Fallacies in Christianity

[Deleted member]

Well, I wish him luck in trying to prove all that. I don't expect him to. Or anyone, for that matter. Care to explain how he can just ditch that point so willy-nilly to prevent contradiction?

 

[RDK]

Well, I wish him luck in trying to prove all that. I don't expect him to. Or anyone, for that matter. Care to explain how he can just ditch that point so willy-nilly to prevent contradiction?

Because saying a deity did it is so much more "in".

 

[AltF4]

The whole "time being asymptotically curved" thing is the important bit. You know, like asymptotes in math. You just keep approaching the point, but never reach it.

And, yes, this can be tested empirically.

 

[SuperBowser]

I haven't done maths or physics (almost went for a degree in physics though!) in a long time so forgive my silly question but... surely if you plug infinity into the equation it would reach the point?

edit: arrowhead, whyyyyyy? I got 100% in my A level calculus and I forgot it all. I feel kind of sad now D:

edit2: thanks for the response. However, your second paragraph would have been my next question as well . For my exams I believe an infinitessimally small number did count as 0, but perhaps I remember wrongly.

 

[arrowhead]

nope :[]

as you increase the variable, the value of the function gets closer to a constant. if you plug in infinity, it will get infinitely close to the constant, but it will still never reach it. similar to how if you half any real value, it will approach zero, but it will never reach zero

that being said, i have a question on .999...: if you halve any number, say 1, the value will decrease every time. if you halve it an infinite number of times, there will be an infinite number of 0's before the real number in the infinith digit. so if .999...=1, why doesn't .000...1=0 (i'm not sure .000...1 makes sense, but i think you should understand what i mean there)?

 

[AltF4]

Okay, some quick math fixes:

1) You cannot "plug infinity into an equation". Infinity is not a number. It is a concept. You cannot plug infinity into an equation any more than you can plug Santa in.

2) .999~ does in fact equal 1

3) .000~1 is not a number. Think about it. The "~" means "repeating infinitely". So you can't plop a one at the end of an infinite series because there's no end!


But these are questions better directed to the PRoom math thread, as these aren't matters of debate, but rather fact.

 

[RDK]

nope :[]as you increase the variable, the value of the function gets closer to a constant. if you plug in infinity, it will get infinitely close to the constant, but it will still never reach it. similar to how if you half any real value, it will approach zero, but it will never reach zero

that being said, i have a question on .999...: if you halve any number, say 1, the value will decrease every time. if you halve it an infinite number of times, there will be an infinite number of 0's before the real number in the infinith digit. so if .999...=1, why doesn't .000...1=0 (i'm not sure .000...1 makes sense, but i think you should understand what i mean there)?

I'm not a math major, but I think .999 actually does equal 1.

By the by Alt, remember that thread you made about some new concept of gathering information using supercomputers that would basically make our current form of induction obsolete? Whatever happened to that?

Edit: crap, beat me to the post button.

 

[AltF4]

Oh, yea. That was about Quantum Computing. That's some really exciting stuff, right there. It's essentially saying that (in certain circumstances where this would be applicable) we could forgo the typical scientific method in favor of massive computational power.

Usually, we try to say "correlation does not imply causation". But with enough data, correlation itself becomes sufficient.

We already use some of this concept in the form of Google's spell checker, and others. Google can check the spelling of words that the Google programmers have never heard of. They were never individually programmed in. They can do this because of the massive amount of data they have (all the people typing stuff into Google)

EDIT: But try to resurrect that thread if you want to talk about that more.

 

[Mewter]

EDIT: But try to resurrect that thread if you want to talk about that more.

Seems exciting.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=181013
Here's the link. I wonder if posting will bump it into the new debate hall?

 

[mc4]

One movie=inalienable proof of controversy? That's a pretty flimsy foundation for a counter-argument. Also, not all scientists are blacklisted because they believe in Creationism. If any of those scientists are blacklisted for that sort of thing, it's probably because they're unflappable fundamentalists sanctioned by the Church. Scientists disagree vociferously all the time, but rarely are people outright ostracized for things like that.

Smooth Criminal

It's not a counter argument, but it was an example that there is a conspiracy to some degree. Sorry in the movie it wasn't because they were unflappable fundamentalists sanctioned by the church. Infact all the people in the movie weren't religious, one was a teacher that didn't necessarily even believe in creation, she was neutral.

holy **** did you even read my post? a scientist having faith in something does not mean science includes faith. if we go by your logic, science also doesn't like bush, rock climbs, and watches TV. you have no idea what science is, so stop pretending that you do


gravity is not constant. it is dependent on distance and mass.

i never said relativity proves the speed of light to be a constant. i said it's never been observed to be anything other than ~300km/sec. that in NO WAY means that the speed of light will ALWAYS be ~300km/sec


lol large minority? i've said this before: christian scientists are not scientists.


and coming to that conclusion is obviously unscientific.

Gravity is constant on earth, that's what i said, so what did you just prove? I didn't say the speeds are universally constant, but in a sense yes gravity is constant. An objects mass and density are what determine gravity, so if two planets had the same mass and density, yes the acceleration due to gravity would be the same on both planets. I don't think there is necessarily a such thing as a "christian scientist" there are however scientists who out side of their field of science are christian. Based on what they know about science they just happen to believe in creation. How does trying to correct me on things i said about gravity prove me wrong about creation tho?

No, he's talking about that ridiculous pseudo-documentary by Ben Stein that compares the scientific institution and evolutionists to Hitler. I saw it.

I think that's all that needs to be said about that. There's really no point in continuing this debate.

nope there sure aint because we will continue to disagree, and you will continue to try to prove evolution using evolution alone to prove it.... sorry you need more than that man.

Mc4 it's great that you want to challenge evolution however you're challenging it with a hypothesis that holds no water. (yes I'm calling it a hypothesis and not a theory.)


I think you should look at this video:

The Collapse of Intelligent Design

Also Ben Stein isn't a scientist so don't take what he says with anything more than a grain of salt.

Ben Stein was the narrator, who says he is the director or had anything to do with the making of the movie. That's like sayin morgan freeman made that movie about the peguins, but yes obviously we have to take everything with a grain of salt on both sides of the argument because people can be wrong about things. But thanks for the somewhat compliment above that's probably the first i've gotten since the beginning of this thread lol.

Wait...after reading your garbage I suddenly came to a realization. You are arguing that evolution is wrong because it hasn't been proven to be 100% correct, but you do believe intelligent design which has absolutely no evidence at all.

Just to make things clear. Evolution lots of evidence(micro and macro, though one has less than the other). Intelligent design has no evidence. Not really a hard choice.

A quick search on google for scientific websites about evolution will show you that evolution is really well thought out tested. All the anti-evolution stuff you have been pulling from fake science websites is crap. It is all based on a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Its complicated and very difficult to fully understand, which makes it easy for them to mislead uninformed people.

Study evolution first. Actually learn what it really is all about from a person who has actually studied evolution. Then you can try to challenge it. If you are going to challenge a widely accepted theory that is based on years of testing and physical evidence, you have to actually understand it or you are going to come off like an ignorant moron .

Thats part of my argument but it isn't the whole thing. intelligent design does have alot of physical evidence actually. If you believe based on science (obviously with a measure of faith) that things didn't come about on there own, yes the physical universe is evidence.

I don't have a problem with thinking there is something out there more intelligent and to an extent beyond human comprehension. you do. I don't believe in scientific materialism, just because i can't see something i don't conclude it isn't there. The (assumed) absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence- yep i quoted a cartoon again lol.

Yep all people who believe in evolution are lying and assemble together periodically in hidden location to compose incorrect scientific facts. Hey btw alot of the stuff i read about physics and other scientists isn't by people who are religious at all, many of them just believe in intelligent design, it doesn't mean they believe in the "christian God". So no they aren't making stuff up, you're just saying that. I propose you to show some physics, biology, or chemistry (things i used or anything you want) to prove evolution. Not the macro stuff because there is no point, but where it all came from, what started it all. When did nonliving become living and how? show me some science to prove that other than evolution. (it would be like using a word in it's own definition)

You call call me ignorant or a moron but guess what, i still used more science than you to prove why i believe what i believe, if i'm a moron, then good god i can't imagine what you are. Think about what you're saying i could say the same thing to you. Read something that isn't written by an evolutionist for a change, read something that a scientist who doesn't believe in evo says, or else you'll just come off sounding ignorant and like a moron. Blah blah blah you never seen macro happen...

I think i'm officially done with this argument, i've said what i had to say, i just wanted to show scientifically why it is possible to believe in evo, whether you guys agree or not doesn't really bother me. The idea of things coming about on there own is as crazy to me as the idea of a creator is to you. There is as much evidence to prove intelligent design to me as there is enough evidence to prove evolution to you. You are convinced beyond a doubt you are right, and so am i, so i think i'll agree to disagree, you can quote me and try to nitpick if you want but i don't really care. I'm just as smart as anyone else in the thread because i read about science too, a resulting difference in my conclusion doesn't make me stupid it just means i disagree.

 

[BFDD]

If you believe based on science (obviously with a measure of faith) that things didn't come about on there own, yes the physical universe is evidence.

First why is it obvious that I believe in science with a measure of faith. There is no faith in science that was already explained. I believe in the actual physical evidence.

Second are you trying to say that if I believe that some being made everything that the universe is physical evidence? That doesn't make any sense. I really hope I am misinterpreting that.

I propose you to show some physics, biology, or chemistry (things i used or anything you want) to prove evolution. Not the macro stuff because there is no point, but where it all came from, what started it all. When did nonliving become living and how

I believe there were many links posted throughout this thread.

show me some science to prove that other than evolution. (it would be like using a word in it's own definition)

Um what? Are you saying I can't use the theory itself to prove it or the evidence supporting the theory to prove it?

You call call me ignorant or a moron but guess what, i still used more science than you to prove why i believe what i believe

When? Calling gravity a constant does not support your claim at all. The fact that intelligent design is not science should clue you in that you can't use science to prove it. Unless you can come up with the being that created everything, all you can say is that science doesn't have all the answers so god(or higher being of your choice) did it. Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory. It is science. It isn't some sort of random belief people made up. You keep claiming you use science to prove your belief that is clearly not scientific and that there is no scientific evidence to support a scientific theory. If there was no science behind it, it would not be called a theory.

Think about what you're saying i could say the same thing to you. Read something that isn't written by an evolutionist for a change, read something that a scientist who doesn't believe in evo says, or else you'll just come off sounding ignorant and like a moron.

I have read about intelligent design from people who believe in it and are not evolutionists. They often state things that are a completely wrong interpretation of evolution. That is why you need to learn about evolution from an evolutionist. You will get the correct information about evolution from them. Just as I get my information about intelligent design from people who believe in intelligent design.

You are convinced beyond a doubt you are right

No, I'm not convinced beyond a doubt. The current evidence supports the theory of evolution. It is entirely possible for evidence to come up that points towards something else, like evidence of a higher being capable of creating life. You show me god and I will admit to being wrong. The only one without doubts is you. Because god/higher being can never be proved incorrect you can never be proved wrong. Can you honestly tell me there is any amount of evidence that will make you change your mind?

I'm just as smart as anyone else in the thread because i read about science too, a resulting difference in my conclusion doesn't make me stupid it just means i disagree.

No, a different conclusion does not make you stupid. Your reasons for your conclusion do make you appear less intelligent. You show a lack of understanding of evolution and use that lack of understanding to argue, as do most other ID supporters. This makes you appear stupid. You could be very intelligent, I really don't know. The only method I, as well as others on this thread, have of gauging your intelligence is your method of argument. You have yet to show an intelligent reason for your belief. You only repeat the same misinformed argument that others have made both on and off this thread. If you had an accurate understanding of evolution then you will see that your arguments don't work.

 

[arrowhead]

Gravity is constant on earth, that's what i said, so what did you just prove? I didn't say the speeds are universally constant, but in a sense yes gravity is constant. An objects mass and density are what determine gravity, so if two planets had the same mass and density, yes the acceleration due to gravity would be the same on both planets.

it's only the same if you treat the whole planet as a perfectly even distribution of mass. in reality it is not

I don't think there is necessarily a such thing as a "christian scientist" there are however scientists who out side of their field of science are christian. Based on what they know about science they just happen to believe in creation.

i take back what i said about not being a scientist, because that is just my opinion. but it was not completely unfounded because creation is unscientific.

How does trying to correct me on things i said about gravity prove me wrong about creation tho?

it doesn't

 

[Mewter]

It's not a counter argument, but it was an example that there is a conspiracy to some degree. Sorry in the movie it wasn't because they were unflappable fundamentalists sanctioned by the church. Infact all the people in the movie weren't religious, one was a teacher that didn't necessarily even believe in creation, she was neutral.

Which is why she doesn't know much on it. Open minded people are never neutral when true evidence is presented.

Gravity is constant on earth, that's what i said, so what did you just prove? I didn't say the speeds are universally constant, but in a sense yes gravity is constant. An objects mass and density are what determine gravity, so if two planets had the same mass and density, yes the acceleration due to gravity would be the same on both planets. I don't think there is necessarily a such thing as a "christian scientist" there are however scientists who out side of their field of science are christian. Based on what they know about science they just happen to believe in creation. How does trying to correct me on things i said about gravity prove me wrong about creation tho?

But you're forgetting gas resistance. Also, this paragraph shows how laughably ignorant you are. No "Christian Scientists"? Are you kidding me? I'm willing to bet more than 40% of US scientists are Christian(Or at least, a lot of them). In any case, there ARE Christian scientists. And, no. A small minority of biologists believe in creation, and the rest believe in evolution. Why? Because they know more about life than other scientists. Also, a random "creator"'s existence is thought of by many physicists, when it comes to the entire universes birth. That doesn't mean that they are pro-creation, though. They just ponder the thought. That doesn't mean that Stephen Hawkings said "I believe in a God". He said, that there may be one. The number of learned biologists who actually believe in creation is tiny.

nope there sure aint because we will continue to disagree, and you will continue to try to prove evolution using evolution alone to prove it.... sorry you need more than that man.

How about fossil record, carbon dating, biology, and chemistry?
Not enough for you?

Ben Stein was the narrator, who says he is the director or had anything to do with the making of the movie. That's like sayin morgan freeman made that movie about the peguins, but yes obviously we have to take everything with a grain of salt on both sides of the argument because people can be wrong about things. But thanks for the somewhat compliment above that's probably the first i've gotten since the beginning of this thread lol.

But if you narrate something, you obviously believe it, to some degree.

Thats part of my argument but it isn't the whole thing. intelligent design does have alot of physical evidence actually. If you believe based on science (obviously with a measure of faith) that things didn't come about on there own, yes the physical universe is evidence.

The universe is also evidence that Chuck Norris is all-powerful, and that atoms are made of blocks, and the world is round....
Just because something is there, you can conclude a totally random conclusion about how it was made with no (not even) evidence?

I don't have a problem with thinking there is something out there more intelligent and to an extent beyond human comprehension. you do. I don't believe in scientific materialism, just because i can't see something i don't conclude it isn't there. The (assumed) absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence- yep i quoted a cartoon again lol.

First of all, it's not a cartoon.

Yep all people who believe in evolution are lying and assemble together periodically in hidden location to compose incorrect scientific facts. Hey btw alot of the stuff i read about physics and other scientists isn't by people who are religious at all, many of them just believe in intelligent design, it doesn't mean they believe in the "christian God". So no they aren't making stuff up, you're just saying that. I propose you to show some physics, biology, or chemistry (things i used or anything you want) to prove evolution. Not the macro stuff because there is no point, but where it all came from, what started it all. When did nonliving become living and how? show me some science to prove that other than evolution. (it would be like using a word in it's own definition)

Evolution is proved by biology. Evolution is actual biology. A conspiracy? Pfft. Then for all we know, the world is flat! Have you ever been into space? NO. So stop all this "round world" nonsense. IT's obviously a One World Order conspiracy to make us think the world is round.
Do you know how silly that sounds? It's ridiculous.

You call call me ignorant or a moron but guess what, i still used more science than you to prove why i believe what i believe, if i'm a moron, then good god i can't imagine what you are. Think about what you're saying i could say the same thing to you. Read something that isn't written by an evolutionist for a change, read something that a scientist who doesn't believe in evo says, or else you'll just come off sounding ignorant and like a moron. Blah blah blah you never seen macro happen...

What you're doing is bashing us for not using science, when we gave a million links and more intelligent posts than you've ever given in your life. Give me obvious, scientific, real, factual, evidence and proof. Right here, right now. I want to see some more of your "science"(even though your "science" seems reality-defying)

I think i'm officially done with this argument, i've said what i had to say, i just wanted to show scientifically why it is possible to believe in evo, whether you guys agree or not doesn't really bother me. The idea of things coming about on there own is as crazy to me as the idea of a creator is to you. There is as much evidence to prove intelligent design to me as there is enough evidence to prove evolution to you. You are convinced beyond a doubt you are right, and so am i, so i think i'll agree to disagree, you can quote me and try to nitpick if you want but i don't really care. I'm just as smart as anyone else in the thread because i read about science too, a resulting difference in my conclusion doesn't make me stupid it just means i disagree.

Show me undeniable evidence for intelligent design is scientific. Your comments clash with that of other ID supporters. All you're doing here is saying "Oh, I'm so tired of this. I'll leave you idiots to debate because you think you're right and vice-versa. I'll ignore all your evidence, now."
Oh, by the way, atoms don't exist. Have you ever seen one? No. You only have "evidence" for your precious little "atom theory". We never landed on the moon, either. And it is made of cheese. Other people claim to have real "moon rocks" from the moon, but it's all faith-based, since you've never seen them.
It was even ruled in court that ID was NOT a science at all.
Lol's all around.

 

[Aesir]

Ben Stein was the narrator, who says he is the director or had anything to do with the making of the movie. That's like sayin morgan freeman made that movie about the peguins, but yes obviously we have to take everything with a grain of salt on both sides of the argument because people can be wrong about things. But thanks for the somewhat compliment above that's probably the first i've gotten since the beginning of this thread lol.

Ben Stein point wasn't directed at you, you're not the first person to bring him up. Also he has spoken out against evolution.

Also that's good that you take everything with a grain salt, however how can you take evidence with a grain of salt?

It's alright to critique evolution, but do you have a theory that can use all the known evidence and make a better theory? ID can't which is why ID isn't taught in any respectable school district.

 

[Reaver197]

Hi.

Yea...I do not like Hillary Hahn's interpretation of the Sibelius. She's too...sappy? I don't know...but I do know that it's not a piece to over-exaggerate vibrato in. The Sibelius should definitely NOT sound like a sonata, ja? Anyways, you should really keep practicing the cello, because if you played the Elgar well, then you must have been really good. I hope you don't lose that talent.

Yeah, I certainly hope so as well, lol. I've actually brought up a cello to college to try and get in some practice with, but time constraints has proved that difficult. Plus, I forgot to actually bring any music, as per usual how things go for me, lol. Anyway, I hope you too also enjoy your talent, and that it may wax for many years to come.

Anyways, I wouldn't doubt that you've never heard that phrase. It's from a prophet in my church. In fact, it might have been Joseph Smith. I'll have to check that out though, because I really don't remember who said it. However...urgh. I don't really want to explain this whole thing, but...here's a small piece of it. When we came to Earth, we had a veil placed over our eyes, so that things of a spiritual nature are hidden from us, which is also why we do not remember where we came from. It is because of this veil that we do not know everything about the Plan of Salvation, etc. When it is removed from us...we will remember everything about it. That doesn't mean we'll become omnipotent. We must gain our own intelligence while in this life.

Ah, ok, sorry about that then. I thought you had been saying that I was familiar with that quote or something.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with, what I assume is, Mormon doctrine, but why is this supposed "veil" even necessary in the first place? Plus, there really can't be any remembering of where we "came" from, as we are the growth and maturity of what was once a microscopic blastula within our mother's womb. There can be no remembering of times before our brain even fully formed any sort of neuron for long-term memory recollection, lol.

However, I assume that you are probably referring to the concept of a "soul" or "spirit" that, somehow, there is a consciousness and personality that exists that is not contingent upon a physical brain. Such a speculation, though, has proven to be groundless, without any evidence to prove the existence of a "soul" nor a way for consciousness to exist without a brain. The mere fact that we experience a state of reduced consciousness while sleeping, or, while under anaesthesia for surgery, almost no consciousness, gives credence to the generalization (probably over-generalization given the complexity of the brain) that to reduce brain activity is to reduce our level of consciousness. That given, having no brain activity at all would result in no form of consciousness at all, whether it is after death, or before we're born and our brain is even developed.

And what I meant about emotion being illogical wasn't quite that. I already said that I didn't want someone to explain emotion to me in a scientific way, because...well, don't you think that it's more than that? I don't know, but to me feeling love is not just some signal in my brain. Your emotions cause you to fight logical reasoning sometimes. If you've ever been in love, then you would know that it makes you do STUPID things sometimes. It doesn't necessarily mean the emotion itself is illogical, but it will cause you to be illogical and to think illogically. Make more sense?

I believe what you mean to say is that sometimes your emotions make you act in a way that is not necessarily in your own best interests or self-preservation, and, yes, that is true. If you view it from strictly the point of view of working for the benefit of self, yes, your emotions can make you act in a way that seems unreasonable or illogical, but if you view it from other points of view, or even in a larger point of view, you'll see that there is actually a logic, and sometimes a benefit, to the supposed illogical nature of emotion.

As for whether I think it's more than simply just signals and chemical reactions happening in the brain, frankly, no, I do not. There simply is no evidence to suggest otherwise. However, I find it a beautiful thing that such simple a thing can give rise to some of the greatest and most complex thoughts and actions a person could have and do. To understand something as it truly is does not diminish its wonder or beauty, but rather, I think, is a befitting tribute to its sublimity and to understand makes me appreciate it all the better.

I am well aware that the Bible is a one package deal, trust me. I read it all the time. But I can still say that the Old Testament is much different from the New Testament, and I'm still gonna say it's my least favorite book of scripture to read. I apologize if I said something to that effect. I honestly don't remember though as it's been a while, heh...

Hmmm, your theory on religion is very interesting. I like it. However on the not testing bit...at least in my church, there are ways of testing your faith, to see whether or not what you are following is really true. It does not involve empirical evidence though, if you will. While in other churches that may be how it is, mine does not ask you to mindlessly follow it and say you're saved if you do.

P.S. Merry Christmas everyone!

Unfortunately, the testing that you are referring to will simply, as I believe someone has already pointed out, lead to the formulation of an opinion, not a provable statement. Such testing doesn't really help prove any further its validity and truthfulness, just simply how strong and obdurate you will be in your opinion.

Sorry for the time it took to respond, I was on vacation (Hive, if you're reading this, I still haven't forgotten your pm, I'm just being a stupendous slowpoke about doing it, which I apologize for). Anyway, I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday season, and that everyone also had a great New Year kickoff.

I would now also like to deal with a couple of things, first of which is the topic of evolution, which seems to have raged about in this topic (and some other ones as well, apparently). First off, there is no serious scientific doubt of the validity of evolution. The view that it is in controversy or has evidence lodged against it is pure propaganda released by various religious institutions, which is completely false and made up.

Rather, if anything, evolution has only grown in its acceptance and validity within the scientific community since its conception, particularly within the past 50 years, now that we understand the structure of DNA, have mapped out several human genomes, and have grown in our precision to observe and tweak with genes. Evidence for evolution is abound. The wild rabbits of Australia, the scarlet honey-creeper in Hawaii, and the marine snail in New England have changed at a pace quickly enough to be observed. Freshwater sticklebacks have evolved so much in the past 10,000 generations, that there are greater structural differences between many different stickleback species than there are between different genera of fish (the number/size of their bony plates, presence or absence of fins, major changes in jaw and body shape, tooth structures, defensive spines, and body color).

The power a single gene can have over the development of an organism can be strikingly large at times. In the normally slender and small whippet dogs, a single base-pair change in a gene that regulates muscle growth can result in a huge, hulking, muscular specimen that is much larger and stronger than a typical whippet dog could be. Changes in a regulatory gene for cell division during stem development accounts for the huge difference between a small bushy teosinte plant and the modern cornstalk.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=from-atoms-to-traits

Our own anatomy (and the various maladies that affect it) tells of our prehistoric origins. For one such example, is the development of the gonads, in particular the testes, and how its formation leaves men prone to getting hernias. When humans are an embryo within the womb, the testes actually form near where the heart and liver is, which is similar to how fish and shark embryos develop (a recalling to our probable primordial ancestors that were of the aquatic variety). For sharks and fish, the gonads stay where it develops, but for humans, unfortunately, the gonads has to drop, winding the spermatic cord about the pubic bone, and leaving a weak spot in the body wall, from which congenital hernias can form, or later on in life, if under strenuous activity, the body wall breaks forming a hernia.

Hiccups is also another issue that happens due to ancient biological ancestors that were probably similar to amphibians. Hiccups happen when we quickly inspire air while the epiglottis, a flap of soft tissue in the throat, closes involuntarily. Why this happens is because we have inherited the major nerves that we use for breathing from aquatic ancestors.

One particular set is the phrenic nerves, which runs from the base of the skull to the chest cavity and the diaphragm, which can cause an issue. Any sort of interruption or irritation of the phrenic nerves along this path will interfere with our ability to breath. The reason for the length, though, is because our fish ancestors had their gills at the neck, a much closer area than the chest cavity or diaphragm. The hiccup itself might have developed from amphibian ancestors, whose tadpoles use both lungs and gills to breath. When the tadpoles use their gills, they need to ensure they can pump water through their mouth without any of it getting into their lungs. So they close their glottis while inspiring sharply, to breath through their gills. To use their gills they essentially perform an elongated hiccup.

Cartilage is also an issue, something that was developed in our limbs back when our ancestors where aquatic dwellers, but is not quite suited to long-term use on land, where gravity and wear-and-tear are not buffered by the buoyancy of water (which is also, funnily enough, why swimming is such a good exercise to do, since it puts so little strain on our joints) and can over time wear away and tear.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=this-old-body

Such examples are ways of disproving any notion of creation/intelligent design (which is the same thing). I must also note that, not only has creationism/ID lost in its contention as being considered, at any stretch, a scientific notion, it also has lost in the legal system to be held as such.

Starting from the Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas which held that banning the teaching of evolution in public schools was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state in 1968, creationists then tried to present creationism as an "alternative" to evolution. In 1981, Louisiana legislature passed the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act, which was subsequently ruled as unconstitutional in 1987 by the Supreme Court on the case of Edwards v. Aguillard for "impermissibly [endorsing] religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind".

Once creationism itself was branded unconstitutional, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a Christian think tank, came back with the idea of "intelligent design" as advocated in a supplementary textbook called Of Pandas and People, released in 1989. It was brought under legal scrutiny in the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which a local school district in Pennsylvania created a policy in which a disclaimer was necessary for teaching evolution in school in which the teacher had to say that evolution was a "theory...not fact", that "gaps in the theory [of evolution] exist for which there is no evidence", and that intelligent design would be presented as an alternative with the handout of the textbook Of Pandas and People.

The policy was ruled unconstitutional, as, the judge said, "we have addressed the seminal question of whether [intelligent design] is science. We have concluded it is not, and moreover that [ID] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". This was, in part, proved by the fact that early drafts of Of Pandas and People explicitly referenced and advocated a creationist point of view, but after the 1987 ruling making creationism unconstitutional, later drafts replaced "creationism" and "creationists" with "intelligent design" and "design proponents". Even during the trial, biochemist Michael Behe, even though he was testifying in the defense of the school board's policy, said that no articles have been published in the scientific research literature that "provide detailed rigorous accounts of intelligent design of any biological system occurred". Thus, not only is there no scientific ground for creationism/ID, but it is also proven to be, in public schools, an unconstitutional teaching of religious belief.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism

I would also like to take note of a couple of articles that I found about the possible origin of life. One was about how Yoshihiro Furukawa at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan, tested whether meteorites crashing into early oceans could have created amino acids. They shot a sample meteorite, a formation of carbon, iron, and nickel, at high speed into water, and found organic molecules such as fatty acids, amines, and an amino acid. Furukawa also notes that 4.3 billion years ago, meteorites were about 1000 times more common as they are today.

Also, there was another article in which Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, ran a version of the Miller experiment in which the conditions were set to mimic conditions near a volcanic eruption. Bada found that the volcanic version generated 22 amino acids, double the amount Miller originally identified with his original experiment.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026865.200-did-meteorite-smash-kickstart-life-on-earth.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html

I also read a very interesting article on how loop quantum cosmology predicts that we have a universe that infinitely "recycles" itself, going through a big crunch and a subsequent big bang, but never having to deal with an infinitely dense singularity and having a prediction as to what came before the big bang. It's very interesting. It also gives more to the possibility of life arising, as it seems like an unavoidable outcome if you have trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars, which might have planets that might be suitable for life, in a galaxy that recycles itself infinitely.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html

 

[mc4]

First why is it obvious that I believe in science with a measure of faith. There is no faith in science that was already explained. I believe in the actual physical evidence.

Second are you trying to say that if I believe that some being made everything that the universe is physical evidence? That doesn't make any sense. I really hope I am misinterpreting that.



I believe there were many links posted throughout this thread.



Um what? Are you saying I can't use the theory itself to prove it or the evidence supporting the theory to prove it?



When? Calling gravity a constant does not support your claim at all. The fact that intelligent design is not science should clue you in that you can't use science to prove it. Unless you can come up with the being that created everything, all you can say is that science doesn't have all the answers so god(or higher being of your choice) did it. Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL theory. It is science. It isn't some sort of random belief people made up. You keep claiming you use science to prove your belief that is clearly not scientific and that there is no scientific evidence to support a scientific theory. If there was no science behind it, it would not be called a theory.



I have read about intelligent design from people who believe in it and are not evolutionists. They often state things that are a completely wrong interpretation of evolution. That is why you need to learn about evolution from an evolutionist. You will get the correct information about evolution from them. Just as I get my information about intelligent design from people who believe in intelligent design.



No, I'm not convinced beyond a doubt. The current evidence supports the theory of evolution. It is entirely possible for evidence to come up that points towards something else, like evidence of a higher being capable of creating life. You show me god and I will admit to being wrong. The only one without doubts is you. Because god/higher being can never be proved incorrect you can never be proved wrong. Can you honestly tell me there is any amount of evidence that will make you change your mind?



No, a different conclusion does not make you stupid. Your reasons for your conclusion do make you appear less intelligent. You show a lack of understanding of evolution and use that lack of understanding to argue, as do most other ID supporters. This makes you appear stupid. You could be very intelligent, I really don't know. The only method I, as well as others on this thread, have of gauging your intelligence is your method of argument. You have yet to show an intelligent reason for your belief. You only repeat the same misinformed argument that others have made both on and off this thread. If you had an accurate understanding of evolution then you will see that your arguments don't work.

did you read the definition because there is no getting around it. when something isn't proven "physically" but still believes it to be true so then a scientific experiment is performed to try to prove it "physically" it is still faith until it is proven, the definition was pretty simple

nope you aren't misinterpreting it, and i explained all the reasons why that is the case so many times throughout this thread already.

nope not at all. I'm saying it doesn't make much sense to only use the "theory" to prove itself because that isn't enough. I could tell you the definition of illuminate is -when something is illuminated or i could tell you the definition of illuminate is -to supply or brighten with light; light up. which one clarifies more what the meaning of illuminate is?

I used alot of science through out the thread. I talked about the fundamental forces, chemistry, I even included biology when i talked about proteins amino acids, etc and quite a bit more, so yeah um i did use science, that short discussion about gravity didn't have anything to do with evo, it was because some guy made the claim that nothing is proven beyond a doubt and that anything can have exceptions, even when something has been proven consistantly.

and i get my information about evolution from people who believe in it also. Obviously i will learn about it from people who don't believe in it either, but it is the same for you. Are you telling me that every person you hear and learn about intelligent design from believes in it, or do you have discussions with friends of yours also who don't believe in it but know about it? Assuming that every person who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't know anything about it and makes up lies is, well its naive.

yes, if evidence to prove how things came into existence were presented and proven beyond a doubt, for example, where the big bang came from. Simply claiming it to have always been in existence doesn't prove it. If evo were proven beyond a doubt, but that would be very dependent upon the first statement i think, well the abiogenesis part or whatever.

Ive read most of what people have said in this thread, and for those who believe in id i don't think any of them have really used science as much as i have. When i talked about evolution i talked about why i don't believe nonliving became living, how there is no explanation of how things came into existence (before the big bang), also how i don't think there is solid evidence of macro evolution. It doesn't make sense to me that the elements created as a result of the big bang ( particles to atoms, atoms to elements) became on their own, what is necessary for life, proteins, rna blah blah blah. As far as the small changes in a species, yes i agree, but i just don't think species change into a completely new species. what's so ignorant about that, i think all of the above is included in the theory of evo, unless i'm crazy and evolutionists never attempted to explain the origin of life in which case the stuff about proteins and nonliving to living doesn't matter in this argument. To say that my arguments don't work kinda suggests that you haven't read them all, and i really don't think you have, but since there are so many of them throughout this thread i don't expect anyone to have read them all, except that guy who posts in red and the jiggly dude

it's only the same if you treat the whole planet as a perfectly even distribution of mass. in reality it is not


i take back what i said about not being a scientist, because that is just my opinion. but it was not completely unfounded because creation is unscientific.


it doesn't

thanks for the clarification, and since matter can only be packed so much, the distribution isn't really a factor, infact i covered that when i mentioned two planets with both the same size and density, density is dependent upon the distribution of matter, how tightly packed something is with atoms.

Which is why she doesn't know much on it. Open minded people are never neutral when true evidence is presented.



But you're forgetting gas resistance. Also, this paragraph shows how laughably ignorant you are. No "Christian Scientists"? Are you kidding me? I'm willing to bet more than 40% of US scientists are Christian(Or at least, a lot of them). In any case, there ARE Christian scientists. And, no. A small minority of biologists believe in creation, and the rest believe in evolution. Why? Because they know more about life than other scientists. Also, a random "creator"'s existence is thought of by many physicists, when it comes to the entire universes birth. That doesn't mean that they are pro-creation, though. They just ponder the thought. That doesn't mean that Stephen Hawkings said "I believe in a God". He said, that there may be one. The number of learned biologists who actually believe in creation is tiny.




How about fossil record, carbon dating, biology, and chemistry?
Not enough for you?



But if you narrate something, you obviously believe it, to some degree.


The universe is also evidence that Chuck Norris is all-powerful, and that atoms are made of blocks, and the world is round....
Just because something is there, you can conclude a totally random conclusion about how it was made with no (not even) evidence?

First of all, it's not a cartoon.

Evolution is proved by biology. Evolution is actual biology. A conspiracy? Pfft. Then for all we know, the world is flat! Have you ever been into space? NO. So stop all this "round world" nonsense. IT's obviously a One World Order conspiracy to make us think the world is round.
Do you know how silly that sounds? It's ridiculous.
What you're doing is bashing us for not using science, when we gave a million links and more intelligent posts than you've ever given in your life. Give me obvious, scientific, real, factual, evidence and proof. Right here, right now. I want to see some more of your "science"(even though your "science" seems reality-defying)

Show me undeniable evidence for intelligent design is scientific. Your comments clash with that of other ID supporters. All you're doing here is saying "Oh, I'm so tired of this. I'll leave you idiots to debate because you think you're right and vice-versa. I'll ignore all your evidence, now."
Oh, by the way, atoms don't exist. Have you ever seen one? No. You only have "evidence" for your precious little "atom theory". We never landed on the moon, either. And it is made of cheese. Other people claim to have real "moon rocks" from the moon, but it's all faith-based, since you've never seen them.
It was even ruled in court that ID was NOT a science at all.
Lol's all around.

carbon dating, clearly well known to not always be accurate, fossil record, covered it human error people have differing opinions, (i thought my quick discussion of crypto zoology covered that ) chemistry, i have yet to see anyone arguing for evo talk about it, biology, i've given pretty good reasons imo with biology for why i don't agree with it, well atleast the parts of evo that talk about macro and attempt to explain non living to living

my belief in how the universe was made isn't random, i believe in the bible.

i said to some extent yeah you can call it a conspiracy the stuff in the ben stein movie confirmed that. I read most of the links, a few of them didn't really have anything to do with the discussion, one guy posted one about background radiation, and most of the other ones were really long explanations of evolution that i got tired of reading. one of them was also some sort of survey to show how many scientists that don't believe in evo that aren't biologists or something, sorry didn't prove anything to me. My point was that all you've been using is evolution to prove evolution. Carbon dating, fossil records, and explanations that there is no difference between micro and macro, that's about it.

I say things like this gets old because i already posted the science dozens of times no exaggeration.

Ben Stein point wasn't directed at you, you're not the first person to bring him up. Also he has spoken out against evolution.

Also that's good that you take everything with a grain salt, however how can you take evidence with a grain of salt?

It's alright to critique evolution, but do you have a theory that can use all the known evidence and make a better theory? ID can't which is why ID isn't taught in any respectable school district.

ID isn't taught because it usually involves religion and since different religions have different beliefs of how the universe came into existence that would be very controversial and upset alot of people. Evolution is taught but it still isn't proven, so what the heck does your point about why id isn't taught in schools prove? Throughout history we have examples of things that haven't been proven but have been excepted by a majority and taught as fact.

 

[illinialex24]

carbon dating, clearly well known to not always be accurate, fossil record, covered it human error people have differing opinions, (i thought my quick discussion of crypto zoology covered that ) chemistry, i have yet to see anyone arguing for evo talk about it, biology, i've given pretty good reasons imo with biology for why i don't agree with it, well atleast the parts of evo that talk about macro and attempt to explain non living to living

I could attack many points you made here but one is enough.

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years. This much is always true.

Radioactive dating involves a 1st order rate, meaning that the rate is fixed. So it has a constant half life. IE, half of a large sample of carbon 14 that is unmodified, not contradicted by any science, will take roughly 5370 years to degenerate.

And you don't use carbon dating in the fossil record, its too many half lives. Past 16 or so half lives, or around 80,000+ years, you don't use carbon dating at all because that is when it gets inaccurate. When you have only a small sample of carbon, the variation in the actually half life becomes much greater because of the law of large numbers. For fixed probabilities, the larger the data set, the smaller the variance.

And guess why living creatures don't have reduced amounts of carbon 14. They ingest it.

This is a very very very bad inaccuracy. Please stop spreading it.

 

[BFDD]

did you read the definition because there is no getting around it. when something isn't proven "physically" but still believes it to be true so then a scientific experiment is performed to try to prove it "physically" it is still faith until it is proven, the definition was pretty simple

Saying I think this is what will happen is not faith. That is an awful argument. Even if you want to call that faith by some definition. It is not the same as the people who believe in intelligent design have faith. If you want to call guessing about something based on logic and reason faith, then go for it. But then we should make it clear that is not the same faith used by religious people.

nope you aren't misinterpreting it, and i explained all the reasons why that is the case so many times throughout this thread already.

You cannot argue that something is complicated so god must have done it. That is not a logical argument by any means.

nope not at all. I'm saying it doesn't make much sense to only use the "theory" to prove itself because that isn't enough. I could tell you the definition of illuminate is -when something is illuminated or i could tell you the definition of illuminate is -to supply or brighten with light; light up. which one clarifies more what the meaning of illuminate is?

But we have explained the theory by using evidence to back it up. And your analogy about defining words is not at all correct. If you want to use that analogy correctly evolution would be the definition, and the word would be "biodiversity"...sort of. It really is a bad analogy. A theory is an answer to a question that is backed up by evidence. By explaining the mechanism we are providing actual evidence and not "using the theory to prove a theory." You have posted some "holes" in evolution that aren't actually "holes" in the theory but holes in your understanding of evolution. So it becomes necessary to explain the theory.

I used alot of science through out the thread. I talked about the fundamental forces, chemistry, I even included biology when i talked about proteins amino acids, etc and quite a bit more, so yeah um i did use science, that short discussion about gravity didn't have anything to do with evo, it was because some guy made the claim that nothing is proven beyond a doubt and that anything can have exceptions, even when something has been proven consistantly.

Could you show me what your arguments are the used real science cause I can't seem to find them. The best I could find was when you mentioned how unlikely it is for the earth to support life, to close or to far from the sun and we all die. I have already explained why that doesn't prove anything.

On the other hand every bit of evidence for evolution is real science. Because it is a scientific theory.

and i get my information about evolution from people who believe in it also. Obviously i will learn about it from people who don't believe in it either, but it is the same for you. Are you telling me that every person you hear and learn about intelligent design from believes in it, or do you have discussions with friends of yours also who don't believe in it but know about it? Assuming that every person who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't know anything about it and makes up lies is, well its naive.

I am not saying all people make up lies about evolution. I am saying that many people are uninformed. I have read articles on irreducibly complex from people that believe intelligent design. As well as other articles on it about the various "holes" in evolution, but irreducibly complex is the only one that is even close to complicated.

To say that my arguments don't work kinda suggests that you haven't read them all, and i really don't think you have, but since there are so many of them throughout this thread i don't expect anyone to have read them all, except that guy who posts in red and the jiggly dude

I have read this thread since the beginning, every page. I am saying your arguments don't work because I have read them and the counter arguments. The counter arguments make much more sense and are based on actual evidence and reasoning.

 

[mc4]

I could attack many points you made here but one is enough.

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years. This much is always true.

Radioactive dating involves a 1st order rate, meaning that the rate is fixed. So it has a constant half life. IE, half of a large sample of carbon 14 that is unmodified, not contradicted by any science, will take roughly 5370 years to degenerate.

And you don't use carbon dating in the fossil record, its too many half lives. Past 16 or so half lives, or around 80,000+ years, you don't use carbon dating at all because that is when it gets inaccurate. When you have only a small sample of carbon, the variation in the actually half life becomes much greater because of the law of large numbers. For fixed probabilities, the larger the data set, the smaller the variance.

And guess why living creatures don't have reduced amounts of carbon 14. They ingest it.

This is a very very very bad inaccuracy. Please stop spreading it.

So then what do scientists use to measure the approximate age of fossils?

Saying I think this is what will happen is not faith. That is an awful argument. Even if you want to call that faith by some definition. It is not the same as the people who believe in intelligent design have faith. If you want to call guessing about something based on logic and reason faith, then go for it. But then we should make it clear that is not the same faith used by religious people.



You cannot argue that something is complicated so god must have done it. That is not a logical argument by any means.



But we have explained the theory by using evidence to back it up. And your analogy about defining words is not at all correct. If you want to use that analogy correctly evolution would be the definition, and the word would be "biodiversity"...sort of. It really is a bad analogy. A theory is an answer to a question that is backed up by evidence. By explaining the mechanism we are providing actual evidence and not "using the theory to prove a theory." You have posted some "holes" in evolution that aren't actually "holes" in the theory but holes in your understanding of evolution. So it becomes necessary to explain the theory.



Could you show me what your arguments are the used real science cause I can't seem to find them. The best I could find was when you mentioned how unlikely it is for the earth to support life, to close or to far from the sun and we all die. I have already explained why that doesn't prove anything.

On the other hand every bit of evidence for evolution is real science. Because it is a scientific theory.



I am not saying all people make up lies about evolution. I am saying that many people are uninformed. I have read articles on irreducibly complex from people that believe intelligent design. As well as other articles on it about the various "holes" in evolution, but irreducibly complex is the only one that is even close to complicated.



I have read this thread since the beginning, every page. I am saying your arguments don't work because I have read them and the counter arguments. The counter arguments make much more sense and are based on actual evidence and reasoning.

hey man its in the definition i don't know what else to tell you lol. There are different definitions for faith, one of them is scientific, i'm not suggesting that scientific faith and religious faith are the same, but they are similar, and in both areas, science and religion there is faith required. If you read the thread from the beggining they you'll realize i also went to the basis of the idea of evolution. Non living to living, i mentioned how rna and amino acids even with under special circumstances don't become protein or dna, scientists haven't been able to change rna to protein or dna, or amino acids to protein yet, I talked a bit about the miller experiment which shows the special conditions needed, and theories such as "rna world" as an example that these things can't happen on their own. I also talked alot about the four forces and slight changes that would throw everything off balances, I used crypto zoology to show that human error needs to be taken into account when identifying what things look like, ofcourse the fact that there are yet no plausible explanations of where the initial singularity for the big bang came from, conversion of nonliving matter to living? who's ever seen or done it, those are the more notable things i can think of that i mentioned throughout this thread that you would have ofcourse read since you said you read it since the beginning. And the counter arguments? Micro and macro are the same, explanations of evolution, fossils, me not knowing what i'm talking about lol, background radiation (i didn't even get how that could be a counter) stuff about gravity and nothing being proven beyond a doubt, me having a lack of evidence and sources? the majority of scientists that believe in intelligent design aren't biologists, the latter isn't scientific and the former is all evolutionary teachings. except the background radiation which doesn't prove either side of the argument right or wrong.

 

[illinialex24]

So then what do scientists use to measure the approximate age of fossils?

Just a quick link here unfortunately its wikipedia since I don't have much time atm. If you want me to search for more credible sources, I will.

But here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods

 

[Aesir]

ID isn't taught because it usually involves religion and since different religions have different beliefs of how the universe came into existence that would be very controversial and upset alot of people. Evolution is taught but it still isn't proven, so what the heck does your point about why id isn't taught in schools prove? Throughout history we have examples of things that haven't been proven but have been excepted by a majority and taught as fact.

When did I say proven? I don't think I ever did. The problem you're running into is you're challenging a belief backed by evidence. The theory has been around for well over hundreds of years and only continues to strengthen as we learn more about species and how they developed. All the available evidence points toward natural selection and not a designer.

Also you're wrong about why ID isn't taught it isn't taught because it isn't science. It has no evidence just blind speculation.

 

[RDK]

MC4, you throw terms around like they mean nothing.

There's a difference between faith and belief backed up by substantial evidence. Faith is believing something without evidence.

Stop butchering the discussion by applying religious terms to a scientific context. The magic comes from the creationist side, not ours.

 

[Deleted member]

Isn't applying scientific terms to a religious context just as cumbersome?

 

[RDK]

Isn't applying scientific terms to a religious context just as cumbersome?

Are you saying we should instead simply abandon the scientific mentality when dealing with matters of religion? Science should apply to all aspects of life, seeing as how the whole point of science is to learn about our universe.

Which is exactly why religion should be left out of any debate; religion isn't a quest for knowledge, it's a whining, stagnant, fanatical complacency whose proponents encourage hatred for anyone or anything contrary to their viewpoint.

 

[aeghrur]

So RDK, how do you believe life came to be?
I believe in Abiogenesis now, but I would like to know the flaws of this theory. =/

 

[Reaver197]

Abiogenesis isn't a theory in of itself. It's simply the term for the starting of life. There are a multitude of hypotheses to explain how life started, each one having it's own strength and weaknesses.

You can look it up on wikipedia for a brief over view of some of them.

 

[illinialex24]

Abiogenesis isn't a theory in of itself. It's simply the term for the starting of life. There are a multitude of hypotheses to explain how life started, each one having it's own strength and weaknesses.

You can look it up on wikipedia for a brief over view of some of them.

Yeah, there are many different forms and although some theorize life starting in hot clay, others theorize deep sea vents.

 

[aeghrur]

Oh, lol, I thought it was a theory simply cuz a-bio-genesis seems to me to mean life starting from lifeless things, making me think it was from polymers and stuff. Ah, my bad. xD

 

[mc4]

Just a quick link here unfortunately its wikipedia since I don't have much time atm. If you want me to search for more credible sources, I will.

But here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods

wiki can be pretty reliable, i'll check it out

MC4, you throw terms around like they mean nothing.

There's a difference between faith and belief backed up by substantial evidence. Faith is believing something without evidence.

Stop butchering the discussion by applying religious terms to a scientific context. The magic comes from the creationist side, not ours.

didn't say anything about magic. i posted a definition of faith, and um it was scientific, am i sounding like a broken record here? lol

 

[arrowhead]

that's because you are an idiot. i've explained to you about ten times why your understanding of science is completely wrong, and you still repeat the same bs. do you like to be ignorant, or are you really just that dumb

 

[Mewter]

that's because you are an idiot. i've explained to you about ten times why your understanding of science is completely wrong, and you still repeat the same bs. do you like to be ignorant, or are you really just that dumb

Aww... and I thought we were starting to get along, now.
Oh well. Shows how stupid I was to expect that.
Plus, you're pretty much arguing past each other.

 

[RDK]

It's not really that at all, either. Arguing past someone implies that the person in question doesn't truly understand the other's arguments. We completely understand his argument; the problem is that he doesn't understand ours. And he will continue to do so as long as he wants to wallow in his ignorance.

So your'e 1/2 right.

 

[Reaver197]

Hmm, did it really have to come to name calling?

 

[Mewter]

It's not really that at all, either. Arguing past someone implies that the person in question doesn't truly understand the other's arguments. We completely understand his argument; the problem is that he doesn't understand ours. And he will continue to do so as long as he wants to wallow in his ignorance.
So your'e 1/2 right.

You get my drift.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

What do you guys think about the beginning of the earth (without a designer) with regards to probability? Surely, you must concede that it is immensely improbable for sheer coincidence to create the world we currently live in?

Okham's Razor vs. Darwin's Longsword.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

What do you guys think about evolution with regards to probability? Surely, you must concede that it is immensely improbable for sheer coincidence to create the world we currently live in?

Okham's Razor vs. Darwin's Longsword.

Tell me when infinity is an actual number and not a hypothetical concept.

Then I'll get back to you.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Reaver197]

What do you guys think about the beginning of the earth (without a designer) with regards to probability? Surely, you must concede that it is immensely improbable for sheer coincidence to create the world we currently live in?

Okham's Razor vs. Darwin's Longsword.

It's Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor, and you seem to be confused with the definition of it. From the Wikipedia for it.

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

It's also commonly restated as the hypothesis that invokes the fewest entities, things that need defining, is the most likely one. One should be cautioned, though, that this is not a law to be followed, but simply a rule of thumb, something that usually is good to follow but might not lead you to the correct or most accurate hypothesis.

Anyway, with reference to what I'm assuming you mean is the formation of the Earth and the complex life on it, Occam's Razor would actually favor a hypothesis that has no god invoked in it. We already, at the most basic, need to define biological features, and the organic components that form life. We also already need to have a process and definition for the forming of planets and solar systems, since we observe that very process happening around other stars.

By just the base observations and definitions to describe the world that we already inhabit and interact with, we can formulate an hypothesis with just those definitions already known. To add in a god as necessary for the creation of the world is to add another assumption to list and another entity that needs defining (plus, not to mention, invoking god seems to be a package deal, since then you need to assume and define things like heaven, hell, angels, the holy spirit, sin, etc.). In the end, the far more parsimonious hypothesis is an explanation that does not call upon some sort of divine creator.

Also, as I've stated earlier on, a creator would have to be much more complex than whatever he has created. Therefore, however improbable it is for the Earth and life to have formed, it is far more improbable to have a being come into creation with the complexity and ability to create such a situation.

To argue from a point of personal incredulity isn't strong or sound ground. Coincidence is a relative term. What may seem like a great coincidence to us, creatures that lives on a single planet for only several decades, may be quite the common occurrence in a universe that has existed for about 14 billion years, filled with, at least, trillions of galaxies, each quite possibly filled with trillions of stars.

 

[AltF4]

Lord of Morning:

You managed to lump three separate logical fallacies all into one! What you just said is the usual kind of tripe you'll get fed on Sunday school. But I regret to inform you that it doesn't actually hold any weight. Allow me to elaborate....

1) The beginning of the universe "problem". You try to cite an inconsistency with the creation of the universe while ignoring the creation of your on god. Why must the universe require creation? (It doesn't.) And if it did, then why is your god exempt from this requirement?

2) Improbability. You have been fed some lie about how the universe as we see it today is somehow incredibly "improbable". So improbable, that it could not have realistically happened.

You apparently have not heard of the Anthropic Principle.

3) Occam's Razor. Reaver already did a good job at explaining this. The razor is not a binding universal law, it's just a rule of thumb. Just like it's USUALLY a good idea to not jump out of windows. But sometimes doing so is necessary!




And in case you guys haven't been following the news, it is now highly likely that Mars contains bacterial life right now. (though it should be maintained that there are still purely geological features which could account for the methane)

If that is so, then what does that say about life in the universe? Not only do we have life on Earth, but our next door neighbor has it too? That must mean that life is completely abundant in the universe!

Aside from the difficult time christianity has in reconciling this with standard dogma, it puts to rest any claims about the uniqueness of Earth in regards to being able to support life.

 

[cF=)]

AltF4 is a mannered version of snex lol

props

 

[Mewter]

You apparently have not heard of the Anthropic Principle.

It seems I did not entirely understand the Anthropic Principle until now, so I apologize for my earlier misconceptions.
Lordofthemorning... look up the Anthropic Principle.