|
Post by gartho009 on Aug 12, 2005 3:25:39 GMT -5
And then there's the irony that we're on a board called the Temple of Polemic...
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Aug 12, 2005 12:00:52 GMT -5
And then there's the irony that we're on a board called the Temple of Polemic... ;D Tell me about it! LOL
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 17, 2005 17:03:07 GMT -5
Here's a question... the big bang theory says something to the effect of the planets being spawned from a huge explosion in a dustcloud. or something like that. Multitudes of galaxies, multitudes of planets, and so far as we can tell, only one supporting life.
Now, what would you think the odds were that our planet would be just far enough away from our sun to be warm enough but not too hot to support life...
what do you think the odds were that our planet would be more than a collection of gasses or a lump of raw iron, that we would have water, hydrogen, carbon, the things that plantlife need to live and survive?
what do you think the odds were that the collection of soils and gasses would be enough to spontaneously create bacteria?
where did the animals come from? did they spawn from bacteria? where did the bacteria come from?
Dinosaurs existed en masse for (as far as I was taught) several million years until the ice ages.
where did we spawn from? did we indeed evolve from monkeys? what did they evolve from?
I'd say that the big bang theory and evolutionary theories are rather flawed in their logical reasoning.
This is not to say that creationism based religeons are also lacking in some logical reasoning. However, I find it much easier to believe that somewhere there is a higher power that simply decided to spark a little life. Seems a little less far fetched (in my opinion and that's the key to this post, it's just my opinion.) than the idea of everything evolving from the same strain of soil created bacteria differently.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Aug 18, 2005 1:33:19 GMT -5
Here's a question... the big bang theory says something to the effect of the planets being spawned from a huge explosion in a dustcloud. or something like that. Multitudes of galaxies, multitudes of planets, and so far as we can tell, only one supporting life. To be specific, at the start of the big bang, there was mostly hydrogen with a smattering of helium. Areas of this hydrogen sea that had greater density than other areas attracted more hydrogen through gravity. These accreted into the first stars. They were most likely super massive blue stars. The hydrogen within these stars fused into helium. The helium and hydrogen fused some more, creating heavier elements These fused with already existing atoms and created more elements. By the time these stars ceased to be able to sustain fusion after expending all its fuel, they supernova'd, spreading these heavy elements throughout the universe. These heavy elements mixed in with the hydrogen sea that had yet to accrete into stars. When these areas permeated with heavier elements accreted into stars, rocky, and even gaseous planets with heavier cores, sometimes accompanied these younger stars. A few billion years later, Sol was formed with at least nine major planetary bodies, one of which was in the "Goldilocks Zone". And of course, you know what happened next. Now, what would you think the odds were that our planet would be just far enough away from our sun to be warm enough but not too hot to support life... what do you think the odds were that our planet would be more than a collection of gasses or a lump of raw iron, that we would have water, hydrogen, carbon, the things that plantlife need to live and survive? what do you think the odds were that the collection of soils and gasses would be enough to spontaneously create bacteria? where did the animals come from? did they spawn from bacteria? where did the bacteria come from? Dinosaurs existed en masse for (as far as I was taught) several million years until the ice ages. where did we spawn from? did we indeed evolve from monkeys? what did they evolve from? I'd say that the big bang theory and evolutionary theories are rather flawed in their logical reasoning. So, now are we to engage in the "explain everything in the universe or you lose" debate? (BTW Richard, I use rolley-eyes on anyone regardless of whether I like them or not.) Anyway, maybe I can handle these one at a time. Now, what would you think the odds were that our planet would be just far enough away from our sun to be warm enough but not too hot to support life... Are you saying we're special? I agree with you to some degree. However, I get the impression that this is supposed to be an indication that we have some special position in the universe. I suppose you think this is God's doing. How does being the winner in the universal lottery make us any special than the handful of potential alien civilizations out there? You're right that the universe is a big place. But that just increases the odds that there's going to be a solar system that has a planet capable of supporting life. Remember, we're just the successes out of hundreds of billions of examples. When you try that many times, you're going to hit on it eventually. Don't let that go to your head. Besides, despite what jayjay the village idiot thinks, evolution dosn't say anything about how life started. It only pertains to it after it begins. what do you think the odds were that our planet would be more than a collection of gasses or a lump of raw iron, that we would have water, hydrogen, carbon, the things that plantlife need to live and survive? Considering the amounts of planets we're beginning to find, it's not that big of a deal. Wait until orbital interferometric telescopes come about. We'll be finding much more rocky planets and even be able to see if there's life on them. what do you think the odds were that the collection of soils and gasses would be enough to spontaneously create bacteria? That's a bad example. Bacteria didn't just spontaneously come about. Chances are, life was probably nothing more than a primitive self-replicating protein in the beginning. I'm not quite sure what your intentions were, but in my experience, creationists create an erroneous strawman of evolutionary theory and then destroy it and claim to have debunked evolution. Bacteria did not come from gases and soil. where did the animals come from? did they spawn from bacteria? where did the bacteria come from? Stiletto can probably explain this better than I can, however until he gets here, I'll take a whack at it. Animals probably evolved from unicellular eukaryotes. We're technically multicellular eukaryotes for obvious reasons. You can tell this by looking at our cell structure with that of modern unicellular eukaryotes. Each of our cells are simply specialized version of these unicellular beings. Cooperation isn't unprecendented in the animal world. Dinosaurs existed en masse for (as far as I was taught) several million years until the ice ages. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago whereas the modern Ice Age started 40 million years ago, I think. Also, the dinosaurs were around for 160 million years, not a few million. A form of ape - not monkeys. did we indeed evolve from monkeys? what did they evolve from? Probably a form of lemur, IIRC. You can trace mammalian ancestry back to rodent-like animals that lived around the time of the dinosaurs. And mammals in general came from proto-mammals that, at first, competed with dinosaurs in the early Triassic Period, IIRC. You might want to check up with Stiletto to be sure. In any case, I don't see the point of this group of questions. Science can show for the most part how modern animals evolved. A google search would be very illuminating. I'd say that the big bang theory and evolutionary theories are rather flawed in their logical reasoning. How so? This is not to say that creationism based religeons are also lacking in some logical reasoning. Well, they might very well be logical, though it's usually based on presuppositions. However, I find it much easier to believe that somewhere there is a higher power that simply decided to spark a little life. Of course it's easier. Doesn't make it right. Science by its very nature has to use provable elements in its theories. They can already use natural explanations about the start of life without having to resort to supernatural explanations. Seems a little less far fetched (in my opinion and that's the key to this post, it's just my opinion.) than the idea of everything evolving from the same strain of soil created bacteria differently. Yeah, you really might want to brush up on your scientific origins before you pass judgement. Go to Talk Origins for the debate. It's very illuminating. It should answer most of your questions. You might also want to look up "philosophy of science" as well to see why science works the way it does. You might understand why "opinion" isn't a good enough reason to dismiss evolution or anything else science has to say. Anyway, good to see you posting on the board. I was kinda wondering what happened. I saw you register but didn't see you post anything. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 18, 2005 9:00:30 GMT -5
You know, as much as I hate looking stupid, I just love it when someone tears a post apart so well! Such a refreshing break from some forums I've seen. Actually, the core of my opinion is because I simply don't have the patience to study all of this like others. Really, there is only one thing I don't get, and that's the origin of life. I can understand there being enough planets for the right conditions to exist on at least one to support some kind of life, but that leaves the question where did the first spark of life spawn? That's the only one I really want answered. And the one noone can really seem to explain to me. Well, here's one they've been working on for a while, just so I can lean back and see if you try. Pull it off and I may give you cookies. Disprove God.
|
|
RedFeather
Junior Scholar
*flap, flap, flap!*
Posts: 423
|
Post by RedFeather on Aug 18, 2005 10:37:27 GMT -5
Nobody can either prove or disprove God. I, personally, believe a higher power to be a possibility, and although you might see me making points against certain Christian people (you know the types - the hypocrites that make the whole religion look bad), but you won't see me trying to disprove God, or the possibility of one.
|
|
SilvanoshiS
Apprentice
flightless and loving it
Posts: 143
|
Post by SilvanoshiS on Aug 18, 2005 16:10:19 GMT -5
Why prove or disprove anything? This whole debate is a debate of standards, of beliefs, and no one can change another's beliefs, only their own. My view on this is, "why impose your happieness on another when they have already found inner happieness."
Yeah, it's kinda cheesy and monastic, but, in the words of Willy Wonka (as played by Johnny Depp) "I don't care." *big chessy grin*
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Aug 18, 2005 21:14:54 GMT -5
You know, as much as I hate looking stupid, HA! You think your post was stupid? I've seen some whoppers in my time. Yours didn't come even close. I know you have a modicum of logic and rationality. The worst kinds of creationists are, in my opinion, completely insane and detached from reality. Trust me, your post didn't register too much on my fundie-meter. I just love it when someone tears a post apart so well! Such a refreshing break from some forums I've seen. You might want to take a look at my mentor board Stardestroyer.net. The art of flaming has been brought to new heights over there. You might also want to check out Mike Wong's main page, where he has an anti-creationist site as well as a hatemail page where he blasts his critics. It's extremely funny. It's also funny what he does to Trekkies on the main topic pages. Actually, the core of my opinion is because I simply don't have the patience to study all of this like others. Join the club. I might have been able to respond to your post in a more accurate and comprehinsive fashion if I made myself more aware of the latest ideas on evolution. As it stands, I'm really lazy. I make do with knowing the broader principles and tactics in the debate and not the specifics. Really, there is only one thing I don't get, and that's the origin of life. I can understand there being enough planets for the right conditions to exist on at least one to support some kind of life, but that leaves the question where did the first spark of life spawn? That's the only one I really want answered. And the one noone can really seem to explain to me. Well, technically life should have sparked here, though there is the remote possibility it started on Mars and got blasted to earth by a gigantic asteroid impact. The second one is a bit unlikely though. Anyway, if life were to appear outside of our solar system (or even inside such as on the water moon of Europa orbiting Jupiter) then it would most likely have arisen independently. There would be no single origin point. The likelihood of life arising on other planets is fairly high because carbon is an extremely resilient element. It can bond with tons of other atoms and create complex molecules, amino acids (the building blocks of DNA) being one of them. I think there were reports of hydrocarbon lakes on Triton, a moon of Saturn. Now, that moon is too cold for life to form, though in another solar system where conditions are more hospitable, there's a good chance of life arising there. BTW, the Goldilocks Zone isn't the only place life could arise. There is some speculation that Europa can hold life because 1) It may have liquid oceans underneath the icy surface and 2) the interior may be warm enough through tidal friction with Jupiter to sustain life. Well, here's one they've been working on for a while, just so I can lean back and see if you try. Pull it off and I may give you cookies. Disprove God. HA! I don't have to prove a negative! Bwahahahahaha! ;D In any case, God is unfalsifiable. Since God is completely intangible, you can neither prove nore disprove him in any direct empirical fashion. That's why God isn't included in real scientific theories. The principle of God is too nebulous and subjective. However, let me say this. Through the principle of parsimony, you can cut out God. When given a choice between a theory that can explain stuff without God and a similar theory that has God tacked on, the way to go is the one that cuts out the extraneous and redundant elements of a theory, i.e. God. A while back, I posted a proposal of a scientific experiment that I heard at the university. The idea is this. Come up with a control subject of a universe without a God. Then take a look at this universe and see how it stacks up with the control subject. Take into account chaos theory, probability, and all the things that make the world quirky and unpredictable. If the real universe is indistinguishable from the control universe (the one that has no God or any other sort of Higher Power), then the conlusion you must come to is that God doesn't exist. In my opinion, without corroboration in empirical reality, the existence of God (at least the anthropomorphic versions that humans have come up with so far) is sustained only by human ego. He exists not because there's any real evidence for him, but because we want him to exist. God's existence is sustained only by the human Will to Believe. That's how I see it. I made a thread where I asked atheists and agnostics what religions they would choose should they be forced to do so. I chose pantheism because it doesn't really take any faith to believe in the universe and that I'm a part of it. Faith is simply too subjective to hit upon external Truth in any accurate way. - Aric EDIT Might as well respond to other posts here. Nobody can either prove or disprove God. I, personally, believe a higher power to be a possibility, and although you might see me making points against certain Christian people (you know the types - the hypocrites that make the whole religion look bad), but you won't see me trying to disprove God, or the possibility of one. I also think that there are stuff out there we don't know about yet. There might be a Higher Power, but I don't think that it necessarily corresponds with any ideas of a Higher Power we've come up with so far. My contention is that God as it is understood by Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and such is probably wrong. I personally think it would be cool if we existed in a construct pocket universe that exists in the petrie dish of an alien lab. Trillions of years could pass for us while in the larger alien universe only seconds may pass. I want my own pocket universe! Why prove or disprove anything? This whole debate is a debate of standards, of beliefs, and no one can change another's beliefs, only their own. My view on this is, "why impose your happieness on another when they have already found inner happieness." Yeah, it's kinda cheesy and monastic, but, in the words of Willy Wonka (as played by Johnny Depp) "I don't care." *big chessy grin* You kind of make it sound as if the whole debate was up to individual preferences and opinions. Unfortunately, it's not. Science has produced far more tangible results for humanity than theology ever did. This is possible because through empirical analysis of the objective world, scientists can devise theories that make sense of how the world works. Understanding this correctly allows scientists to apply that knowledge in constructive ways. The success of science proves that its ideas about the universe correspond better with reality than theology does. In other words, science is right on the matters of evolution and physics, while creationism is not. There is no contest when you look at it rationally and as objectively as possible. It's as simple as that. In other words, who would you trust to be right? A scientist who says that the bolts he produced through science that can handle stress tolerances to hold up steel "I" beams in the construction of a skyscraper, or some religious guy who says that he has doohickeys that can channel spiritual aether or mana to give the steel beams strength?
|
|
RedFeather
Junior Scholar
*flap, flap, flap!*
Posts: 423
|
Post by RedFeather on Aug 19, 2005 9:41:27 GMT -5
I also think that there are stuff out there we don't know about yet. There might be a Higher Power, but I don't think that it necessarily corresponds with any ideas of a Higher Power we've come up with so far. My contention is that God as it is understood by Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and such is probably wrong. Yes, I agree wholly on that. I do believe that many people's ideas on "God" are wrong. Not necessarily all ideas, but some. And being human, I doubt any one of them has it all right, for everyone makes mistakes at one point or another. For instance, I disagree with this whole concept of "follow our beliefs or go to hell." Mainly because every major religion tells you that, and that everyone else is wrong, and that theirs is the right religion. And I have serious problems with that ideation. If there were a god, would he/she/it exclude other good people of varying religions just because they did not fit into one particular group? No, in my opinion, someone worthy of being called "God," would love everyone, and would see a person for who they were, not what religion they followed. If they did their best to be a good person, didn't go killing people, screwing people over, not caring, etc., then perhaps they would end up in a good place. And those who just don't care, who hurt/kill others without a good cause, who just screw up everything, would end up in a not-so-pleasant place. I could share my beliefs, but lol, they'd probably get flamed. And they're my own and are very personal to me.
|
|
SilvanoshiS
Apprentice
flightless and loving it
Posts: 143
|
Post by SilvanoshiS on Aug 19, 2005 10:08:18 GMT -5
Actually Aric, just look at it this way. JJ believes he's right. You believe you're right. Neither one is going to persuade the other, and no one will get ahead. Sure you could make more viable arguments for than he could against, but he believes what he believes, as do you. You both believe in diffrent gods. Him in an intangible spirit, and you in the tangible laws of the universe. nothing's wrong with either one, it's just how you each view the universe.
You can respond or pick this apart as you will, but it won't change how I feel, that's the unspoken disclamer on most of these posts here, sdo I'll just make it obvious on mine.
|
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Aug 19, 2005 21:37:07 GMT -5
The concept of an anthropomorphic God is a holdover from earlier religions. The thing is, Western religions believe in a God that is intangible and unknowable, that is above all...but the idea of a guy with a long grey beard is reeeeeeeeeally comforting, so it never died.
|
|
SilvanoshiS
Apprentice
flightless and loving it
Posts: 143
|
Post by SilvanoshiS on Aug 19, 2005 21:59:45 GMT -5
because an old guy with a long beard that wants to hug you is comforting... not creepy... I'll stick the the unseen if those are my choices thanks.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Aug 20, 2005 3:50:24 GMT -5
I also think that there are stuff out there we don't know about yet. There might be a Higher Power, but I don't think that it necessarily corresponds with any ideas of a Higher Power we've come up with so far. My contention is that God as it is understood by Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and such is probably wrong. Yes, I agree wholly on that. I do believe that many people's ideas on "God" are wrong. Not necessarily all ideas, but some. And being human, I doubt any one of them has it all right, for everyone makes mistakes at one point or another. I started a thread about the parable of the blind men and the elephant. I think it applies perfectly to this situation. For instance, I disagree with this whole concept of "follow our beliefs or go to hell." Mainly because every major religion tells you that, and that everyone else is wrong, and that theirs is the right religion. And I have serious problems with that ideation. Ah, but then what would be the purpose of believing something if some other belief can get the job done just as well? In my opinion, it's the idea that you are absolutely right and that you'll be rewarded for that belief. There's nothing more important to most people than certitude. If there were a god, would he/she/it exclude other good people of varying religions just because they did not fit into one particular group? No, in my opinion, someone worthy of being called "God," would love everyone, and would see a person for who they were, not what religion they followed. If they did their best to be a good person, didn't go killing people, screwing people over, not caring, etc., then perhaps they would end up in a good place. And those who just don't care, who hurt/kill others without a good cause, who just screw up everything, would end up in a not-so-pleasant place. Yeah, but that depends, as you said, on your idea of how God should be. I've heard people say that it's okay for God to do things like send people to hell just for not believing in him, or kill all the first born in Egypt simply because he's God. I suspect some people here believe the same thing, but are a bit more reserved when it comes to expressing their beliefs. Actually Aric, just look at it this way. JJ believes he's right. You believe you're right. Neither one is going to persuade the other, and no one will get ahead. Sure you could make more viable arguments for than he could against, but he believes what he believes, as do you. You both believe in diffrent gods. Him in an intangible spirit, and you in the tangible laws of the universe. nothing's wrong with either one, it's just how you each view the universe. That assumes all things are equal. I already argued that it isn't. I'm guessing you didn't bother to understand what I was trying to say in my post since all you're doing is regurgitating your own previous post. Are you saying that a process that depends on empirical evidence from the real world is just as valid as a system where most of its assertions are, for all practical and rational purposes (and confirmed by your own statements), pulled out of their asses? It's NOT about simply who believes themselves to be right. It's about whether which system of coming to the truth has better correspondance with reality thereby making their conclusions more likely to be true. You can respond or pick this apart as you will, but it won't change how I feel, that's the unspoken disclamer on most of these posts here, sdo I'll just make it obvious on mine. In other words, the classical brick wall mentality. "No matter what you say, I'll still believe what I believe." Hey Richard, remember what I said about insane people? Hint: Look at people who take this kind of tactic. It's not the kind of thinking that opens one's mind to the world or whatever truth that may really be out there. Part of what makes science superior is the willingness, no matter how grudging, to change your mind. People who take in the evidence around them will learn about the universe in a better way. People who stay within the confines of their own lines of thinking will always be limited in how they see the world and are more likely to be wrong. There's always the possibility that a scientific theory is wrong. But there is a fundamental mandate within science to discard those ideas that don't comprehensively make sense of the evidence. Subjective Truth must change in accordance to the evidence. The idea of Eternal Truth is too contaminated by human subjectivity. That way lies the road of self-delusion. I can't believe this thread is still getting heated. I grew bored of it long ago. Gee, and yet you still posted. ;D The concept of an anthropomorphic God is a holdover from earlier religions. The thing is, Western religions believe in a God that is intangible and unknowable, that is above all...but the idea of a guy with a long grey beard is reeeeeeeeeally comforting, so it never died. As long as religious beliefs are sustained by the human ego (what I am asserting), God will always be made in our image in some way or another. - Aric
|
|
SilvanoshiS
Apprentice
flightless and loving it
Posts: 143
|
Post by SilvanoshiS on Aug 20, 2005 10:15:50 GMT -5
I never said anything about it being fair and equal, I know what you ment. I was simply stating that no matter how much you rant and rave he will still think you're stupid, and you him. I was stating that everyone has a mental brick wall on this subject, nothing more.
|
|