number of them, anyway), and each universed therein has different laws of science (e.g. here, we have Potential energy = Mass * Gravity * squared Height, whereas another universe in the multiverse may have PE = M/2 * H * square root of gravity)
Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.Quote:
It is similar to survival of the fittest, and survival of the most well adapted. It is still evolution, but not the more Darwinian one of survival of the fittest. Basically, it says that everybodies genes (down to the allele) try to have themselves continued on.
Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).Quote:
The weaker genes do bad things, such as kill the host, the person, or stop them having children so that the gene doesn't continue (which is one of the reasons sodomy couldn't be genetic). The stronger gene continues on down the chain.
Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.
Oh no. There no good or bad genes per se. The multitude of genes make up an entire organism. It's not just one trait, it's a combination of all traits.Quote:
But the bad genes keep on developing over time in mutations, or in recessive genes. It is not a case of one animal has wings, so it can get off the ground and fly to escape predators, and the other doesn't, so that it gets killed and becomes extinct as is in survival of the most well adapted. It is a case of survival of a gene within its own species ; if the gene isn't flawed, it will continue on in babies,
but the baby may not have the trait, because the gene may be recessive.
Whatever is phenotypically useful in traits are generally selected for, especially is smaller animals. Here's a popular example:
Two insects: One brown, black but the same specie. Trees in the surrounding area are brown. The brown insects due expression of the genes will survive because it can hide in the trees with the same brown color. The black ones are picked off by birds because they are visible. Now, do you call that good or bad? It's just a selective process which is random.
Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.
Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.Quote:
In the end it says that everyone is selfish, but that is besides the point. The book is hard to explain, but when you read it it is much clearer, and it begins to look like survival of the most well adapted.
Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it. ~:)
Your 'physics' teacher is a Moron!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
He should not be teaching physics if he hasn't heard of quantum physics, photoelectric effect, Uncertainty Principle, Schrodingers Equation.Quote:
wave-particle duality
The inherent contradiction in the way energy behaves. At the turn of the 20th century, it was believed that light was electromagnetic waves and electrons were particles. By the 1930s, it was determined that light behaves as if it were made up of particles (photons) as well as waves, and electrons also behave like waves. This has driven scientists to drink and is one of the most puzzling phenomena in the universe
PS Physicians may or may not understand that there is a model called wave-particle duality but Physicists should.
[Physicians = A person licensed to practice medicine; a medical doctor.]
Maybe I should have mentioned that or I explained it the wrong way, but he knows that, and so do I.
If a photon is in flight, it behaves like a wave, if it interferes with matter it behaves like a particle, but what is it now? How can it be a wave and a particle at the same time? when moving through two holes, it behaves like a wave and you get interference, but a wave would probably not make a single dot on the screen.
And please don´t insult my physics teacher just because I can´t explain. ~;) ~:rolleyes:
I don't know what you are trying to say here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
We can predict collisions, you know, hence they cannot be randomQuote:
You are mixing up collision and bonding. Two different things. Collisions are all naturally random.
I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.Quote:
Genes do no have choices. Mutation is random.
I know, I didn't say that it wasn't. In your example, the brown gene would be good, and the blue gene the bad gene.Quote:
Good and bad is relative to the situation. (See my example of insects below).
I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.Quote:
Genes are passed along equally to the progeny with the same probability of distribution. It's called "Equal Segregation". Nothing is partial in the genetic level. The selection occurs when the genes are phenotypically expressed as a physical trait.
Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...Quote:
Now the insects DO NOT pick where they should be brown or black. The surviving browns will thrive more because more of the 'brown color gene' will be present in the population.
Guy, you have understand that mutation is random. When the pigment gene mutates to express another color, it happens randomly and by chance.
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.
I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.Quote:
Well, if you find an example or excerpt of what you're trying to say from the book, just post it. ~:)
I voted yes, I do believe in a god, or a 'purpose' or 'design' to creation, of course I cannot prove this, but my reasoning is pretty similar to the astrophysicists; why is the universe the way it is if it was created completely random, where do the laws of physics come from ? Personally I find the idea that the universe just *was*, and the laws of physics just *are* what they are, without a reason, to be an equally ridiculous assumption as that there is a God that designed it all.
I also highly doubt that evolution, as it is viewed today, could really lead to as many different and advanced species as it did. Even biologist admit that there have been some 'leaps' in evolution, that can't really be explained.
I'm sure one day they can be explained, but isn't it a terrible coincidence that the mechanism that causes them even exists ?
It's also a fallacy to assume that being an atheist somehow makes you more intelligent than a believer. I know blue collar atheists that can barely read, yet Einstein (and a whole lot of other great scientists) believe(d) there was a God.
I don't follow any religion though, for various reasons I'm not going into here.
Wise post. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
-------------------------
In fact, I don't have christian parents, and I've not grown up with christianity.
I believe in some kind of god, in a way that looks the most like the catholics do. But I think in all religions there are some mistakes. God has been misunderstood many times in my eyes, that's why I don't follow any religion entirely.
:bow:
EDIT: sorry for the insult that was in this post earlier people, though it wasn't meant in the way it looked like, I deleted it now.
:stop: Inflammatory remarks are uncalled for :stare:
Why do you insist that collisions is not random? Can anyone predict lottery numbers? The numbers are random too.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.Quote:
I don't mean that they have choices, I mean that their attributes, be they physical or some such other thing, shall cause something to happen to the host. Say, if a gene has a trait which causes cancer, the host shall die, so the gene does not continue. If a gene prevents cancer, then the chances the host will die of cancer are less, so the gene can continue on. More-or-less it means that the genes are only concerned with their own existence, and that the gene can continue on. It is survival of the gene, the individual, as opposed to survival of the most well adapted.
Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.Quote:
I know, but the genes which do bad things would die off, because the hosts would die off.
Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.
Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.
Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.Quote:
Rarely is it that they happen randomly and by chance. Oft there is a change in the environment which causes the change. This has been proven. Who knows, this change could be caused by God...
We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.Quote:
Also, in your example, the blue gene may only be recessive, and so while there may be more brown insects, blue insects would continually pop up, contrary to the principle survival of the most well adapted.
Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to. ~:)Quote:
I'm sure I would, if it wasn't so long. What I said sums up a few chapters, especially since the author goes off at the occassional tangent. Also, it would be breach of copy-right laws.
Collisions are not like the lottery numbers. And, hypothetically, if you knew the exact temperature of the room, weight of the balls, time between balls releasing and balls selecting, and God knows what else, one could predict the lottery numbers. Collisions can be predicted, they are not like the lottery numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Yeah, I don't know what this means.Quote:
A gene is a chunk of dna that codes for proteins (dna -> rna -> proteins). Genes have specific funtions. If a gene mutates, chances are the protein that it now codes is no longer functional, because the coding is now different due to the mutation.
Increase the risk of cancer, then.Quote:
Please don't use the word 'hosts'. You are your genes. What your genes are is you. Genes code for proteins that are produced by your body. Your dna is you. Eversince from birth, all the proteins in your body is synthesized from dna coding which are called genes.
Genes also do not do bad things, but they can be damaged. Our dna has an automatic repair mechanisms that fixes these. A damaged gene may be one obstacle removed from a pathway to cancer. However, our body has several layers of defense that prevents this from happening. It's more complicated than you think.
Cancer is not inherited. Probability can be higher than usual, but it's never ever a certainty it will occur.
When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.
The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.
Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is randomQuote:
Rarely? No, no, that's a basic principle of genetics. You cannot refute that. The cause doesn't really matter, because the mutation itself is random. Mutation occurs in the coding of the dna. If any of the original code changes, it's called mutation.
No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blueQuote:
We're talking about number of alleles in a gene pool. If you only have brown insects mating, then only brown insects will be produced.
I did. I would begin quoting little bitties from the book should it not be sitting on the shelf of Blackness Library.Quote:
Feel free to summarize any permutation of the argument if you want to. ~:)
Just out of interest, might I ask of how you are so knowledgeable in the way of genetics?
It was harsh but I based it on your statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Stated that your teacher said physicists (I assume that is what you meant) have no explanation. Which is totally incorrect. They have an explanation that is more correct then Newtons Laws of Motion.Quote:
Well our teacher said that physicians have no explanation
All matter is a wave and a particle. The larger particles are massive compared with their wave form.
Having the properties of a wave and a particle is like having weight and mass.
Objects can have more then one property.
What is interesting with quantum sized particles is that the measurement of one brings a significant uncertainty to the measurement of another property.
Which also links to this
There will also be a portion of unpredictability due to the uncertainty principle, however the uncertainty is essentially inversly proportional to the mass of the object. With the size of the lottery balls the uncertaintly is going to be so tiny as not to be bothered with (ie you could do the lottery for billions of years and the quantum effects would not visible effect your predictions) So lottery balls act essentially in a Newtonian bounded situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
1) Technically: I can't exactly remember Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. From what I remember, you cannot predict the location and momentum of an object at the same time. You can get close to the location at the expense of momentum You can get close to the momentum at the expense of certainty of its location.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Since momentum = mass x velocity, the bigger the mass the bigger the momentum, hence less the certainty on it's location. The smaller the mass, the less certainty on it's momentum.
2) You just said you know that genetic mutation is random.
Well, you're saying you can also predict genetic mutation, since physical collisions cause molecular changes. When I say random, I mean it happens randomly.Quote:
I know that genetic mutation is random
That's ok. Dna is made up of small units called nucleotides. These nucleotides are differentiated by their bases: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine.Quote:
Yeah, I don't know what this means.
Coding in dna works in triplets, hence the "triplet code". These triplets eventually code for a specific Amino Acids (a basic unit of protein). Say, a small chunk of dna code is this:
GCA-CAC (coding for Alanine and Histidine).
The Cytosine is replaced by Guanine. Now you have:
GCA-CAG (coding for Alanine and Glutamine). The protein is now slightly changed.
You can also have deletions and additions. As you can imagine this "frameshift" will also change the codes.
Definitely. ~:)Quote:
Increase the risk of cancer, then.
Symbiosis means two separate organisms, but your dna is instrinsic to you as you are instrinsic to your dna.Quote:
When I say host, I only mean the living thing to which the genes are a part, possibly like a symbiot (sp) and host, one cannot exist without the other.
The words are very broad, it can mean anything.Quote:
The concept of a "good" gene and a "bad" gene is defined in the book, and takes about half a chapter to define, so I shall leave it to you to read.
Mutation occurs in the genetic level, see above. The phenotypic change arising from this we can seen in the traits.Quote:
Sorry, I meant that mutation in beings, as in survival of the most well adapted. This mutation is not random. I know that genetic mutation is random
That is correct, specifically, 25 percent chance. But, 75% brown. ~:)Quote:
No, that's definitely wrong. If the blue-colour gene is recessive, and two brown-coloured insects both have the blue-colour gene, then their offspring has a chanc of being blue
Thank you, Quietus, I didn't know much of that stuff about genetics. You are obviously a learned man (or woman, since I have no way of knowing over t'internet, but I assume man). I am not fit to argue genetics, since I have decided not to do Biology in school, so my knowledge of genetics is brief.
It appears that our debate over theology has become a debate about genetics, which, as I have said, I am not fit to debate (which is why I wished to know of your experience in the field).
I shall try and get this back on track to a theological debate, with a joke...
St. Peter and God were playing golf one day. Peter teed of first and hit a
pretty good shot straight down the fairway. God teed off next and hit a
terrible shot heading for the rough. Then out of the blue, a squirrel caught
the ball and ran with it to the fairway. Then a bird swooped down and
took the ball It dropped the ball in on a turtle in a water hazard. The turtle
then put the ball in the hole and God got a hole in one. Peter turned to
God and said, "Are we gonna play golf or are we gonna f@ck around?!!"
The point is that seemingly un related events may be the work of God.
That's just as legitimate a method of reasoning as Family Guy satirising a teacher's arrest because he couldn't teach the evolutionary theory of "Einstein going back in time and ejaculating in primordial ooze", which prompted a response of "this stupid country..."Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Look, I'm not trying to prove the existence of God, but prove that one can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Yet.
The number of disputable assumptions are endless, just count for me the number of ways in which an atome cannot be splitted.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
More Grand Inquisitors must be recruted! The zeal of this forum is slipping. Only mass burnings will convince the heretic of the Almighty's power and wrath.
The Pope used to be the head of the Inquisition, you know, but they don't call it the Inquisition any more...
super theist, but religion ***** is on a mission to save the zeal
Now it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm