Thread: God

>>if a = b, and a = c, then c != b. Nobody needs to be taught this stuff.

Umm... You did catch that this was an example of faulty logic, yes? In that case c most definatly equals b. I was attempting to point out that no grasp of the science is required to spot logistical flaws in reasoning.

>>We can say that god created time and has always existed.

We could just as easily say that the universe always existed. Whats the difference?

>>They are forced to say that science doesn't know everything.

Science is not an entity. Science is study. Get it? Its the process used to determine how things work. You're obviously not grasping this. Its not complicated. Science = method of learning; A way of gaining knowledge. ... Didnt you read my previous post? In case you missed it, I'll quote myself for your reading pleasure.

Also, I'm sick of science being thought of as the opposition to religion. Science is merely the pursuit of the truth and explanations for the universe. It just so happens that what we've learned, has contradicted what religion has taught/believed. Nobody freaks when something new is discovered that contradicts a previous concept, unless that concept is a religious one. Why do you suppose this is?

I'm not anti-religious. I'm pro-truth.

>>If your premises are wrong then logic can't help you.

Uhh... yes. Duh? Thats the point?

>>I doubt this. The universe is visibly moving which supports some sort of big bang theory.

So? This theory provides and explanation for the current state of the universe. There are no solid theories regarding what may have been before that point. Its basically pointless to attempt an explanation seeing as how theres no way of getting knowledge to the possible status of 'before the existance of the universe' .

>>I'm not attacking science but at some leve, particually about the big bang,it's just guess work.

Not really. There is lots of supporting evidence. Thats where the theories come from. Dont you people understand? Unlike religion, people that study these things dont make up a concept that they think is fun and then attempt to repel any contrary ideas. These people are merely studying a phenomenom and deriving conclusions based on what they find.

>>Not really. There is lots of supporting evidence. Thats where the theories come from. Dont you people understand? Unlike religion, people that study these things dont make up a concept that they think is fun and then attempt to repel any contrary ideas. These people are merely studying a phenomenom and deriving conclusions based on what they find.
<<

>Compare atomic theory in the 1800's to what is now.

I dont see how this statement relates to what was said by light@


> Nick: The universe is visibly moving which supports some sort of big bang theory.
> Nick: The Big bang stuft is guess work

Your contradicting yourself! The Big Bang Theory cannot be "guesswork" if there is evidence supporting it

>In 200 years, if the theory still holds, it will be much different
Whats wrong with that? Our theories improve as our methods of observation/gathering of data improve. That doesnt mean we should believe in random/irrational things that have _no_ evidence supporting them until science can prove definitively one way or the other

I remember a time, in the distant past, when the old board had died and the new had come to taken it's place...

mods killed crap like this!!! bloody hell! hasn't this thread died already, this isn't the first thread of it's kind, and it won't be the last. oh well

"We can say that god created time and has always existed"

Yea, and if we want we can say that a physical process of some kind created time and has always existed, Salvelinus' point still stands.

If God does not require a cause then neither does the big-bang, thus God is immediately made redundant.

If God does not require a cause then neither does the big-bang, thus God is immediately made redundant.

The universe is a physical entity, God however is not and thus the universe needs a cause well God does not.

Define "physical entity".

Your reasoning is circular:

God can't be a 'physical entity' because if he was, he would require a cause, and God does not require a cause because he is not a 'physical entity'.

Anyhow, if God is not a 'physical entity' then he cannot interact with 'physical entities' like...... people.

Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
The universe is a physical entity, God however is not and thus the universe needs a cause well God does not.

Not sure about the logic there, but ok for the sake of argument. Then god can't be detected by any means, thus god's existance is purely speculative, with no foundation in fact, reason or logic.

>>thus god's existance is purely speculative, with no foundation in fact, reason or logic.

Heh, sweet. I was getting tired of providing arguments anyhow. Isn't it better when they dig their own hole?

>>Your taking this too spiteful

Apologies. I'm getting frustrated trying to explain a point that has already been answered 100 times in this thread.

>>negation of for e > 0, there exist a delta d such that if x < d then f(x) < e.

Which would require an understanding of mathematical concepts to solve. The calculation itself is logical (being math and all) but the type of logic I was refering to was simple pattern recognition logic. The ability to detect irregularities in a series of events. i.e. 1) A conversation where someone contradicts oneself. 2) A circular statement. etc.

Whats wrong with that? Our theories improve as our methods of observation/gathering of data improve. That doesnt mean we should believe in random/irrational things that have _no_ evidence supporting them until science can prove definitively one way or the other

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better.

>I list of few in this post; macro-evolution is inevitable given
>micro-evolution, and micro-evolution can be seen in a lab + i
>give a link for 29 examples of evidence for macro-evolution.

Sorry, but I just simply don't have time right now to read through all that material. It is unfortunate, I know, but it is the truth.
However I will say, micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution; micro evolution is simple adaption to the environment around us, by using slightly altered versons of genes we already have; macro-evolution is a hypothetical and imaginary model where new genes are developed (There may be some good points further explaining macro-evolution in your favour among the link you provided, but as I said, I regrettably do not have the time to read through the whole thing)

>I do not know the reasoning, i'll have to ask one of my physics
>friends but even the creationists acknowledge the stars are
>millions of light years away so the 'proof' must be pretty simple
some creationists.
And by the way.. I hope you're not trying to imply that I should believe you based on the number of other people who do.. because i wouldn't consider that thinking for myself.

>Then you cannot posssibly be familiar with these arguments.
Actually, I have heard similar retorts, now that I think about it - but I don't remember hearing that one exactly.


>I WILL SHOW YOU why your arguments are not valid, if you
>approach the topic with the possibility of being wrong i can
>convince you that you are.
that all depends.. on whether I am wrong or not.

>Yes, he was. Scientists often are wrong, which is why we have
>a peer-review system to weed out wrong answers, and confirm
>right ones.
So even scientists who go into study with no bias (I should say little bias; because all people are always biased; it's inescapable) may possibly be wrong about things, and (fairly)often are; therefore we have a system to detect mistakes. right?

>'My' methods, are scientific methods, accepted by the most
>brilliant minds the world over. Your methods are nonsense
>methods, rejected by everyone bar the worlds idiots.
Was the man who measured nickel up on a mountain accepted by other scientists of his time? Just because it's accepted doesn't mean it's correct, even if the most intelligent people think it is; there might be things they simply don't know about, which factor into the equation.

>No physical evidence!? Are you denying 'micro-evolution' as well
>as 'macro-evolution'?
macro evolution has nothing to do with micro evolution. As I stated before, i don't have time to read through the link you provided, so if it has proof against what I just said, I'm sorry for not having the time to read it.

>What i'm saying is macro-evolution is logically inevitable if you
>accept micro-evolution.
I'm not a science student; however from what I know, micro evolution is simply remixing the currently present genes etc. which are present in an organism already, while macro-evolution is totally different; it actually brings new genes into the organism.

>As for evidence, heres 29 examples:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Again, I really am sorry I can't.

>If you accept mutation occurs, and you accept it can lead to a
>change in physical characteristics, and you accept that which
>physical characteristics are favourable depend on local
>environment, then you cannot possibly deny evolution!
you are talking about micro evolution(which is totally unconnected to macro) right?

>1) For a dog to grow feathers, many many many many mutations would have to occur not just one.
It was a general statement; has anyone ever seen or demonstrated an effect such as the dog.. whereby something NEW is introduced? it doesn't have to be a feather on a dog. It could be legs on a fish. whatever.

>2) They would not be usefull so they would never get selected for, so it would never happen.

Oh, I see.. so now it's the dog that decides what to evolve? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole idea behind (macro) evolution was that something mutates by chance, and *THEN* natural selection comes in.. if the mutation is usefull it is put to use and the mutated dog becomes "top dog" while, if the mutation is unsuccessful, the dog will probably die.

>You do not believe species can evolve yet you do believe species can change.

I believe that certain possibilities, which were already present - just not visible - will come to the surface.

>I'll tell you what happens; they both adapt (via micro-evolution)
>to their environments, their DNA becomes more and more
>different (via separate evolutionary adaptation and by genetic
>drift), at some point they become so different that they are no-
>longer genetically compatible, VOILA two separate species.

And is there proof of that phenomena?

>It doesn't matter how life originated
Oh.. well.. thanks for the input but.. it kind of does so.
You do know that is the whole entire question right?


>evolution explains how life changed over time
So Charles lied?

>I'm sure that life originated in the prebiotic
>soup of organic materials on Earth about 3.2 billion years ago
>(or originated somewhere else via a chemical process and was
>carried to Earth via a meteorite)
that's also known as "magic".. 1) you didn't answer the other question - "what is life" and 2) life does not come out of chemical reactions and rocks.


> because i reject the alternative
>which requires magic;
i.e. you decided that based on your beliefs?
What says God is magic, just because he doesn't conform to the physical laws he created?

>science has shown time and time and
>time again that supernatural explanations always lose out to
>deterministic explanations.
If there is no supernatural, explain how matter was created.
I believe one of the laws of Thermodynamics says something about "Matter cannot be created or destroyed"? Are you saying matter always was in existance?


>What is life? A self replicating chemical system capable of
>mutation. Proof? Errrr biology.
okay..

>One of the questions is totally irrelevant to evolution, namely
>how life formed, the other question is already well known, its no
>longer an interesting question, it used to be when people
>thought there was some fundamental divide between living and
>non-living matter, but now we know differently.
Oh enlightened one.. what in the world are you talking about? there's no fundamental difference between living and non-living matter? so life is just a chemical reaction? then why were you whining about God putting a man to death for working on the sabbath? all it is is stopping a chemical reaction.. man I'm glad I don't live near you.. you probably don't think there's anything wrong with murder either do you?

>WRONG, UTTERLY WRONG, there no such thing as "better", we
>are NOT getting "better"
so we're no better than an amoeba? okay.. sure.. I believe you.. amoebas have discussions like this on the internet too right? I'm sure they're scientificaly as advanced as us right?

>because humanity can adapt far far far faster than adaptation
>via evolutionary change
i.e. we ARE BETTER THAN AN AMOEBA(for instance. I'm not meaning *just* an amoeba. it could be any living organism, whatever.)

>That and the fact that every other scientist who studies the
>material agrees with me and i have seen enough evidence and
>understand enough of the theory to see the alternative is
>insane.
http://www.drdino.com
he is a scientist, he studies the field, and he doesn't agree with you. I have just totaly disproven your point. At least try to be accurate and truthfull okay?

>Yes, maybe i'm wrong, maybe all the scientists all over the world
>are wrong, all the physicists, geologists, biologists, chemists, in
>all the different fields within those branches, they are all wrong,
>all the evidence has been made up, all the pictures of fossils
>fabricated, the theory must have been dreamt up by a genius
>because its logically inevitable given the properties of life, oops i
>guess they must be wrong too DNA must not be capable of
>mutations so i guess all of genetics is a lie too....

You are lying; first off, you do *NOT* know that all the scientists in the world believe in evolution. Secondly, we *DO* know that some don't. Please stick to at least theories that aen't easy to prove wrong.
Secondly, pictures of fossils have nothing to do with it; they still have not demonstrated that macro evolution is possible, let alone that it occurred.

>OR... maybe your wrong.
You haven't proven it yet.. (again, I didn't have time to read the link, but otherwise, you have metioned no hard evidence so far in this post)

>The question is this, should we believe people who know what
>they are talking about, people who dedicate their lifes to
>studying the world around them and who build upon the
>knowledge passed down by previous generations, knowledge
>that has been filtered thousands and thousand of times to
>remove innacuracies. Or should we believe people who don't
>understand what the theories say at all, don't understand the
>evidence, and have an irrational believe that governs their
>interest in the topic.

I thought you said you thought for yourself? Sounds like you're blindly accdepting what they say because you think they've spent alot of time on it. Just because they spent alot of time on it doesn't necessarily mean they're right.




>Its totally irrelevent, but don't you find it funny that self
>replicating chemical systems can be created in labs (albeit not
>ones capable of mutation, we have yet to manage that), and
>that when you slot in some of the chemicals and conditions
>thought to be around at the time that life was thought to form,
>out pops the building blocks of life. Remarkable coincidence no?

i.e... don't worry, we're getting there; someday we'll be better than God. We'll even create life.