Creationism vs Evolution live debate tonight [Archive] - Page 2

rascal

02-05-2014, 01:04 PM

The theory of gravity is way way way more controversial than the theory of evolution. Einstein's theory of gravity is incompatible with quantum physics. No one has ever found the hypothesized graviton, the force carrying particle thought to exist for gravity (the corresponding particles for e&m forces, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force have all been found). The only thing that ties is together is string theory, which is little more than speculation that makes the math turn out nice right now. And then there is the finding that gravity is likely repulsive at very long distances where the inverse square magnitude becomes tiny (e.g., dark energy or the cosmological constant). Gravity is one of the biggest question marks in science, and has been ever since Newton published the first decent theory of it (Newton and other physicists weren't at all comfortable with the action at a distance pull Newton hypothesized). Gravity can even be considered a fictitious force, like centrifugal force that makes it seem like you're pulled to the other side when making a sharp turn in your car.

How can it be a theory if it is a know fact that the force exists. How the force exists is the theory but gravity itself is not a theory.

Brazil

02-05-2014, 01:48 PM

The happiest people I have seen are those devoted to a belief in God and family following the principles layed out in the Bible.

:lol

Blake

02-05-2014, 01:53 PM

As usual, evolution believer twists words because he cannot answer simple presented arguments. Just the usual "lol mythical creature" or "Bible = Comic book". You're a joke.

http://0.tqn.com/d/comicbooks/1/G/2/6/1/212-377-Product_LargeToMediumImage.jpeg

Brazil

02-05-2014, 02:08 PM

It's funny to see that kind of debates for an European, like we say only in America...

I'm not being judgemental, it is just a matter of cultural difference... conspiracy theories, creationism, evolution, abortion, guns, death penalty... are such controversial topics here and not as much elsewhere or kinda solved... not a lot of people in Europe are much into conspiracy theory, guns is a closed topic, death penalty is mostly closed topic too, I never ever had a discussion out of US or in this forum regarding creationism etc...

It is quite incredible that US has so much in common with Europe and yet is so different culturally. I had a huge cultural choke when I arrived in US and close to nothing for instance in Brazil.

I learned a few things while living in the US, first one being you never ever start a conversation with an american regarding gun, religion, war and tax without knowing very well your interlocutor like ever...

I had a dinner once with come important managers of a big car company and conversation started regarding church and donation, I wanted to give my two cents and said something like "I think it is important to donate to your church to sustain it but I heard people were giving significant % of their monthly salary... that's crazy... church are making money on people faith" and then realized 80% of the people around the table were giving significant part of their salary to their church...

Blake

02-05-2014, 02:21 PM

I would say gravity is a fact. It is a known proven force that exists.

Are you referring to macro gravity or micro gravity

Blake

02-05-2014, 02:26 PM

The happiest people I have seen are those devoted to a belief in...........family following the principles layed out in the Bible.

I've always wondered how a polygamist can be happy with multiple women nagging him.

To each his own I guess

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 02:47 PM

I've always wondered how a polygamist can be happy with multiple women nagging him.

To each his own I guess

That is one group that I will never stick up for. Believe what you want to believe but those guys...

Blake

02-05-2014, 03:06 PM

That is one group that I will never stick up for. Believe what you want to believe but those guys...

......are following old testament family principles

Clipper Nation

02-05-2014, 03:11 PM

:lmao Jeebotards still crying over their fairy tales being questioned

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 03:14 PM

......are following old testament family principles

Say what you will but anyone taking advantage of little kids needs to be put to sleep. I know you like to bring up OT and try to throw stuff in other's faces but all messing with you aside, that is disgusting. There is no room in this world for people like that.

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 03:15 PM

:lmao Jeebotards still crying over their fairy tales being questioned

SMH

RD2191

02-05-2014, 03:15 PM

Blake is a scumbag, we all know this. He needs God and is looking for God but doesn't want to admit at. He is a sad pathetic soul ever since his wife got rammed by the milk man.

Clipper Nation

02-05-2014, 03:18 PM

Blake is a scumbag, we all know this. He needs God and is looking for God but doesn't want to admit at. He is a sad pathetic soul ever since his wife got rammed by the milk man.

Cuckholdry is an important part of Christianity, just ask Joseph :lol

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 03:30 PM

Cuckholdry is an important part of Christianity, just ask Joseph :lol

Blake is on your side. Probably in more ways than one.

baseline bum

02-05-2014, 04:05 PM

How can it be a theory if it is a know fact that the force exists. How the force exists is the theory but gravity itself is not a theory.

Hey rascal, are you a young-earth jeebotard?

baseline bum

02-05-2014, 04:07 PM

Cuckholdry is an important part of Christianity, just ask Joseph :lol

My nigga. You take your love child, blame it on god, and then get the nigga crucified when he believes all your nonsense, all while beta cuck husband just sits there and watches. Mother of the year indeed.

But since Mary had to come up with that story, we have to infer that Cuckseph wasn't hitting that shit. So was he gay? Was it a sham marriage? I mean if the husband was tapping that shit Mary wouldn't have needed that story since they didn't have DNA tests and Maury Povich Show back in the day.

Leetonidas

02-05-2014, 04:27 PM

I am not a Bible thumper. I don't even own a Bible. And you are the piece of shit. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a piece of shit like you in the real world.

You're a hypocritical piece of shit jeebotard anyway. Faggot.

Leetonidas

02-05-2014, 04:35 PM

My nigga. You take your love child, blame it on god, and then get the nigga crucified when he believes all your nonsense, all while beta cuck husband just sits there and watches. Mother of the year indeed.

But since Mary had to come up with that story, we have to infer that Cuckseph wasn't hitting that shit. So was he gay? Was it a sham marriage? I mean if the husband was tapping that shit Mary wouldn't have needed that story since they didn't have DNA tests and Maury Povich Show back in the day.

http://www.nguyengallery.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/e98a281fbe_68314-10151161319936840-1352099678-n.jpg

Blake

02-05-2014, 05:02 PM

Blake is a scumbag, we all know this. He needs God and is looking for God but doesn't want to admit at. He is a sad pathetic soul ever since his wife got rammed by the milk man.

What a good Christian you are.

you're also retarded. We all know this.

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 05:06 PM

LOL at the representatives for each group. No wonder you both are so respected. LOL

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 05:06 PM

"Oh you don't agree with me?! Fa66ot! tbh"

Blake

02-05-2014, 05:13 PM

"You need God. You're a fucking faggot for not letting him come inside you"

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 05:20 PM

And this is exactly why zealous bible thumpers are fucking hypocritical pieces of shit

:lmao Jeebotards still crying over their fairy tales being questioned

Blake is a scumbag, we all know this. He needs God and is looking for God but doesn't want to admit at. He is a sad pathetic soul ever since his wife got rammed by the milk man.

Cuckholdry is an important part of Christianity, just ask Joseph :lol

You're a hypocritical piece of shit jeebotard anyway. Faggot.

What a good Christian you are.

you're also retarded. We all know this.

"You need God. You're a fucking faggot for not letting him come inside you"

All compelling arguments

pgardn

02-05-2014, 05:25 PM

LOL

Maybe you don't understand Science as well as you think you do. There are tons of things that can be explained scientifically and are fact. They are not all theories. There are things we know as concrete and things that are full of holes.

So give some examples of WTF you are babbling about?
Again. Read below. You are allowed to say I don't know.

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.

What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?

What in science is NOT allowed to change? And you know exactly what I mean here. Take the idea of mass and inertia. Very solid ideas. Well guess what, those ideas have now changed fairly recently, as an example.

From your concerns NO science should be taught.

Blake

02-05-2014, 05:32 PM

Are you familiar with logic?

Lol

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 05:50 PM

So give some examples of WTF you are babbling about?
Again. Read below. You are allowed to say I don't know.

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.

What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?

What in science is NOT allowed to change? And you know exactly what I mean here. Take the idea of mass and inertia. Very solid ideas. Well guess what, those ideas have now changed fairly recently, as an example.

From your concerns NO science should be taught.

Maybe we are talking about different things. Feel free to say that you are trying hard to sound smarter than you are. Nobody is arguing that there are some elements of science that are in constant change. What I am saying is that there are some elements that we know to be concrete.

"What in science is not predicated on a belief system" Uuummm that is what I am saying. In fact, that is pretty much EXACTLY what I said.

My point was that both faith and belief are used in science and religion. Blake continues to argue that it doesn't.

Science is made up of so many things. In this particular thread, the subject is evolution. My argument is that in this science cannot be concrete and cannot TRULY be tested. Wouldn't you agree that it would be confusing to teach evolution to children when the theories (and they can only be theories and not fact) are constantly changing? This is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism so no need to tell me about separation of church and state.

If evolution is to be taught I would rather they learn the evolution of science. Otherwise, if you are teaching about something that is not fully understood, can only be imagined and is based solely on belief... then waht is the difference?

Expert

02-05-2014, 06:29 PM

its time people release the invisible friend

pgardn

02-05-2014, 06:34 PM

Maybe we are talking about different things. Feel free to say that you are trying hard to sound smarter than you are. Nobody is arguing that there are some elements of science that are in constant change. What I am saying is that there are some elements that we know to be concrete.

"What in science is not predicated on a belief system" Uuummm that is what I am saying. In fact, that is pretty much EXACTLY what I said.

My point was that both faith and belief are used in science and religion. Blake continues to argue that it doesn't.

Science is made up of so many things. In this particular thread, the subject is evolution. My argument is that in this science cannot be concrete and cannot TRULY be tested. Wouldn't you agree that it would be confusing to teach evolution to children when the theories (and they can only be theories and not fact) are constantly changing? This is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism so no need to tell me about separation of church and state.

If evolution is to be taught I would rather they learn the evolution of science. Otherwise, if you are teaching about something that is not fully understood, can only be imagined and is based solely on belief... then waht is the difference?

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe that populations of organisms change through time. The evidence for this is massive. The real debate is not if change occurs, but how. Natural selection feeding upon changes in DNA is thought to be a significant mechanism, but there are other factors. Genetic drift, non random mating... Blah blah...

There is also speciation and it's major drivers. These are micro evolutionary steps. Take a look at dog breeds. Over just a few thousand years humans have in effect drastically changed the morphology of dogs merely thru selective breeding. Once organisms within a population undergo enough change that sectors no longer mate, massive changes can take place especially, given time and different environments. There are 85,000 species of beetles. 85,000... Do the factors I have stated above make this possible? Hell yes. And it requires no magic supernatural poof.

So it's not if evolution has occurred, it's how, what drivers play the largest roles for science. The biggest problem that people have with evolution is its implications for humans. If humans did not use DNA as genetic material, and were completely diff. on fundamental biochemical levels, then everyone would relax. But we have so much in common with other living things...

A special creator could theoretically make every living thing work very differently biochemically.

Sorry, but there is huge unity, yet diversity, that evolution through natural selection and other means explains very well. Much better than the behavior of the most fundamental particles that everything in the universe is composed of, particle physics... People should really be upset about quantum mechanics, but because it does not say much about humans on a broad scale, they could give a shit. So we pick what we don't want to believe based on its implications for us. Fine, let's not argue about the Higgs field, something much more worthwhile.

And if one does not like the idea of populations changing through time, then give us something else.

I have never proclaimed to be smart, you did. I am very interested, and unafraid of rocking my world views when my common sense suggests it.

pgardn

02-05-2014, 06:45 PM

baseline bum

02-05-2014, 06:51 PM

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...

LOL, we'd have to throw out the entire science of chemistry since no one has a clue about how to interpret quantum mechanics.

Expert

02-05-2014, 06:54 PM

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...
we cannot prove your age since we were not there. you could be 1200 years old

baseline bum

02-05-2014, 06:54 PM

Then if no quantum mechanics, no astronomy.

Expert

02-05-2014, 06:55 PM

LOL, we'd have to throw out the entire science of chemistry since no one has a clue about how to interpret quantum mechanics.
the Bible does. its the work of the devil. if we had some swine we could cast the satanized affliction of QED info them.

Woo Bum-kon

02-05-2014, 08:14 PM

As usual, evolution believer twists words

I did not twist any words. This discussion was originally about evolution, but because you are butthurt about science contradicting your religious beliefs, you randomly switched between bitching about evolution to bitching about abiogenesis to bitching about the big bang.

because he cannot answer simple presented arguments.

I already did reply to your arguments point by point. You never answered back.

Just the usual "lol mythical creature" or "Bible = Comic book". You're a joke.

I drew parallels between Spider-Man and the Bible because they are both stories whose fantastic elements have no evidence of ever occurring. You have yet to give a reason why what happened in the Bible is more reasonable than what happens in a Spider-Man comic book.

Woo Bum-kon

02-05-2014, 08:30 PM

They don't believe they have to answer to any wrong they do so watch out, an atheist will stab you in the back first chance he gets if he believes he can get away with it.

A person attacks you one night while you're walking down a street. Who do you think is more likely to step in and help you: God or a good Samaritan?

If that person shoots you dead and gets away with it, according to your religion, he can pray for forgiveness and remain unpunished for his crimes. If he is caught and convicted of murder, he can be punished by being thrown in prison for the rest of his life. So, if your god actually existed, and if heaven and hell actually existed, he would let you be murdered and then forgive the murderer and reward that person with entrance into heaven. If a good Samaritan intervenes and stops the assailant, the assailant could wind up in jail.

Now who would you rather have on your side: god or a human being?

And yes, before anybody starts, I'm aware of where the expression, "Good Samaritan," comes from.

I. Hustle

02-05-2014, 10:23 PM

pgardn

02-05-2014, 10:24 PM

we cannot prove your age since we were not there. you could be 1200 years old

So since you were not present when the Declaration of Independence was written, maybe it was not written. Since you don't see me, I'm not alive. Continue... Some of us evaluate the validity of our belief systems, some of us don't.

I dont believe China exists, never been there. Very convincing...

pgardn

02-05-2014, 10:27 PM

Finally. About damn time.

So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.

To hell with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off.

Excellent... So fuck it all, don't go to school. You will ruin you innate intuition. You are seriously in over your head...

mouse

02-06-2014, 08:24 AM

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

Sounds like a religion.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 08:50 AM

rascal

02-06-2014, 09:44 AM

If that person shoots you dead and gets away with it, according to your religion, he can pray for forgiveness and remain unpunished for his crimes. If he is caught and convicted of murder, he can be punished by being thrown in prison for the rest of his life. So, if your god actually existed, and if heaven and hell actually existed, he would let you be murdered and then forgive the murderer and reward that person with entrance into heaven. If a good Samaritan intervenes and stops the assailant, the assailant could wind up in jail.

Now who would you rather have on your side: god or a human being?

And yes, before anybody starts, I'm aware of where the expression, "Good Samaritan," comes from.

I would rather have God on my side. He will reward you with a far better life then you can ever experience on earth. That is something you cannot understand since you are not a believer.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 09:47 AM

Sounds like a religion.

Good job editor mouse.

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

We currently believe... Better mouse? And yes belief based upon methods used in science.
So get back to following those Chemtrails.

mouse

02-06-2014, 09:49 AM

So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.

To hell with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off.

Excellent... So fuck it all, don't go to school. You will ruin you innate intuition. You are seriously in over your head...

Typical meltdown/cop out reaction when the many flaws in Science and Evolution are exposed.

In desperate means they pull out the math card or mention gravity and chemistry.

They want to prove so badly how important Science is but what they fail to resilize is Scinence needs to not go into the "what if" world. Stick with mixing baking soda with viniger and stay out of the how and why man is here.

And another thing I find disturbing all you that say Svience is always learning and finding out more about man and life on earth need to reilize the text books in school already have it as "facts" man evolved from a fish so stop your bullshit lies and support evolution 100% or STFU.

Unless your not sure then that makes it a religion and it doesn't need to be in the text books.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 09:52 AM

Sounds like religion

The quote is what you wanted. Don't teach anything unless it is entirely understood. And based on the huge wholes in evolution that YOU see, we must apply this to other courses. It's your idea.

Damn, History is going to be a bitch to teach.

baseline bum

02-06-2014, 09:52 AM

I would rather have God on my side. He will reward you with a far better life then you can ever experience on earth. That is something you cannot understand since you are not a believer.

If he rewards you with a better life than your Earth one that really isn't saying much though, correct son?

mouse

02-06-2014, 09:57 AM

Good job editor mouse.

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

We currently believe... Better mouse? And yes belief based upon methods used in science.
So get back to following those Chemtrails.

Typical immature response. That is why you will always be on the outside looking in on those who actually research and are qualified to have intelligent debates.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:00 AM

The quote is what you wanted. Don't teach anything unless it is entirely understood. And based on the huge wholes in evolution that YOU see, we must apply this to other courses. It's your idea.

Damn, History is going to be a bitch to teach.

So religion is based on a belief of higher power(s) and people claim to have experienced miracles and historically there is evidence that religious figures did exist but because you and others don't agree with it then it's ridiculous and those people are ignorant.

On the other hand "So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.
To hell with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off." is a quote in favor of evolution over creationism.

Both people arguing sound exactly the same. You are a prime example of it.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:01 AM

Typical meltdown/cop out reaction when the many flaws in Science and Evolution are exposed.

In desperate means they pull out the math card or mention gravity and chemistry.

They want to prove so badly how important Science is but what they fail to resilize is Scinence needs to not go into the "what if" world. Stick with mixing baking soda with viniger and stay out of the how and why man is here.

And another thing I find disturbing all you that say Svience is always learning and finding out more about man and life on earth need to reilize the text books in school already have it as "facts" man evolved from a fish so stop your bullshit lies and support evolution 100% or STFU.

Unless your not sure then that makes it a religion and it doesn't need to be in the text books.

Why man is here? Science attempts to answer WHY man is here... Slam a pie in your face.
Every course is religion if it's based on belief fcktard.

All land vertebrates are thought to have evolved from a common ancestor. We believe this, yes. When evidence is found to the contrary, and thoroughly analyzed, we change our beliefs. That's how Science works. Something you refuse to understand because you can't handle the implications for man. I can't help you with your problem mouse. It's up to you to determine how you have faith in order to believe something.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:01 AM

If he rewards you with a better life than your Earth one that really isn't saying much though, correct son?

http://replygif.net/i/550.gif
I can't even help you with that one, son! lol

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:02 AM

Every course is religion if it's based on belief fcktard.

BAM /thread

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:03 AM

So religion is based on a belief of higher power(s) and people claim to have experienced miracles and historically there is evidence that religious figures did exist but because you and others don't agree with it then it's ridiculous and those people are ignorant.

On the other hand "So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.
To hell with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off." is a quote in favor of evolution over creationism.

Both people arguing sound exactly the same. You are a prime example of it.

Where did a say in any of my posts religion was ridiculous. Go back and read. Find the quote, and show all of us.

Blake

02-06-2014, 10:08 AM

Sounds like a religion.

Sounds like religion

Science is open to new ideas. Religion is closed.

Psalm 104:
5*He set the earth*on its foundations;*it can never be moved.

You guys are idiots, tbh.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:15 AM

BAM /thread

Religious beliefs and beliefs in science are both beliefs.

But what are the beliefs BASED on? Do you know that they are based on entirely different methods? Both are useful to man for entirely different reasons. So if we chose to label a belief in anything and call it religion, that's fine. Just realize the two try to answer entirely different questions using entirely different methods. But yes, both involve belief.

I really don't care what you choose to call it as long as you recognize the difference. We will have to make up another name for religious methods though.

We all have faith in certain phenomena and historical events based on faith and belief. But the methods we use to come to our belief system may be entirely different.

Next.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:17 AM

Where did a say in any of my posts religion was ridiculous. Go back and read. Find the quote, and show all of us.

Honestly I'll give you that one because I am not going to go back through all that. Maybe I'm guilty of the if you are against creationism and pro evolution then you must be anti-religion so to that I will concede.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:18 AM

Religious beliefs and beliefs in science are both beliefs.

But what are the beliefs BASED on? Do you know that they are based on entirely different methods? Both are useful to man for entirely different reasons. So if we chose to label a belief in anything and call it religion, that's fine. Just realize the two try to answer entirely different questions using entirely different methods. But yes, both involve belief.

I really don't care what you choose to call it as long as you recognize the difference. We will have to make up another name for religious methods though.

We all have faith in certain phenomena and historical events based on faith and belief. But the methods we use to come to our belief system may be entirely different.

Next.

Nothing. I actually agree with that. There is no argument from me there.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:20 AM

Typical immature response. That is why you will always be on the outside looking in on those who actually research and are qualified to have intelligent debates.

I think the board has read most of your intelligent debates. You judging what research to use and what is intelligent...

You have made your mark. Let others be the judge.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 10:22 AM

Science is open to new ideas. Religion is closed.

Psalm 104:
5*He set the earth*on its foundations;*it can never be moved.

You guys are idiots, tbh.

So you used the Psalms that were written by David as your quote? Have you ever read the whole thing? Do you know what a Psalm is?

LOL but we are the idiots. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other things that you could have used LOL

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:23 AM

Nothing. I actually agree with that. There is no argument from me there.

Because it's perfectly reasonable.

Now go back and explain why you don't want Science taught in schools.

mouse

02-06-2014, 10:29 AM

Science is open to new ideas. Religion is closed.

Psalm 104:
5*He set the earth*on its foundations;*it can never be moved.

Post the quote where I support religion.

You guys are idiots,

Hence why I don't debate the immature.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:32 AM

And a repeat.

Sorry, but there is huge unity, yet diversity, that evolution through natural selection and other means explains very well. Much better than the behavior of the most fundamental particles that everything in the universe is composed of, particle physics... People should really be upset about quantum mechanics, but because it does not say much about humans on a broad scale, they could give a shit. So we pick what we don't want to believe based on its implications for us. Fine, let's not argue about the Higgs field, something much more worthwhile.

And if one does not like the idea of populations changing through time, then give us something else.

I have never proclaimed to be smart, you did. I am very interested, and unafraid of rocking my world views when my common sense suggests it.

And please make the something else use methods of science in a science class.

Blake

02-06-2014, 10:33 AM

So you used the Psalms that were written by David as your quote? Have you ever read the whole thing? Do you know what a Psalm is?

LOL but we are the idiots. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other things that you could have used LOL

it's an example of how religion is closed.

lol yes, you're the idiots.

Blake

02-06-2014, 10:37 AM

Post the quote where I support religion.

Hence why I don't debate the immature.

I didn't say you supported it. I responded to where you implied it's like science.

You're stupid. It's why I don't debate with you.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:38 AM

Honestly I'll give you that one because I am not going to go back through all that. Maybe I'm guilty of the if you are against creationism and pro evolution then you must be anti-religion so to that I will concede.

I am totally against creationism taught in SCIENCE classrooms because, it's NOT science.

Capiche?

mouse

02-06-2014, 10:38 AM

I think the board has read most of your intelligent debates.

So then how did you miss them?

Get one thing straight I don't and never did seek out acceptance by a message board my replies are all over the www and to be honest 90% of the Club posters arn't even worth my time ( you included) my replies are for the 10% readers online who may find this subject on Google,

You judging what research to use and what is intelligent...

Feel free to debunk my findings.

You have made your mark. Let others be the judge.

Just as I have since 1979 when I first used wireless messaging.

mouse

02-06-2014, 10:40 AM

I am totally against creationism taught in SCIENCE classrooms because, it's NOT science.?

Neither is Evolution.

mouse

02-06-2014, 10:43 AM

pgardn

02-06-2014, 10:45 AM

Neither is Evolution.

Dead wrong.
End debate with mouse.

mouse

02-06-2014, 10:48 AM

Dead wrong.
End debate with mouse.

Your so over your head and circling the drain I almost feel sorry for you.

Just for shits and giggles how old are you?

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 11:02 AM

it's an example of how religion is closed.

lol yes, you're the idiots.

So a Psalm of David is an example of how religion is closed? LOL ok, moron.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 11:16 AM

Because it's perfectly reasonable.

Now go back and explain why you don't want Science taught in schools.

The point that I am trying to get across is that evolution is a belief based on fragmants of evidence. Like, I found this tooth and as a result I built a whole skeleton of a "missing link" to support my theories.

I am fine with it being taught as "It is believed that..." as opposed to "This is the way it is."

CapiSCE?

AntiChrist

02-06-2014, 11:23 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/ken-ham-bill-nye-debate_b_4731944.html

Blake

02-06-2014, 11:26 AM

So a Psalm of David is an example of how religion is closed? LOL ok, moron.

It's the ordained word of God or it's not. Lol logic.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 11:38 AM

It's the ordained word of God or it's not. Lol logic.

lol lack of understanding

Blake

02-06-2014, 11:42 AM

Blake

02-06-2014, 11:48 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-piatt/ken-ham-bill-nye-debate_b_4731944.html

for I Hustle from that Christian that wrote that:

..... Science figured out something long ago that religion still struggles with. Built into the scientific method is the assumption that/ all hypotheses and theories should be held loosely, and ultimately, released in exchange for new ones when the evidence before us calls for it. Religion, on the other hand, tends to carve out a position and defend it tirelessly, from generation to generation, sometimes to the death.

Of course, the dude goes off further about not taking things literal which is just another way of saying that he prefers cherry picking the good parts of the religion and ignore the insane.

boutons_deux

02-06-2014, 01:23 PM

Even Christian asshole/scammer Pat Robertson is telling Ham to STFU

pgardn

02-06-2014, 03:55 PM

The point that I am trying to get across is that evolution is a belief based on fragmants of evidence. Like, I found this tooth and as a result I built a whole skeleton of a "missing link" to support my theories.

I am fine with it being taught as "It is believed that..." as opposed to "This is the way it is."

CapiSCE?

This is the way it is right now.
Every belief in science is based on fragments to some degree.
We have no clear idea about the reason why masses attract each other... Gravity, curves space on and on... So how does mass curve space? So you want gravity out of physics?

And your missing link? What exactly are you talking about? We will never find one common ancestor, we will find numerous common ancestors that have many things in common with each other and then try to determine the relationships. Do you not believe we have not found skeletons that are human like, but are clearly NOT modern humans. You don't believe these exist? And you don't believe we have found many others that are even less like like modern humans? And you don't believe that we have found skeletons that are like apes, but are clearly not modern apes that have characters in common with modern humans but are very, very different than modern humans?

So you are expecting a perfect half man half ape fossil? Really? What do you expect to find to convince you?

pgardn

02-06-2014, 03:59 PM

And when new fossils are found new branches and pathways will be added. So until we find every possible fossil, evolution is a myth?

Bravo!

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 04:45 PM

This is the way it is right now.
Every belief in science is based on fragments to some degree.
We have no clear idea about the reason why masses attract each other... Gravity, curves space on and on... So how does mass curve space? So you want gravity out of physics?

And your missing link? What exactly are you talking about? We will never find one common ancestor, we will find numerous common ancestors that have many things in common with each other and then try to determine the relationships. Do you not believe we have not found skeletons that are human like, but are clearly NOT modern humans. You don't believe these exist? And you don't believe we have found many others that are even less like like modern humans? And you don't believe that we have found skeletons that are like apes, but are clearly not modern apes that have characters in common with modern humans but are very, very different than modern humans?

So you are expecting a perfect half man half ape fossil? Really? What do you expect to find to convince you?

LOL

It was just an example. Do I believe that fossils have been found that are human like? Yes. Does that automatically mean that it wasn't just a species or type of animal that lived once and died out? Could it be someone that suffered from a deformity or arthritis? Are these things possible?
I am asking you seriously because parts of me want to believe that you are somewhat knowledgeable and not just a "LOL look at Psalms" guy like BLake.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 04:49 PM

And when new fossils are found new branches and pathways will be added. So until we find every possible fossil, evolution is a myth?

Bravo!

Want to know what's hilarious? I actually believe in evolution up to a point. I believe that people and creatures have to adapt to surroundings.

I guess the big question is creation itself. Even if you believe in evolution completely you have to agree that it's pretty tough to break down because everything had to come from SOMETHING. Then what did that something come from? Which is why I believe that most people turn to religion to answer their question. I mean, you don't want to believe that *poof* humans appeared and that is perfectly reasonable but there had to be a poof moment right? I mean going ALL the way back.

DMC

02-06-2014, 04:50 PM

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 04:51 PM

What parts of you want to actually research the shit instead of relying on plausibility?

No parts.

DMC

02-06-2014, 04:51 PM

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 04:53 PM

Where did God come from? Your infinite regress seems plausible until you stop at a cherry picked location where you allow all the rules to conveniently change.

I'm not arguing for religion. I said that it why people have turned to religion. I didn't cherry pick any moment in time. My point was that you CAN'T pinpoint it. There fore it CAN'T be researched.

DMC

02-06-2014, 04:54 PM

No parts.

So then why does it matter what you believe? You're not interested in actually knowing, just in getting a thin surface level comfort about what you already believe to be true based on the plausibility of claims that you judge using illogical reasoning.

DMC

02-06-2014, 04:56 PM

I'm not arguing for religion. I said that it why people have turned to religion. I didn't cherry pick any moment in time. My point was that you CAN'T pinpoint it. There fore it CAN'T be researched.

It doesn't have to be religion. Regardless what created everything, what created that? You're just hiding that little necessity in the fog of ignorance. Many things can be researched, and you should probably do that before you decide you cannot know. Your stance on it is part and parcel of a religious mindset of lazy thinking where people like Ken Ham can cause you to raise an eyebrow.

But it's not new. The age old retorts to scientific discovery from religious folk have been laced with these same fallacious thought processes that are easily debunked.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:13 PM

It doesn't have to be religion. Regardless what created everything, what created that? You're just hiding that little necessity in the fog of ignorance. Many things can be researched, and you should probably do that before you decide you cannot know. Your stance on it is part and parcel of a religious mindset of lazy thinking where people like Ken Ham can cause you to raise an eyebrow.

But it's not new. The age old retorts to scientific discovery from religious folk have been laced with these same fallacious thought processes that are easily debunked.

Again, I am not arguing for religion. I am just saying that you can't just be researched. You are lying to yourself if you think the beginning of OUR creation here can be researched. It can't. There are theories and beliefs but research can't be done. You are right, I am too lazy to build a time machine.

Why are you fighting me? I showed solidarity with you by posting a pic of my hand as well. I thought we were hand brothers.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:14 PM

So then why does it matter what you believe? You're not interested in actually knowing, just in getting a thin surface level comfort about what you already believe to be true based on the plausibility of claims that you judge using illogical reasoning.

How can you know? What is illogical about saying that there is absolutely NO WAY of knowing how we came about nor can it be researched?

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:16 PM

How can you know? What is illogical about saying that there is absolutely NO WAY of knowing how we came about nor can it be researched?

Because it's a self defeating argument. How can you know that there is no way of knowing? Why can't it be researched? Or do you prescribe to the notion that nothing is truly knowable?

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:18 PM

Because it's a self defeating argument. How can you know that there is no way of knowing? Why can't it be researched? Or do you prescribe to the notion that nothing is truly knowable?

Why can't the beginning of time as we know it be researched? hhhhmmmmmmmmm

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:18 PM

Again, I am not arguing for religion. I am just saying that you can't just be researched. You are lying to yourself if you think the beginning of OUR creation here can be researched. It can't. There are theories and beliefs but research can't be done. You are right, I am too lazy to build a time machine.

Why are you fighting me? I showed solidarity with you by posting a pic of my hand as well. I thought we were hand brothers.
Here you accept creation without any evidence whatsoever. With that attitude, we'd not have any clue as to what happened prior to recorded history. Our models are fairly consistent with our findings and if findings suggest otherwise, our models change. We are learning our past prehistorically. We might not have all the pieces, but we are building the puzzle. You're saying there's no need to start building a puzzle because we'll never know. You'll never know if there's an afterlife while you're alive. Why assume there is? Why even posit it (hypothetically speaking)?

We are brothers of the hand. Hand on the run, as Paul would say.

Jacob1983

02-06-2014, 05:20 PM

Aren't there are lot of hypotheses involved in all of this shit? I mean scientists cannot definitively tell us how big dinosaurs were or what they looked like. They just base that shit off bones.

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:22 PM

Aren't there are lot of hypotheses involved in all of this shit? I mean scientists cannot definitively tell us how big dinosaurs were or what they looked like. They just base that shit off bones.

You cannot be real. No one is that pathetic in real life and that stupid at the same time.

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:23 PM

Why can't the beginning of time as we know it be researched? hhhhmmmmmmmmm

"as we know it"?

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:25 PM

Here you accept creation without any evidence whatsoever.

We are brothers of the hand. Hand on the run, as Paul would say.

Listen, HANDsome how about the beginning of our existence? Since you don't like that word. I don't even mean human existence. I am talking about everything. I accept that we are here, I'll give you that.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:27 PM

"as we know it"?

our concept of time. Who knows how far everything actually goes back. Not just the earth but everything.

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:35 PM

Listen, HANDsome how about the beginning of our existence? Since you don't like that word. I don't even mean human existence. I am talking about everything. I accept that we are here, I'll give you that.

There are some problems with ability to conceptualize time. If time started with the Big Bang, then there was no time prior (and no such a prior) to that. However we can only conceptualize from a remote viewer standpoint so we have the tendency to look "before" that initial event (if it existed). That's flawed and cannot produce the truth. It's like saying "how could this board end here, what was before this?". There was something before it, but it wasn't wood. With time, the "before" depends on time itself, so we cannot apply "time before time", it's a paradox and paradoxes cannot exist in the universe. That's why people assign a prime mover into the equation, something that isn't restricted by the same rules of physics that all energy and matter are restricted to. That's the magical "get out of jail free" card. It doesn't answer the questions, it just makes a more complicated one by pushing the problem back one place (to the prime mover).

However, what if time has no beginning and no end? What if matter and energy always were (theoretically that's even true under the Big Bang since "always" infers "since the beginning of time"). But we can think in terms of always and overcome the need to apply a "time before time" marker to initial events. So a ring has no beginning and no end. Many things in the universe have a sinusoidal pattern to their movements. The universe could be the same way, rising and falling based on a cycle that's "always" been.

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:36 PM

our concept of time. Who knows how far everything actually goes back. Not just the earth but everything.

You're trying to separate time from itself. Time goes back to the beginning of time, which means time always was. No you could not venture to that point because that point doesn't exist and never did. There was never a time where time did not exist.

I. Hustle

02-06-2014, 05:38 PM

You're trying to separate time from itself. Time goes back to the beginning of time, which means time always was. No you could not venture to that point because that point doesn't exist and never did. There was never a time where time did not exist.

Wait. Are you arguing with me or for me?

Blake

02-06-2014, 05:46 PM

LOL

It was just an example. Do I believe that fossils have been found that are human like? Yes. Does that automatically mean that it wasn't just a species or type of animal that lived once and died out? Could it be someone that suffered from a deformity or arthritis? Are these things possible?
I am asking you seriously because parts of me want to believe that you are somewhat knowledgeable and not just a "LOL look at Psalms" guy like BLake.

Theret is obviously a shit load of research on evolution out there on the internets. You're just too lazy to go read it.

And the notion that "intelligent design" should be viewed as science has been struck down in court in humiliating fashion.

There's nothing here for me to debate with you any more than there was between Nye and Ham. Just lots of lols and smhs at your ignorance.

DMC

02-06-2014, 05:53 PM

Wait. Are you arguing with me or for me?

Neither. I'm trying to get you to ask the right questions.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 05:59 PM

Neither. I'm trying to get you to ask the right questions.

Like Blake?
:lol

Blake

02-06-2014, 06:01 PM

Aren't there are lot of hypotheses involved in all of this shit? I mean scientists cannot definitively tell us how big dinosaurs were or what they looked like. They just base that shit off bones.

http://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/14195982?wid=280&hei=280

http://m.target.com/p/poof-slinky-science-anatomic-t-rex-dinosaur-model-kit/-/A-14195982?richrel=true

Blake

02-06-2014, 06:02 PM

Like Blake?
:lol

Wut

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 06:07 PM

Wut

Precisely.
:lol

DMC

02-06-2014, 06:14 PM

Like Blake?
:lol

You probably should not be discussing this. It might shake the foundation of your world view that a dude became himself, killed himself and subsequently rejoined himself all for us, whom he created like himself so we could be with him but only because we wanted to.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 06:16 PM

You probably should not be discussing this. It might shake the foundation of your world view that a dude became himself, killed himself and subsequently rejoined himself all for us, whom he created like himself so we could be with him but only because we wanted to.

Blake Almighty?:lol

Jacob1983

02-06-2014, 06:31 PM

Blake

02-06-2014, 06:37 PM

Precisely.
:lol

You're an idiot.

Blake

02-06-2014, 06:49 PM

I have more important things to worry about than what the fuck happened on Earth billions and billons of years ago.

Yeah, those dressing rooms aren't gonna clean themselves

mouse

02-06-2014, 07:14 PM

I am entitled to my opinion but to be honest, I have more important things to worry about than what the fuck happened on Earth billions and billons of years ago.

It's not "billions"

I don't give a shit what happened. I wasn't there so it doesn't affect me.

It affects us all you just are not aware that it does.

Now if there was some type of chance I could get money out of this shit, then yeah I'd obviously give a true fuck

You can ask the Discovery channel the History channel national geographic and the many book writers including Darwin.

but there's not so there we are.

Tell that to Darwin's aires.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 07:18 PM

Want to know what's hilarious? I actually believe in evolution up to a point. I believe that people and creatures have to adapt to surroundings.

I guess the big question is creation itself. Even if you believe in evolution completely you have to agree that it's pretty tough to break down because everything had to come from SOMETHING. Then what did that something come from? Which is why I believe that most people turn to religion to answer their question. I mean, you don't want to believe that *poof* humans appeared and that is perfectly reasonable but there had to be a poof moment right? I mean going ALL the way back.

Nope there was no poof moment in science. It's a continuum. There is disagreement over about when modern humans (mostly based on cranial size) arose. And it's arbitrary. Right now, about 100,000 years ago. No poof. The only poof would occur if we tried to assign an exact time and an exact fossil.

You tell me what a human really is. Obviously it's more than bones and DNA to you and to I. When exactly did a human first ponder it's own existence enough to think of an idea now called God? When? Science can't say. We might look at cave drawings and burials and surmise humans thought of an afterlife. But the first, who was it? I can't answer that based on anything I have read. NO POOF in science. The Big Bang, how did it arise? We don't know. No poof. Science is not afraid to say. But apparently religious types enjoy backing themselves into a corner because they try to judge and make up answers.
There are people on this board that would say we are going to hell if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior. And lots of other bizarre stuff. And then wonder why religion does turn people off...

rascal

02-06-2014, 07:21 PM

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 07:25 PM

Nope there was no poof moment in science. It's a continuum. There is disagreement over about when modern humans (mostly based on cranial size) arose. And it's arbitrary. Right now, about 100,000 years ago. No poof. The only poof would occur if we tried to assign an exact time and an exact fossil.

You tell me what a human really is. Obviously it's more than bones and DNA to you and to I. When exactly did a human first ponder it's own existence enough to think of an idea now called God? When? Science can't say. We might look at cave drawings and burials and surmise humans thought of an afterlife. But the first, who was it? I can't answer that based on anything I have read. NO POOF in science. The Big Bang, how did it arise? We don't know. No poof. Science is not afraid to say. But apparently religious types enjoy backing themselves into a corner because they try to judge and make up answers.
There are people on this board that would say we are going to hell if we don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior. And lots of other bizarre stuff. And then wonder why religion does turn people off...

You are right, there are those on this board who would say that.
But there are even more on this board who bash those who believe in God and yet do not judge the unbelievers among you
The atheists are far more condemning of the theists on this board than the other way around IMHO.

rascal

02-06-2014, 07:25 PM

our concept of time. Who knows how far everything actually goes back. Not just the earth but everything.

The beginning of time was the birth of the 3rd dimension. God exists in a higher dimension. Man is too ignorant on this side of life to understand all that exists beyond the 3rd dimension. Wonders exist that we cannot even imagine in the higher dimensions.

DMC

02-06-2014, 07:31 PM

You will learn the answers after you die.

Speaking from experience?

DMC

02-06-2014, 07:32 PM

The beginning of time was the birth of the 3rd dimension. God exists in a higher dimension. Man is too ignorant on this side of life to understand all that exists beyond the 3rd dimension. Wonders exist that we cannot even imagine in the higher dimensions.

So the birth of the 3rd came after the birth of higher dimensions. Math isn't your strong suit I see.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 07:34 PM

There are those who postulate dimensional theories and believe strongly in them.

DMC

02-06-2014, 07:35 PM

DMC

02-06-2014, 07:35 PM

There are those who postulate dimensional theories and believe strongly in them.

Theories? lol...

pgardn

02-06-2014, 07:37 PM

You are right, there are those on this board who would say that.
But there are even more on this board who bash those who believe in God and yet do not judge the unbelievers among you
The atheists are far more condemning of the theists on this board than the other way around IMHO.

That might well be. I'm not in to making fun of people except when they misrepresent science. And I know this happens very frequently.

But atheists, IMO, don't feel the need to invent a higher power that made humans. At least this is how I view their ideas. It's more reductionist. They don't feel the need to use the supernatural to explain the explainable through other means such as science. I understand this.

DMC

02-06-2014, 07:37 PM

Blake Almighty?:lol

Oh that's right, you're part of the emoticon crew that meets at wing joints to talk about forum stuff.

pgardn

02-06-2014, 07:40 PM

The beginning of time was the birth of the 3rd dimension. God exists in a higher dimension. Man is too ignorant on this side of life to understand all that exists beyond the 3rd dimension. Wonders exist that we cannot even imagine in the higher dimensions.

Using the human construct of time, time began when the first event occurred.

If no events ever occur, time makes absolutely no sense.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 07:43 PM

Theories? lol...

Yes, M-theory, string and super string theory, black holes, worm holes and the Tenth dimension, etc.

The key is to keep an open mind regardless of which side you're on.
Then you're capable of change without it becoming a major catastrophe in your life.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 07:49 PM

Oh that's right, you're part of the emoticon crew that meets at wing joints to talk about forum stuff.

I take no sides here, I am my own man and call it like I see it regardless of who it is, unlike many on here, you included.

Using the human construct of time, time began when the first event occurred.

If no events ever occur, time makes absolutely no sense.

Some theorize that the dimension of time is a figment of our imagination.
Go figure.

Rogue

02-06-2014, 07:52 PM

I am entitled to my opinion but to be honest, I have more important things to worry about than what the fuck happened on Earth billions and billons of years ago. I don't give a shit what happened. I wasn't there so it doesn't affect me. Now if there was some type of chance I could get money out of this shit, then yeah I'd obviously give a true fuck but there's not so there we are.
Studying the history of something (literature, art, the earth itself or whatever shit) isn't completely useless because it may help you envision what's gonna happen in several decades, or even centuries, and all you need to do is find out some sort of principle from the past phenomena. For example, without a great knowledge of human history, Karl Marx would've never created such works like Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto that would be used by commies to brainwash millions, if not billions of people.

Jacob1983

02-06-2014, 08:23 PM

I was just pointing the sad obvious truth that America is a business. If you are going to insult me about my job, at least know the facts. Working at the fitting room at Target? That's cute. Thanks for playing ass fucks.

xmas1997

02-06-2014, 08:33 PM

And the site affectionately know as "The Troll Forum" continues to live up to it's reputation.:lol

mouse

02-06-2014, 08:35 PM

Some theorize that the dimension of time is a figment of our imagination.

Time?

The Evolutionist's have only had a few years since 1859 when Darwin (their one true master) came up with a Book.

Imagination? Read the book :lmao

mouse

02-06-2014, 09:12 PM

And the site affectionately know as "The Troll Forum" continues to live up to it's reputation.:lol

We never debated Evolution in the TRoll forum, we didn't really care who we are or where we came from, hence being a "TRoll"

mouse

02-06-2014, 09:41 PM

Go to the MIT forums and read where many students and a few professors avoid debating this issue with me as I have presented time and time again solid evidence that destroyed the topic of Evolution long ago...(not the word "Evolution" the man from ape version of the word Evolution)

But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)

look how many in the last three pages avoided me, even Blake? a vato ..... who sometimes acts like that drunk skinny guy in the movie The Perfect Storm trying to hit on that fat lady at the bar. he knows his skinny fish smelling,meth mouth ass is desperate they sail out the next day (hence he seems so desperate) ......to me, that says a lot...

4kU0XCVey_U

mouse

02-06-2014, 09:59 PM

:lol bill nye tries to act all smart and attack creationalism

"Bill, how were the atoms created that caused the big bang"

bill: uh, well, uh, that's the mystery :lmao

:lmao

DMC

02-07-2014, 12:03 AM

spurraider21

02-07-2014, 04:04 AM

so nolyfe is a jeebotard? :lmao

pgardn

02-07-2014, 09:31 AM

They avoid debating with you because you're an idiot. So the smartest people in the world pretty much shrug your troll attempts off because they have nothing to gain by entertaining your silly ass.

An idiot who thinks he is on to something. A delusional idiot.
Divorced from reality and stupid, a special combination... Why is he not in some kind of halfway house.

Blake

02-07-2014, 09:33 AM

You are right, there are those on this board who would say that.
But there are even more on this board who bash those who believe in God and yet do not judge the unbelievers among you
The atheists are far more condemning of the theists on this board than the other way around IMHO.

You're way too caught up in style over substance. It's probably why your reading comprehension skills completely suck.

This is about creationists condemning evolution or at the least, wanting to put intelligent design in the same science book with evolution.

Aggressive creationists like Ham do nothing but delay society from moving forward.

Blake

02-07-2014, 09:35 AM

And the site affectionately know as "The Troll Forum" continues to live up to it's reputation.:lol

You're the only one that calls this site the troll forum.

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:52 AM

An idiot who thinks he is on to something. A delusional idiot.
Divorced from reality and stupid, a special combination... Why is he not in some kind of halfway house.

Because the TRoll forum closed.

mouse

02-07-2014, 10:46 AM

An idiot who thinks he is on to something. A delusional idiot.

You might want to change your reply style if you want to join the MIT forums.

(A heads up)

Divorced from reality and stupid, a special combination... Why is he not in some kind of halfway house.

Debunking my facts would prove your point rather than outdated insults.

(Another heads up)

DMC

02-07-2014, 10:55 AM

lol "debunking my facts".

Gee, I wonder why the MIT folks don't dive right into that.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 12:25 PM

Creationism in its strictest sense is the logical null which has to be disproven. The atheists in this thread are being foolish by acting like this is not the case. But it's just sad to see so many people who don't want to accept that some random people just made up most of the scientific tenets (shape and rotation of the Earth, diversity of life) in their religion. That doesn't make the moral parts bad to use as a guideline for personal lives, but by no means does it deserve a place in this debate. If anything, people are holding their faith back by tying it to old-world and already-debunked ideas.

DMC

02-07-2014, 12:37 PM

Relevancy

02-07-2014, 12:38 PM

I think we'll find out when we die

Brazil

02-07-2014, 12:43 PM

It's not "billions"

ok then how old in your mind is earth ? if your altess is kind enough to answer the question. Apparently you are smarter than MIT dudes and I'm no MIT dude so I'm not sure a simple mind like me can understand a grand mind like you but it is worth the try.

after all you are telling it the best: "But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)"

Chinook

02-07-2014, 12:44 PM

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. Assertions without proof need not be disproved.

Nope. We have tons of evidence already. It's called the causal closure of the physical, and it is one of the key tenets to science. If we are to believe the universe was created spontaneously, that takes proof, since we've never observed something that had no cause.

Now if you mean you don't have to prove that it's not a being named God who will send you to heaven or hell, that's true.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 12:44 PM

I think we'll find out when we die

how so ? :lol

Chinook

02-07-2014, 12:49 PM

how so ? :lol

They make you take a science class on the way out.

Relevancy

02-07-2014, 01:00 PM

how so ? :lolI don't know, maybe when we die god is up there, I'd like to think there's life after this one.

Honestly even though people debate over this and make interesting debates, death has all the answers tbh.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 01:11 PM

since we've never observed something that had no cause.

but we observe all the time things that are not predictable, an infinity of causes end up being event with no cause.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 01:18 PM

I don't know, maybe when we die god is up there, I'd like to think there's life after this one.

Honestly even though people debate over this and make interesting debates, death has all the answers tbh.

No... death has not all the answers. If there is an after life or whatever yeah maybe you will find out, if there is no after life you will never know... right ?

One of the main driver of human faith is obviously existential anxiety, the fear of the death.

I'm not debating whether god exists or not, I don't believe in god but I respect those who believe if they are not bible fanatics, what I'm saying is if god does not exist human race has all the reasons in the world to imagine / create one.

Blake

02-07-2014, 01:20 PM

Creationism in its strictest sense is the logical null which has to be disproven.

Lol no.

DMC

02-07-2014, 02:20 PM

Nope. We have tons of evidence already. It's called the causal closure of the physical, and it is one of the key tenets to science. If we are to believe the universe was created spontaneously, that takes proof, since we've never observed something that had no cause.

Now if you mean you don't have to prove that it's not a being named God who will send you to heaven or hell, that's true.

Causal closure is an aspect of philosophy, not science.

Creationism doesn't solve the "no cause" issue as the creator also needs a cause. We haven't observed a causeless cause. Why then the need to prove the alternative? Occam's razor would remove the need for a prime mover, especially one that requires magical exceptions in order to exist.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 02:21 PM

Lol no.

Yes.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 02:40 PM

Causal closure is an aspect of philosophy, not science.

Creationism doesn't solve the "no cause" issue as the creator also needs a cause. We haven't observed a causeless cause. Why then the need to prove the alternative? Occam's razor would remove the need for a prime mover, especially one that requires magical exceptions in order to exist.

Science is a branch of philosophy. It comprises the ways people try to use empircal observations to gain knowledge. Proximate mechanisms are key to scientific understanding, necessary to form any hypothesis. You don't get to remove the CCP from scientific investigation. It's the only way to test things.

If the CCP is to remain intact while also preventing an infinite regression, then one has to assume the universe (or multiverse) and all of its rules are a closed system, and whatever mechanisms set it into motion come from outside the system. That, or some strange loop like in that episode of Futurama. But even that's a closed system that needs some beginning, or at least, it's logical to assume it does.

That's the whole point. Parsimony assumes that there arent drastic deviations from rules we've come to understand. So it's not parsimonious to assume nothing caused this, since we have no evidence to suggest a special rule change. But it also gives no cause to make any assumptions on what started it all. So people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.

I. Hustle

02-07-2014, 02:50 PM

LOL Futurama

love that show.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 02:52 PM

but we observe all the time things that are not predictable, an infinity of causes end up being event with no cause.

Huh? No we don't. Just because we don't know an answer, or that an answer is too difficult for us to parse through doesn't mean it has no answer.

mouse

02-07-2014, 03:01 PM

ok then how old in your mind is earth ? if your altess is kind enough to answer the question. Apparently you are smarter than MIT dudes and I'm no MIT dude so I'm not sure a simple mind like me can understand a grand mind like you but it is worth the try.

after all you are telling it the best: "But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)"

Will address your remarks tonight after work

Blake

02-07-2014, 04:09 PM

Science is a branch of philosophy.

Semantics. The scientific method doesn't need philosophy.

So people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.

So who created the kickstarter

Chinook

02-07-2014, 04:25 PM

Semantics. The scientific method doesn't need philosophy.

So who created the kickstarter

The scientific method IS a philosophy. It is one of the epistemological approaches. Can people who don't understand epistemology use the scientific method? Yes. But it's like being able to drive without knowing how a car works mechanically.

The kickstarter is outside of the universe, and thus isn't bound to the same rules, meaning it can be eternal and infinite. It doesn't have to be a god or even sentient, as there are numerous atheistic theories such as brane theory which supposes external kickstarters with no beginning or end. But that is no more substantiated than the flying spaghetti monster.

Blake

02-07-2014, 05:05 PM

The kickstarter is outside of the universe, and thus isn't bound to the same rules

why are you making this assumption

spurraider21

02-07-2014, 06:01 PM

But that is no more substantiated than the flying spaghetti monster.
You could apply this to any notion of a creator

Chinook

02-07-2014, 07:06 PM

why are you making this assumption
Because time and space are created with the universe. So we know we don't have infinity and eternity here.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 07:07 PM

You could apply this to any notion of a creator

That's why I said it.

spurraider21

02-07-2014, 07:18 PM

That's why I said it.
ok. any sort of creationist argument ends up facing the flying spaghetti monster dilemma

Chinook

02-07-2014, 07:29 PM

ok. any sort of creationist argument ends up facing the flying spaghetti monster dilemma

I know. I brought that up to essentially say that by the time you get to positing the brane theory, you're right there with theist as far as support goes. Believing in giant membranes rippling around in the 11th dimension isn't any more reasonable than believing in an invisible man.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 07:33 PM

Huh? No we don't. Just because we don't know an answer, or that an answer is too difficult for us to parse through doesn't mean it has no answer.

When you have infinite causes to an event event cannot be predicted. That's not related entirely related to lack of knowledge, you can improve in the understanding and predictability of human behavior, weather, cigarette smoke etc...but infinite factors will always prevent you from getting an infinite chain of causes and reactions prediction.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 07:39 PM

When you have infinite causes to an event event cannot be predicted. That's not related entirely related to lack of knowledge, you can improve in the understanding and predictability of human behavior, weather, cigarette smoke etc...but infinite factors will always prevent you from getting an infinite chain of causes and reactions prediction.

I think you're exaggerating the number of causes. True, if they were truly infinite, it would be impossible. But nothing is truly infinite; it's just too big for us to count. But seeing as both time and space are finite in our universe, any event must have a finite number of causes and resultants, meaning it is theoretically possible to define a cause and effect for it.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 08:11 PM

I think you're exaggerating the number of causes. True, if they were truly infinite, it would be impossible. But nothing is truly infinite; it's just too big for us to count. But seeing as both time and space are finite in our universe, any event must have a finite number of causes and resultants, meaning it is theoretically possible to define a cause and effect for it.

If you envisage it's possible to define all causes of all events, you will reach the point where everything is predictable so future would become predictable and certain. The fact you can predict future will make you take actions to avoid the bad outcomes... These actions will create another predictable future etc etc...

DMC

02-07-2014, 08:13 PM

Science is a branch of philosophy. It comprises the ways people try to use empircal observations to gain knowledge. Proximate mechanisms are key to scientific understanding, necessary to form any hypothesis. You don't get to remove the CCP from scientific investigation. It's the only way to test things.

I agree with Hawking's stance on philosophy vs science, and proximate mechanisms are just temporary place holders for the inevitable distal mechanism that everyone seems to ignore. To put it plainly, an uncaused cause is required to believe in creation. Eventually that's where you end up, and it's a paradox and a double standard.

You cannot test "creation" as it infers, by necessity "creator".

If the CCP is to remain intact while also preventing an infinite regression, then one has to assume the universe (or multiverse) and all of its rules are a closed system, and whatever mechanisms set it into motion come from outside the system. That, or some strange loop like in that episode of Futurama. But even that's a closed system that needs some beginning, or at least, it's logical to assume it does.

That "outside the system" is just another system. It's like saying a fish aquarium is a system and my living room is outside of it, and that because the fish exist in an aquarium, someone must have put them there. But you cannot stop there and call it done. Who put them there and who put that person there to do that?

Basically you're just moving the problem to another dimension to dismiss it with the wave on the ontological hand.

That's the whole point. Parsimony assumes that there arent drastic deviations from rules we've come to understand. So it's not parsimonious to assume nothing caused this, since we have no evidence to suggest a special rule change. But it also gives no cause to make any assumptions on what started it all. So people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.

This part I agree with, with the caveat that there's no empirical evidence for creation in the cosmological argument arena. There's no precedence to use to even know what to consider as evidence if it did exist. We can posit a large number of things and call them possibilities but not know whether or not they are actually possible. For some reason many people seem to consider ignorance a sign of a possibility, as if not knowing increases odds or reality.

Not for you, but just as an example:

My keys are in my pants pocket. If I didn't know that, and I started looking for my keys, what's the possibility that my keys are anywhere other than in my pants pocket? Zero... but people don't seem to move that way. They instead remain ignorant and consider that "keeping my options open".

DMC

02-07-2014, 08:18 PM

If you envisage it's possible to define all causes of all events, you will reach the point where everything is predictable so future would become predictable and certain. The fact you can predict future will make you take actions to avoid the bad outcomes... These actions will create another predictable future etc etc...

Yes, these are the paradoxes I referred to. It's not that everything cannot be known, it's that we don't have the capacity to access it at once and make decisions based on it. Some thing a creator does, but then that just makes another paradox. At some point along that path many folks pitch an epistemological tent and there they reside.

DMC

02-07-2014, 08:22 PM

Because time and space are created with the universe. So we know we don't have infinity and eternity here.

So what created that other dimension?

Chinook

02-07-2014, 08:28 PM

So what created that other dimension?

In theory it could have always existed, as it's outside time and space. If there's no time, there's no beginning.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 08:32 PM

If you envisage it's possible to define all causes of all events, you will reach the point where everything is predictable so future would become predictable and certain. The fact you can predict future will make you take actions to avoid the bad outcomes... These actions will create another predictable future etc etc...

Nah, knowlegde and ignorance are both conditions which can be accounted for. Meaning that you can't change the future, only change what you thought would be the future. You'd probably make the mistake of believing a certain thing would happen erroneously, as your own state of mind would be in flux processing information. Outside observers would probably be able to tell.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 08:44 PM

I agree with Hawking's stance on philosophy vs science, and proximate mechanisms are just temporary place holders for the inevitable distal mechanism that everyone seems to ignore. To put it plainly, an uncaused cause is required to believe in creation. Eventually that's where you end up, and it's a paradox and a double standard.

You cannot test "creation" as it infers, by necessity "creator".

That "outside the system" is just another system. It's like saying a fish aquarium is a system and my living room is outside of it, and that because the fish exist in an aquarium, someone must have put them there. But you cannot stop there and call it done. Who put them there and who put that person there to do that?

Basically you're just moving the problem to another dimension to dismiss it with the wave on the ontological hand.

This part I agree with, with the caveat that there's no empirical evidence for creation in the cosmological argument arena. There's no precedence to use to even know what to consider as evidence if it did exist. We can posit a large number of things and call them possibilities but not know whether or not they are actually possible. For some reason many people seem to consider ignorance a sign of a possibility, as if not knowing increases odds or reality.

Not for you, but just as an example:

My keys are in my pants pocket. If I didn't know that, and I started looking for my keys, what's the possibility that my keys are anywhere other than in my pants pocket? Zero... but people don't seem to move that way. They instead remain ignorant and consider that "keeping my options open".

Going backwards in replies.

I agree that there is a truth out there that is not subjective and that people who think the mystery supports their view aren't being truthful. I however believe that any belief in the origin of existence is fine to have so long as it doesn't affect reason. Like believe in God if you want, but don't impede science by quoting the bible. I think it's possible to be a theist who believes in science and reason as muchas anyone else.

Universes are special in the sense they each contain their own time and space. So anything we believe that depends on those concepts doesn't have to apply outside universes. That includes the ideas of origin and ending.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what Hawkins means. What's the distal mechanism, and how does believing in it avoid infinite regression?

DMC

02-07-2014, 08:52 PM

In theory it could have always existed, as it's outside time and space. If there's no time, there's no beginning.

So how did a non spatial/temporal whatever cause an event without the requirement of time, and where did the matter and energy come from? Time is the temporal space between events, so from the initiation, there was time for both the causer and the caused. For the causer, there was time since it initiated, and for the caused, time since being initiated. So from that the non temporal whatever just became temporal, which means it was always temporal... which is a paradox.

SupremeGuy

02-07-2014, 08:54 PM

So what created that other dimension?lol Dude, I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but it's possible that certain things have no beginning or end. Even the concept of infinity is relatively new.

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:00 PM

Going backwards in replies.

I agree that there is a truth out there that is not subjective and that people who think the mystery supports their view aren't being truthful. I however believe that any belief in the origin of existence is fine to have so long as it doesn't affect reason. Like believe in God if you want, but don't impede science by quoting the bible. I think it's possible to be a theist who believes in science and reason as muchas anyone else.

Universes are special in the sense they each contain their own time and space. So anything we believe that depends on those concepts doesn't have to apply outside universes. That includes the ideas of origin and ending.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what Hawkins means. What's the distal mechanism, and how does believing in it avoid infinite regression?

The distal mechanism (or distal cause) is the primary cause. The proximate cause is what caused the observed event. The two can be the same, but in your response I gather that they aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't avoid infinite regression but then neither does your suggestion. Applying a magic event cannot relieve the need for a distal cause and right now, the other realm is simply magical fairy dust.

Universes don't exist. Everything we know if exists in this universe. Everything else is science fiction. Otherwise, cite an example of another universe where our time and space aren't relevant. If you cannot, then why pretend they exist? Occam's razor... parsimony..pretty much dissuades inferring things such as this before less complex scenarios can be eliminated.

It's basically impossible to believe in scientific process and God at the same time unless you are delusional. Those are two opposed world views where one stipulates a set of inescapable truths and the other an escape route.

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:02 PM

lol Dude, I know it's hard for people to comprehend, but it's possible that certain things have no beginning or end. Even the concept of infinity is relatively new.

Give an example of an infinite thing that's not merely a concept.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 09:12 PM

So how did a non spatial/temporal whatever cause an event without the requirement of time, and where did the matter and energy come from? Time is the temporal space between events, so from the initiation, there was time for both the causer and the caused. For the causer, there was time since it initiated, and for the caused, time since being initiated. So from that the non temporal whatever just became temporal, which means it was always temporal... which is a paradox.

I feel ya. How can events happen without time? I'm not going to pretend any answer I give will be sufficient, since I neither came up with this theory nor understand its proofs. I'd guess that being in that high of a dimension means time in the sense we think of it doesn't apply to it. Since the fifth dimension is supposedly all possible flows of time running concurrently on a grid, I imagine that by the time you get up to 11, things like loops or spaced events are irrelevent. But I dunno. I can't even wrap my head around the sixth to tenth dimensions.

Reck

02-07-2014, 09:14 PM

Damn this thread took off.

Congrats Suspect

SupremeGuy

02-07-2014, 09:15 PM

Give an example of an infinite thing that's not merely a concept.Of course all you're going to get is concepts; doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Haven't read through the thread, but would you mind clarifying me on your beliefs?

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:16 PM

I feel ya. How can events happen without time? I'm not going to pretend any answer I give will be sufficient, since I neither came up with this theory nor understand its proofs. I'd guess that being in that high of a dimension means time in the sense we think of it doesn't apply to it. Since the fifth dimension is supposedly all possible flows of time running concurrently on a grid, I imagine that by the time you get up to 11, things like loops or spaced events are irrelevent. But I dunno. I can't even wrap my head around the sixth to tenth dimensions.
So we end up with an argument from ignorance (no offense, you know what that means) which is no argument at all really.

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:21 PM

Of course all you're going to get is concepts; doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Haven't read through the thread, but would you mind clarifying me on your beliefs?

Flying spaghetti monster, purple unicorns on a planet with a soda fountain stream in another time dimension... it's called science fiction.

Beliefs? I am atheist by necessity. I don't hold any god beliefs. I'm a secularist, but not through effort to become one. It's the lack of anything to cause any other condition. I'm not cardboard though, and I acknowledge emotional issues just like anyone else, and I would and will struggle with the concept of mortality in myself and in others around me just like everyone else... I just cannot bring myself to pretend an answer exists that's just unknowable without faith and I have no interest in forced belief through cognitive dissonance with god belief and pragmatism.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 09:37 PM

The distal mechanism (or distal cause) is the primary cause. The proximate cause is what caused the observed event. The two can be the same, but in your response I gather that they aren't necessarily the same. It doesn't avoid infinite regression but then neither does your suggestion. Applying a magic event cannot relieve the need for a distal cause and right now, the other realm is simply magical fairy dust.

Universes don't exist. Everything we know if exists in this universe. Everything else is science fiction. Otherwise, cite an example of another universe where our time and space aren't relevant. If you cannot, then why pretend they exist? Occam's razor... parsimony..pretty much dissuades inferring things such as this before less complex scenarios can be eliminated.

It's basically impossible to believe in scientific process and God at the same time unless you are delusional. Those are two opposed world views where one stipulates a set of inescapable truths and the other an escape route.

To me, the disagreement would be over the universe is an open or closed system. If you believe it's closed, you can do all science no matter what you guess is outside the system. Also remember science is only one type of knowledge system. And it's the weakest at that.

True. Don't forget Occam's razor is a guideline and not a law. Just because it's the most simple explanation doesn't make it the right one. While the assumption that there are parallel universes just like ours is science fiction, the idea what whatever caused this universe to come into being caused other universes to come into being is worth investigation.

A magic event is no less believable than an non-magical event that goes against everything we've observed. At some point the CCP has to break down, and it seems it would break easiest outside the universe.

DMC

02-07-2014, 09:38 PM

To me, the disagreement would be over the universe is an open or closed system. If you believe it's closed, you can do all science no matter what you guess is outside the system. Also remember science is only one type of knowledge system. And it's the weakest at that.

True. Don't forget Occam's razor is a guideline and not a law. Just because it's the most simple explanation doesn't make it the right one. While the assumption that there are parallel universes just like ours is science fiction, the idea what whatever caused this universe to come into being caused other universes to come into being is worth investigation.

A magic event is no less believable than an non-magical event that goes against everything we've observed. At some point the CCP has to break down, and it seems it would break easiest outside the universe.

It seems to me that "outside the universe" doesn't exist. So you're just saying it's easier to say magic did it than to accept we still don't know.

That's why I used the word "dissuades" instead of "prohibits". When the suggested answer is paranormal, it's not really an answer at all until we learn that the paranormal exists. It just means we haven't turned enough rocks over. As we learn about our universe, we will get closer to understanding it's origins, but there's no need to put a toad or small dwarf in our stomachs to explain a virus, unless you want to use the toad or small dwarf as a place holder for "virus".

If the universe is an open system, then you regress again. A necessary cause is still a necessary cause, despite the size of the system. I personally view space as open, because matter cannot move otherwise, however that space is defined by matter and energy so we have a problem with terminology and understanding based on it. Unfortunately we think in concepts and speak in words.

Brazil

02-07-2014, 09:49 PM

Nah, knowlegde and ignorance are both conditions which can be accounted for. Meaning that you can't change the future, only change what you thought would be the future. You'd probably make the mistake of believing a certain thing would happen erroneously, as your own state of mind would be in flux processing information. Outside observers would probably be able to tell.

I believe both of us are converging at the same conclusion. Despite going deeper in the understanding of all causality if you can't change the future it's because it is not perfectly predictable.

mouse

02-07-2014, 09:50 PM

Brazil

02-07-2014, 09:51 PM

Yes, these are the paradoxes I referred to. It's not that everything cannot be known, it's that we don't have the capacity to access it at once and make decisions based on it. Some thing a creator does, but then that just makes another paradox. At some point along that path many folks pitch an epistemological tent and there they reside.

And we come back at the notion of circle that has no beginning and no end

Brazil

02-07-2014, 09:51 PM

Hey bro I have to finish these two audits so I can kick back this weekend but search evolution in the club and you will see the same replies I gave back then.

Will do

mouse

02-07-2014, 10:00 PM

Will do

this site doesn't have the archive forum anymore but i found this on Google

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223233&page=34

Chinook

02-07-2014, 10:00 PM

I believe both of us are converging at the same conclusion. Despite going deeper in the understanding of all causality if you can't change the future it's because it is not perfectly predictable.

Sounds like Gödel's incompleteness theorem to me. I certainly can agree there. But I see that as a flaw of individual systems to.contain all knowledge, not of there being some completely unobtajnablew knowledge.

pgardn

02-07-2014, 10:05 PM

lol "debunking my facts".

Gee, I wonder why the MIT folks don't dive right into that.

Mouse may be the least thoughtful poster in this thread, yet he imagines himself as some sort of rational arbiter of the truth. Mr. Mysticism, and proud of it. Amazing confidence backed by zero understanding of evolution... and most likely so much more.

DMC

02-07-2014, 10:10 PM

And we come back at the notion of circle that has no beginning and no end

It depends on what angle you view it.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 10:18 PM

It seems to me that "outside the universe" doesn't exist. So you're just saying it's easier to say magic did it than to accept we still don't know.

That's why I used the word "dissuades" instead of "prohibits". When the suggested answer is paranormal, it's not really an answer at all until we learn that the paranormal exists. It just means we haven't turned enough rocks over. As we learn about our universe, we will get closer to understanding it's origins, but there's no need to put a toad or small dwarf in our stomachs to explain a virus, unless you want to use the toad or small dwarf as a place holder for "virus".

If the universe is an open system, then you regress again. A necessary cause is still a necessary cause, despite the size of the system. I personally view space as open, because matter cannot move otherwise, however that space is defined by matter and energy so we have a problem with terminology and understanding based on it. Unfortunately we think in concepts and speak in words.

I believe the universe is closed, and therefore, we don't need to posit anything outside of it to understand it. So if I believe that a God programmed the universe to run and then completely left it alone, and you believe there is nothing outside this universe, we can still investigate the truths of the universe on equal footing. Since only deals with how's, so our different views on why wouldn't interfere.

Agree.

I think it's easier to believe something set the universe in motion than it is to think nothing did. We've discussed why a lot. There are possible explanations that can negotate both the singularity of the universe and the need to determine the origin, but I feel it's simpler to assume that whatever caused the universe was outside it. You're right that that's just another turtle, but I feel once we get outside the universe (intellectually speaking), conditions are sufficiently different for us to reevaluate the concepts of beginning and ending.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 10:28 PM

Mouse may be the least thoughtful poster in this thread, yet he imagines himself as some sort of rational arbiter of the truth. Mr. Mysticism, and proud of it. Amazing confidence backed by zero understanding of evolution... and most likely so much more.

It's crazy that religous folk could let go of geocentricism but still act like the bible is counter evidence to evolution. They've already accepted the bible contained false scientific information due to it be written by folks thousands of years ago who didn't know any better once. Yet they act like nothing else in Genesis can be questioned.

DMC

02-07-2014, 10:47 PM

I believe the universe is closed, and therefore, we don't need to posit anything outside of it to understand it. So if I believe that a God programmed the universe to run and then completely left it alone, and you believe there is nothing outside this universe, we can still investigate the truths of the universe on equal footing. Since only deals with how's, so our different views on why wouldn't interfere.

Agree.

I think it's easier to believe something set the universe in motion than it is to think nothing did. We've discussed why a lot. There are possible explanations that can negotate both the singularity of the universe and the need to determine the origin, but I feel it's simpler to assume that whatever caused the universe was outside it. You're right that that's just another turtle, but I feel once we get outside the universe (intellectually speaking), conditions are sufficiently different for us to reevaluate the concepts of beginning and ending.

I have a problem with your use of the word "believe" from an epistemological sense. I don't believe either of the two things you suggested, and if I'd said I do it's misstated and I'd like to retract it. I don't hold a belief of what I don't know to be true. I am open minded to a degree on suggestions, but not so open my brain falls out. The suggestion has to be in the realm of reason. I cannot make a magical bridge then decide what's on the other side of that bridge that doesn't obey known laws and reason. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I cannot accept that it does or even that it might without compelling evidence (even if that evidence is a different path to get there that I never realized exists). The bridge itself presents a road block that I cannot get around as long as it's magical.

Chinook

02-07-2014, 11:12 PM

I have a problem with your use of the word "believe" from an epistemological sense. I don't believe either of the two things you suggested, and if I'd said I do it's misstated and I'd like to retract it. I don't hold a belief of what I don't know to be true. I am open minded to a degree on suggestions, but not so open my brain falls out. The suggestion has to be in the realm of reason. I cannot make a magical bridge then decide what's on the other side of that bridge that doesn't obey known laws and reason. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying I cannot accept that it does or even that it might without compelling evidence (even if that evidence is a different path to get there that I never realized exists). The bridge itself presents a road block that I cannot get around as long as it's magical.

Sorry. Semantics. Although I will say that all science is belief and the only things that can be known are relations of ideas. I wasn't trying to hold you down to a strong, close-minded atheistic view, and I apologize for the confusion.

I was speaking generally that atheistic and theistic views can coexist if the universe is closed. Even if you think those holding a belief in god have an irrational stance, that doesn't prevent them from being rational scientists if they still believe in the CCP. Essentially no one really assumes the causal road goes on forever, so taking side bets for what's at the end of it shouldn't prevent trying to get there.

Blake

02-07-2014, 11:54 PM

Because time and space are created with the universe. So we know we don't have infinity and eternity here.

Why are you assuming infinity and eternity at all?

You've said nothing yet that gives any credence to your claim that the burden is on the atheist to disprove creation.

SupremeGuy

02-08-2014, 12:15 AM

Flying spaghetti monster, purple unicorns on a planet with a soda fountain stream in another time dimension... it's called science fiction.

Beliefs? I am atheist by necessity. I don't hold any god beliefs. I'm a secularist, but not through effort to become one. It's the lack of anything to cause any other condition. I'm not cardboard though, and I acknowledge emotional issues just like anyone else, and I would and will struggle with the concept of mortality in myself and in others around me just like everyone else... I just cannot bring myself to pretend an answer exists that's just unknowable without faith and I have no interest in forced belief through cognitive dissonance with god belief and pragmatism.I am Agnostic. Sounds like deep down you are as well, tbh.

Chinook

02-08-2014, 12:45 AM

Why are you assuming infinity and eternity at all?

You've said nothing yet that gives any credence to your claim that the burden is on the atheist to disprove creation.

Either something has a beginning or it doesn't. So either the universe is cyclical and we just don't know it, or it began somehow. We've gone over why it's the null to assume something caused the origin for reasons we've already discussed (assuming not goes against parsimony). Then you find yourself in an infinite regression unless you assume some type of infinity.

So yes, antheists do have to demonstrate that everything can come from nothing with no cause if they want the world to believe it. Doesn't make them wrong, but it is at least like people believing in geocentricism. Sure, it's obviously wrong now, but it certainly made sense to assume it at the time until enough evidence came to light.

DMC

02-08-2014, 01:29 AM

Sorry. Semantics. Although I will say that all science is belief and the only things that can be known are relations of ideas. I wasn't trying to hold you down to a strong, close-minded atheistic view, and I apologize for the confusion.

I probably agree with that to a point, short of solipsism.

I was speaking generally that atheistic and theistic views can coexist if the universe is closed. Even if you think those holding a belief in god have an irrational stance, that doesn't prevent them from being rational scientists if they still believe in the CCP. Essentially no one really assumes the causal road goes on forever, so taking side bets for what's at the end of it shouldn't prevent trying to get there.
We have to assume it goes on forever, else we are applying a double standard. I've heard Hawking say that the laws of physics break down in a singularity, however true that might be, how can we know this? Only by deductive reasoning can we even make the assertion. I know laws of physics seem to break down at the quantum level, however in my opinion it's more likely that our ability to observe fails.

I never felt that at any point during, before, right at... the singularity... like forces attracted and unlike forces repelled. I can understand that perhaps gravity works differently in that situation, perhaps that force concentration bends everything into basically nothing so not only do laws not exist, existence itself is questionable.

Avante

02-08-2014, 02:58 AM

There are simply too many things that must work in perfect concert to pull this off. And it all just happened by chance, anyone who believes that is a total/complete idiot.

boutons_deux

02-08-2014, 08:25 AM

There are simply too many things that must work in perfect concert to pull this off. And it all just happened by chance, anyone who believes that is a total/complete idiot.

what's "this"? humans only? or the entire universe?

pgardn

02-08-2014, 10:44 AM

There are simply too many things that must work in perfect concert to pull this off. And it all just happened by chance, anyone who believes that is a total/complete idiot.

To pull what off?

And work in perfect concert, who claims perfection in any sort of phenomena?

DMC

02-08-2014, 12:25 PM

To pull what off?

And work in perfect concert, who claims perfection in any sort of phenomena?

Avante's comment is on par with the mindset of people who've never given it much thought and who believe the product is an intended outcome instead of just a product from a set of precursors. And of course humans were the intended product of the entire set of universal precursors.

Suspect

02-08-2014, 12:54 PM

internet debate!

DMC

02-08-2014, 01:40 PM

internet debate!
Shut your whore mouth... now, feel better?

Blake

02-08-2014, 04:24 PM

So yes, antheists do have to demonstrate that everything can come from nothing with no cause if they want the world to believe it.

What atheists claim abiogenesis?

Chinook

02-08-2014, 04:32 PM

What atheists claim abiogenesis?

Does that mean something different to you? I think most folks who don't believe in direct divine intervention believe in abiogensis to some extent. I understand that to mean that life developed from non-living matter. Is that particularly controversial?

Rogue

02-08-2014, 07:58 PM

There are simply too many things that must work in perfect concert to pull this off. And it all just happened by chance, anyone who believes that is a total/complete idiot.
Not everything progressed perfectly though, otherwise your family tree would and should have died as a seed imho. Idiots who believe in the existence of God and his absolute controlling power over everything must also believe that the Apollo missions were faked in a studio. humans have been observing the universe for several centuries but still haven't found any sign of a paradise or something where "God" is supposed to live. Where is God, if he really exists? Somewhere outside of the Galaxy, or somewhere else beyond our eyesight?

"God" is more like spiritual symbol than a physical being imho, and he only exists in our minds. He makes us behave good and gives us fortitude to help us get through hardships, and everyone has his/her own unique version of God in their minds (Goddess is the "God" for me)

We're extremely lucky to have a planet like earth where everything comes so suitable and makes it possible for life to exist. Things had to work "perfectly" because if anything went wrong in the process, we wouldn't even have the chance to make this discussion here. And we're also unlucky in someway because each of us is given only a limited time to live on the earth, and that the natural selection has failed to purge the shitty genes (like yourself, Avante) from the human gene pool

Leetonidas

02-08-2014, 08:03 PM

Everything didn't come from nothing...a singularity is not "nothing."

Blake

02-08-2014, 08:25 PM

Chinook

02-08-2014, 08:42 PM

Where are these folks you are referring to?

Not saying I don't believe you. I'd just like to see these folks.

I don't have any real evidence of people supporting it. I just think it's logical. Either life started simultaneously with the universe, or it came later. Assuming the latter, it would have had to come from non-living materials which became living under the right conditions or come from non-physical means.

So the way I see it, there are three genera of beliefs on the matter. First that life is some independent quality that came into being with the Big Bang, similar to how David Chalmers argues consciousness did. Second, life is an independent quality that came later due to some supernatural intervention, essentially a "let there be life" genus. Finally, that life is not an independent quality but just a special state matter can enter under certain circumstances, which is how I understand abiogenesis to be.

mouse

02-08-2014, 09:28 PM

ok then how old in your mind is earth ?

ok Brazil my word from this post forward I consider the past what it was...... something I was never really sure what I did but I piss off so many people I stop thinking about it. Maybe one day you will enlighten me.
Bottom line we don't need personal issues to interfere with the topic at hand (sorry DMC) and why chest others who are just readers not know the facts as we see them?
If the others who post in these topics knew that, "Evolution" debates would be something that moves forward like technology debates as each year they have a winner.

as more and more information is found they present it and the debate has a life. But the insults and religious tones of Evolution keeps it like a Feud kinda like the Hatfield's and McCoy's

or the PLO and the Catholics,the Hindu VS the Jews ,the Bloods vs the Crips... and so on

your altess is kind enough to answer the question. Apparently you are smarter than MIT dudes

Never confuse being smart to having more evidence. I never claimed to be "smarter' than anyone show me the quote.

If that was the case OJ would have never lost his murder trial. The LA courts had the "Evidence" but OJ's lawyer was "smarter" you see the difference?

But yes if I debate MIT and they lose then maybe I can see where others may make that claim.

and I'm no MIT dude

You don't have a penis? :lmao

come on Brazil you know I like to do one liners. you seen my posts... please don't make it a big deal.

so I'm not sure a simple mind like me can understand a grand mind like you but it is worth the try.

"My mind" and "your mind" are the same since we both are humans on this planet we share the same brains so don't use that in your future debates it looks cheesy and people from other countries always seem to sell themselves short being from Brazil you know things I don't so I would never think I'm better than anyone else.

Some minds know something some other mind doesn't know so they feel they are "smarter" not true they just happen to know something before you did.

How can a "Scientist" be "Smart" if he only knows what the "Science" teacher knew before him? What I am saying Bill Gates today would just be another Hacker / Computer programer if he just now graduated college. But since he knew "Before" the collage students know back in the 80s he seemed like a genus.

Just don't confused the well informed with the misinformed.

after all you are telling it the best: "But from time to time I try not to forget my online fans and debate in forum's like ST (to show after my huge ego I can still get along with the commoners)"

That I can't argue.

Suspect

02-08-2014, 09:57 PM

so....how old do you think the Earth is?

mouse

02-08-2014, 10:22 PM

so....how old do you think the Earth is?

The earth is only as old as the Sun.

mouse

02-08-2014, 10:24 PM

You see "Science" teaches us the Solar System is "12 Billion" years old... so it must be true It's in the school text books. :lmao

mouse

02-08-2014, 10:25 PM

These are the same "Scientists that can't even cure the common cold but they know exactly how you got here?

We have "CANCER" but who cares? we have NASA we have Fossils...

DMC

02-08-2014, 10:26 PM

Does that mean something different to you? I think most folks who don't believe in direct divine intervention believe in abiogensis to some extent. I understand that to mean that life developed from non-living matter. Is that particularly controversial?

It's not that abiogenesis is more obvious than divine intervention, but that it doesn't require the creation of a magical bridge. The fact that all known life is composed of matter and energy supports abiogenesis more than divine creation. If we could not find anything composed of the material that we are composed of except in us, then divine intervention would be a bit more feasible though still more of a leap that abiogenesis. However all things are matter and energy. There's no evidence that it was created, none. There's no evidence that an intelligence source initiated the creation of the universe. There's no reason to assume it did. Ignorance coupled with superstition fuels the creation of deities. There's much more evidence to suggest man created god than that god created man.

Blake

02-08-2014, 10:28 PM

I don't have any real evidence of people supporting it. I just think it's logical. Either life started simultaneously with the universe, or it came later. Assuming the latter, it would have had to come from non-living materials which became living under the right conditions or come from non-physical means.

So the way I see it, there are three genera of beliefs on the matter. First that life is some independent quality that came into being with the Big Bang, similar to how David Chalmers argues consciousness did. Second, life is an independent quality that came later due to some supernatural intervention, essentially a "let there be life" genus. Finally, that life is not an independent quality but just a special state matter can enter under certain circumstances, which is how I understand abiogenesis to be.

I guess I should have said before, I'm with Hawking too that it's silly to guess what happened before the universe started, so I'm skipping on ahead to the next phase in this discussion which is usually abiogenesis.

But I'm assuming that your claims that burden of "disproof" still falls on the atheist in regards to abiogenesis, correct?

DMC

02-08-2014, 10:28 PM

I don't have any real evidence of people supporting it. I just think it's logical. Either life started simultaneously with the universe, or it came later. Assuming the latter, it would have had to come from non-living materials which became living under the right conditions or come from non-physical means.

So the way I see it, there are three genera of beliefs on the matter. First that life is some independent quality that came into being with the Big Bang, similar to how David Chalmers argues consciousness did. Second, life is an independent quality that came later due to some supernatural intervention, essentially a "let there be life" genus. Finally, that life is not an independent quality but just a special state matter can enter under certain circumstances, which is how I understand abiogenesis to be.

We also have to define "life" in terms that have clear boundaries.

xmas1997

02-08-2014, 10:39 PM

I don't have any real evidence of people supporting it. I just think it's logical. Either life started simultaneously with the universe, or it came later. Assuming the latter, it would have had to come from non-living materials which became living under the right conditions or come from non-physical means.

So the way I see it, there are three genera of beliefs on the matter. First that life is some independent quality that came into being with the Big Bang, similar to how David Chalmers argues consciousness did. Second, life is an independent quality that came later due to some supernatural intervention, essentially a "let there be life" genus. Finally, that life is not an independent quality but just a special state matter can enter under certain circumstances, which is how I understand abiogenesis to be.

I couldn't have expressed this better myself. I applaud your efforts and agree with you, and even though I am a Catholic Christian, I am a discriminating one who keeps an open mind..

Chinook

02-08-2014, 10:51 PM

I guess I should have said before, I'm with Hawking too that it's silly to guess what happened before the universe started, so I'm skipping on ahead to the next phase in this discussion which is usually abiogenesis.

But I'm assuming that your claims that burden of "disproof" still falls on the atheist in regards to abiogenesis, correct?

Nope. I believe in abiogenesis as much as an atheist. I don't see a reason to separate life from matter.

mouse

02-08-2014, 10:52 PM

The truth is "Science" needs to get out of the "Religion" part of our life. they already proved design.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Picture016-2.jpg

Chinook

02-08-2014, 10:53 PM

We also have to define "life" in terms that have clear boundaries.

True. There's a lot of gray area there.

mouse

02-08-2014, 10:55 PM

I found an old link copy it .

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-206902-p-2.html

Chinook

02-08-2014, 10:58 PM

It's not that abiogenesis is more obvious than divine intervention, but that it doesn't require the creation of a magical bridge. The fact that all known life is composed of matter and energy supports abiogenesis more than divine creation. If we could not find anything composed of the material that we are composed of except in us, then divine intervention would be a bit more feasible though still more of a leap that abiogenesis. However all things are matter and energy. There's no evidence that it was created, none. There's no evidence that an intelligence source initiated the creation of the universe. There's no reason to assume it did. Ignorance coupled with superstition fuels the creation of deities. There's much more evidence to suggest man created god than that god created man.

I'm a deist, so I agree that people made up everything attributed to god. As I said to Blake, I believe in abiogenesis and the general atheistic origin story. I believe religion was created as a way to answer questions and as a moral code. In both ways, it's mostly outdated.

mouse

02-08-2014, 11:16 PM

Science has found the "code inside the DNA" of the smallest molecule ever seen under a microscope and only someone with a College degree can do that so the Evolutionist know the Universe is a blueprint of life that may have "Evolved"

mouse

02-08-2014, 11:18 PM

Now we have Minos that grow feet and birds that grow beaks. "Evolution" does take place but where does it end?

mouse

02-08-2014, 11:24 PM

There is a difference in a person or an animal to "adapt" or "Evolve" to their surroundings it's totally different to say that bird or fish was you.

now you get it?

mouse

02-08-2014, 11:28 PM

The bullshit you learn.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Science-text-book-2-1.jpg

DMC

02-08-2014, 11:37 PM

I'm a deist, so I agree that people made up everything attributed to god. As I said to Blake, I believe in abiogenesis and the general atheistic origin story. I believe religion was created as a way to answer questions and as a moral code. In both ways, it's mostly outdated.

I'd go a step further and say people made up god as an explanation for the mysterious things in their world. From the sun moving across the sky, to the sea gods who got angry and caused the storms, to famines caused by angry gods. Gods were credited with outcomes of wars, with births and everything else. Gods were an all encompassing part of people's lives. They lived in fear of gods. As time has passed, men have not gotten closer to these gods, but further away. This world is moving toward atheism, not toward theism. I think humankind's ability to imagine has led them down this road. A sense of the numinous is prevalent in mankind, perhaps as a survival mechanism. a hierarchy much like in the animal kingdom, only we've grown to push other humans below our worship (mostly) and instead imagine a super good human like presence who has an overall plan that's universally solid.

I will give you this though; if a benevolent god created the universe, he has indeed abandoned it.

DMC

02-08-2014, 11:44 PM

True. There's a lot of gray area there.

We also have to define "special". Life is special to us. It probably has special circumstances surrounding its origin as well. I don't believe that its supernaturally special however. The fact that we are dependent upon the "dead" environment around us leads me to think we are simply a compilation of matter and energy that's become self aware, and because we are self aware, we have given ourselves an artificial value in terms of existence. Were we wiped from the planet today, and no life existed afterward, the universe would still be. It was before we existed.

Rogue

02-08-2014, 11:48 PM

xmas1997

02-08-2014, 11:49 PM

There are those who postulate that human life has been wiped out at least three or four times already, and yet began again.
Go figure.

Chinook

02-08-2014, 11:55 PM

I'd go a step further and say people made up god as an explanation for the mysterious things in their world. From the sun moving across the sky, to the sea gods who got angry and caused the storms, to famines caused by angry gods. Gods were credited with outcomes of wars, with births and everything else. Gods were an all encompassing part of people's lives. They lived in fear of gods. As time has passed, men have not gotten closer to these gods, but further away. This world is moving toward atheism, not toward theism. I think humankind's ability to imagine has led them down this road. A sense of the numinous is prevalent in mankind, perhaps as a survival mechanism. a hierarchy much like in the animal kingdom, only we've grown to push other humans below our worship (mostly) and instead imagine a super good human like presence who has an overall plan that's universally solid.

I will give you this though; if a benevolent god created the universe, he has indeed abandoned it.

Freud argued that the belief in god hindered humans from realizing their potential by making them believe there was a level they could not reach. Marx thought god allowed poor people to accept being mistreated because they felt their curret lives were less important than the afterlife. So I understand that the movement toward atheism has its benefits. Even though I find atheistic blowhards as insufferable as bible-thumpers, I much prefer today's more secular era to the past.

But I don't think believing in god is inherently destructive. I think truly believing you're but a speck against an unfathomable power is a good thing. I think that feel like imaging the embodiment of eternity and infinitely helps keep things in perspective. I think fearing god's wrath can be a good thing so long as it enforces the right morals that promote common good and not the bigoted ones.

I don't think theism in its most visceral sense is going anywhere.

Chinook

02-08-2014, 11:58 PM

We also have to define "special". Life is special to us. It probably has special circumstances surrounding its origin as well. I don't believe that its supernaturally special however. The fact that we are dependent upon the "dead" environment around us leads me to think we are simply a compilation of matter and energy that's become self aware, and because we are self aware, we have given ourselves an artificial value in terms of existence. Were we wiped from the planet today, and no life existed afterward, the universe would still be. It was before we existed.

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply supernatural phenomena by saying special.

Rogue

02-09-2014, 12:04 AM

The appearance of life is total coincidence. It requires the proper distance to the Sun and also the right size of the planet itself. The chance of life happening is very minimal, seemingly impossible when you look at the earth itself, but not so when you spread your focus over the entire universe which's boundless and infinite. The earth might be the only planet in the solar system where life exists, but there're definitely some other planets similar to ours in the Galaxy, and many more outside of the Galaxy. It's like, the chance of winning lottery is very small for you, but there're still people winning lotteries, and luckily our earth is one of the planets who've won the life lottery.

DMC

02-09-2014, 01:57 AM

Freud argued that the belief in god hindered humans from realizing their potential by making them believe there was a level they could not reach. Marx thought god allowed poor people to accept being mistreated because they felt their curret lives were less important than the afterlife. So I understand that the movement toward atheism has its benefits. Even though I find atheistic blowhards as insufferable as bible-thumpers, I much prefer today's more secular era to the past.

I don't weigh the benefits tbh. It's just the natural outcome as we learn more about our surroundings. If there's a benefit, that's a side effect of getting to an equilibrium with reality, I think. Zealots of any ideology are annoying. The root of atheism however is just a blank slate in terms of believing we already know the answers.

But I don't think believing in god is inherently destructive. I think truly believing you're but a speck against an unfathomable power is a good thing. I think that feel like imaging the embodiment of eternity and infinitely helps keep things in perspective. I think fearing god's wrath can be a good thing so long as it enforces the right morals that promote common good and not the bigoted ones.

I think believing in something that's not real isn't a good thing. I think it's delusional. If a person loses weight because they think the food is poisoned when it's clearly not, regardless whether the person needed to lose weight, the person is delusional.

I think a modicum of humility would do a lot of people some good, but I don't believe that should be artificially induced through delusion. It says bad things about people in general that we are more civil if we think we are getting rewarded for being that way, or punished for not being that way. It also says bad things that many of us cannot find internal reasons to do the right things in life, and instead need a life trainer, even a make believe one, correcting us and reminding us along the way with a moral compass.

I don't think theism in its most visceral sense is going anywhere.
I think it's been everywhere and it will sooner or later be just a thin resemblance of what it is now. I think many people will alter their beliefs over time to treat all religion like we treat Christmas now.... like it's a pretty idea with no substance because for all intents and purposes, that's what religion is, at least god belief.

DMC

02-09-2014, 01:58 AM

Indeed. I didn't mean to imply supernatural phenomena by saying special.

If special is the other side of the biogenesis coin, what else would it be?

DMC

02-09-2014, 02:00 AM

There are those who postulate that human life has been wiped out at least three or four times already, and yet began again.
Go figure.

With zero evidence, a postulation is just a fart.

Chinook

02-09-2014, 02:33 AM

If special is the other side of the biogenesis coin, what else would it be?

Special just means unique to a certain group in this case. Like if solid matter is heated, it becomes liquid. If matter is put under certain conditions, it becomes living. The fact that it's living is the special state, not necessary that it has the potential to become living. For all we know, all matter may be able to become living under certain circumstances.

Woo Bum-kon

02-09-2014, 08:21 AM

I am Agnostic. Sounds like deep down you are as well, tbh.

Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

pgardn

02-09-2014, 11:11 AM

One really cannot discuss abiogenesis or biogenesis without a working definition of life.

Their are non carbon based crystals that can be thought of as self replicating.
Some of this stuff was getting very philosophical.
Imo definitions of words need to be fully understood and agreed upon otherwise meaningful discussion (the antithesis of Mouse talk) does not take place.

Proxy

02-09-2014, 12:24 PM

We also have to define "special". Life is special to us. It probably has special circumstances surrounding its origin as well. I don't believe that its supernaturally special however. The fact that we are dependent upon the "dead" environment around us leads me to think we are simply a compilation of matter and energy that's become self aware, and because we are self aware, we have given ourselves an artificial value in terms of existence. Were we wiped from the planet today, and no life existed afterward, the universe would still be. It was before we existed.

That false sense of self... saw a TED talk a while back where John Searle made a convincing argument to view consciousness as a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_OPQgPIdKg