Creationism Vs Evolution

ZOMG RANT ALERT

It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution.  I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many.  Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments.  Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley.  Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much.  Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that.  I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that.  Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show?  This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.

It's simple to conceive a situation where both the scientific and religious theories are both accurate.

God creates the world in seven days, but for several days the Sun and Earth didn't even exist. How, then, can one day back then have been as long as one day is now? Maybe the first day was several billion years long, and the second several more billion. Furthermore, when God created Adam and presumably told him all this, which he passed on faithfully to his descendants, these simple people easily knew what a day was, but without God to tell them what was what, had no concept of "millions" or "billions". Hence each stage of creation ended up being broken down into one "day" in the creation story told to Adam, or at least it became so in the retellings. Any more complex than that and the story would not have been possible to retell to simple folk, and so, it was simplified to "the world was created in seven days".

Surely it is a miracle enough that God created the world from scratch at all, let alone in seven days? And even then, early people had no concept of evolution, or mitochondria, or anything but such very basic genetics as "a man and his wife have blue eyes, their son is likely to inherit his parents' blue eyes". How could they be expected to understand evolution?

And even then, is it not more impressive to create a world by commanding a bacteria to become human civilization in millions of years, rather than simply summoning every animal and creature into place?

Evolution versus creation is exactly the type of argument that Galileo was declared a heathen and incarcerated for, yet we now believe his theory to be true, and the biblical interpretation of the Earth being the centre of God's creation to be metaphorical.

American government nitpicks over the meaning of some passage in the Bible, then thinks Shock And Awe Bombardment on another country's capital city is perfectly okay regardless of the number of innocent civilians killed. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy Jesus argued against.

A lot of scientists believe in God. The universe is just such an amazing place, it utterly defies any fiction.

Creationism is annoying, but I'd like to point out a few subtle flaws in >>1's argument (not that I disagree). First, evolution isn't "proven". We're just quite confident in it given the observations up until now. In fact, nothing is proven in science - other than we can disprove some theories.

Now, there is a remote chance that they're right. Maybe God really did make Earth in seven days and put fossils there to confuse us. Who knows? It's just by Occam's razor that seems unlikely.

Remember, science has nothing to say about God. The Western definition of God is that he/she/it is unknowable and thus unmeasurable. Science only deals with the observable. Thus science has nothing to say about the existence of God.

These are nitpicks, but the subtleties are important.

Evolution isn't proven, it's just the best idea we have of what's going on.  To a point, nothing can be proven since everything's only ideas.  Even when something's directly observed, can we fully believe what we are seeing?

>>5
The Matrix has you, Neo.

>>6 lol

>>5 you need lessions at articulating a reductio ad absurdum line of argumentation.... i.e. sux u fag

I wouldn't be too harsh on him. What he says is valid, although it's more a domain of philosophy than science.

Evolution is effectively proven, and has been for at least a hundred years.

As a Christian and a biologist I am disturbed to no end by this attempt of various Christian sects to invade the realm of science.

MRSA is living proof of the theory of evolution.  Our antibiotics killed off most bacteria in hospitals, but the few who survived evolved resistance to them.

>>10, that might merely be said to be natural selection - that a few bacteria simply happened to have the resistance.

But, here's another thought. Suppose that all the animals alive today really are descendants of what was brought over on the Ark. Couldn't both African and Indian elephants descended from one pair of elephants from the Ark, who then adapted?

Actually, no. Suppose all the PEOPLE are the direct descendants of Adam and Eve, via the Ark. What skin colour do you suppose they Adam and Eve had? If dark-skinned, where did white people come from? If pale-skinned, where did black people come from? If one of each, where did asian people come from? Hence, if we are all of the one ancestor, our race must clearly have genetically evolved somehow.

Even if God created all the creatures on Earth, there is nothing to say that he did not create them the ability to improve genetically over generations, to ensure their survivability.

..11 "Actually, no. Suppose all the PEOPLE are the direct descendants of Adam and Eve, via the Ark"

Well it sure would explain why the gene pool these days seems like a freaking paddling pool :)

Then let us smile at those who help us make the genetic pool of humanity better at http://www.darwinawards.com/

Yes, all hail those who are kind enough to remove their defective DNA from the gene pool before they can spread it.

Evolution theory is right and very scientific.
But how can we explain the differences in skin colors among nations.

Well...it's not like skin color is divided between nation borders, it there? Skin color is a defensive mechanism that has been engineered through evolution, so that people who are the most exposed to sunlight and UV radiation are shielded from this (Africa, black skin and brown eyes).

The opposite is the pale-skinned, blue-eyed people of the north, where sunlight tends to be scarce, thus provoking an evolutionary reaction to let them take advantage of whatever lifegiving rays they can.

It's not that difficult, when you think of it. ^.^

That's easily done. The tricky part is for a creationist to explain how it came about without evolution. Even if you do believe in creation, there's nothing to say that evolution did not occur after creation, the only sticking point would be the theory that humans evolved from animals, or that animals evolved from anything except other animals.

god created the entire world in 6 days
and on the 7th day he took a break for a beer run

National Geographic recently had a good prank where the cover said "IS EVOLUTION WRONG?" as if to lure in creationists, but then when you bought it, it just basically said "NO IT'S NOT STOP BEING CRAZY".  I thought it was very funny.

>>19
Here's the cover of that issue and the first page of the article:
http://www.ironcircus.com/blog/000267.html

>>19
Wow, that blog has some really good replies.
Some guy was going on about "omg why aren't there any mid-stage animals is speciation can occur, like fish with feet and stuff
 - rockpants" and the responce was
"Also, rockpants, if you want fish with feet, they're called amphibians. There are quite a few of them."

Creationism can be explained easily.  Um.  There was a guy.  And he wrote a book.  And a bunch of guys added stuff to that book.  And people kept editing it.  And they argued.  And fought many wars.  And here we are today. 

Oh my.
Someone that anyone interested in these things needs to read is Dr Stephen Gould.  If you only read one book then "A Wonderful Life:  The Story of the Burgess Shale."  If you don't have time for that then the 12 page paper he co-authored titled "Punctuated Equibribium" for which he shared a Nobel Prize
For as long as he lived he challenged every creationist to debate.  None ever accepted.

the bible keeps contridicting itself all the time anyway, It states that the Human was created first and animals were created to serve him and a few pages away it is said that that fish, birds etc. were created first
how can you take this for granted?

>>24

Most people who believe in creationism haven't actually read the bible...

sa

>>24
also, most people who believe in evolution haven't actually read anything since they graduated from high school...

>>27
"believe" in evolution? Troll alert!

>>27
True, and this was my first thought, as well.  However, since evolution has actually been exposed to rigorous testing by any and everyone who would like to prove otherwise, and creationism has not (as it cannot), there is actually a reason for Joe Layman to believe that evolution is probably right, just "on faith".

>>29
lol "(as it cannot)"
more liek "(as i'm too lazy to get off my ass and do it)" am i rite

You can't. In one corner you have rationality, on the other you have a caricature of God.

You can make all the well-reasoned arguments you want. If you really get them in a corner they'll pull out their trump card: God can do anything.

People believe what they want. Unless you somehow convince them to stop ascribing everything to an actively-interfering higher presence you're just wasting your breath.

Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata

I think that When god explained the beginning of life, he intentionally made it "dumber" so the people of thousands of years ago,could understand. Something similar to a parent teaching their 7 year old kid about how babies are made. (The bee and the flower kind of thing) I mean, people knew almost nothing about science, how is he going to explain in to them?

I think that is why the bible doesnt explain the beginning of life in a scientific way, meaning that it isnt possible to compare "theories"

Darwinism = +/- 100 years old theory
vs
Creationism = thousands of years old...         
=nonsense

If god were to explain the beginning of life to the people of today, he would describe it according to the actual scientific terms, don't you think?

Y'all need to read Feyerabend's "Against Method". Maybe you'd become less of an arrogant and ignorant bunch.

In the bible it does mention that animals were here LONG before us. So that is crap about the fossils being dismissed

>>35 - If by long you mean a day, yeah.

They day thing is "explained" by some as meaning a long time period, such as millions or billions of years.  Moses wouldn't expect the Hebrews to comprehend such a length of time.  JRR Tolkien does something similar in The Silmarillion- the days of the gods and the creation of the sun gives no reference to time.

Of course, what Bible readers can't explain is why Dinosaurs are never mentioned.  Or why we have carbon dated human skeletons that predate the timeline of the Bible (Adam & Eve begat so and so etc begat etc up to Moses, even with the extended lifespans given, would only be a few thousand or hundred thousand years long.  Plus you have mention of farming, clothes, tools, and things during the time of Adam & Eve, Cain & Able, and Noah that would be more contemporary to Moses' time than to a prehistoric human.  Scientists place the earliest human civilization at around 10,000 BC) 

All contradictory evidence has been falsified by the World Jewish National Conspiricy.  The bible has been shown to be 100% historically accurate.

>>38
And let me guess: evil evolutionists came in their black helicopters and stole all of your evidence because it, ZOMG, proves the bible, right?

Some bible stories are figurative. If we understand it, it is againt our faith. But if we say all stories are based on historical facts, it will be against our faith. For instance is there anyone that believes the sun moves around the earth? 

All rabbis know that Job is figurative, yet many christian denominations hold it to have actually happened. Ditto for Jonah and the whale.

Some figuratives stories in the Bible are not againt our faith. Bible writers did not know the modern science when they wrote the bible, it is no woder that they use figurative expressions. 

All right, according to the law of Conservation of Energy, and the Laws of Motion, stuff (ie energy, in any particular form, lets say its an amount of matter suitable for a Big Bang) will not move on its own. It will stay right where it is, no matter how much time you give it to move. It's gonna stay right where it is. Starting to move on its own would mean that a force was created from no where, ie energy was created, and you can't do that (apparently) according to that law of the conservation of national forests. I mean energy.

This can be extrapolated to incredibly complex things, such as the core of our particular planet. Sure, that giant ball of iron is spinning now, but its not very well understood why it started spinning in the first place, other than the theory of Random Chance Directed by Assumptions. (ie, the idea that an equation, with enough limiters removed, will produce infinite results, and in those results, you will find what we find today. See Evolutionary; Big Bang theory.)

Random chance, or the scenario where given infinite time, every possible possibility will happen, is not applicable. Because something has to be moving already, for other things to be moved, and that limit, in itself, automatically negates the Infinite Time Variable. For example, you have six rubber balls sitting in a box. You let it sit there, for an infinite amount of time, and surely, given enough time, the balls will have managed to bounce off eachother in every conceivable manner. Nope, wrong, unless you moved one of the balls to begin with, thus starting the chain reaction of bouncing, but that in turn will not last indefinitely, because there is not a perfect (100%) transfer of energy from your first initial movement, happening continuosly as each ball bounces. Lets say that we have to have a perfect transfer of energy, because we KNOW that if given infinite amount of time, the balls will hit eachother in every possibly manner. To have a perfect transfer of energy, you cannot have individual balls in a box. You will have an amount of energy, of some equivocable amount to the balls and box. Because that is the only way to have a force act upon something (in this case our blob of energy) and have it move forever, because there is nothing else to interact with it except itself.

So, in its simplest form, evolutionary theory vs creationist theory, is the statement "this amount of energy that is the universe has always been here, it never "started" per say, and it's in constant motion because it just is, ie, that is its state of existence (nothing is still/therefor everything is moving)" vs the statement "God made this ball of energy, lovingly regarded as the universe, and poked it, thus starting it moving."

psychologically, this is the idea there there is only what you sense vs the idea that there is more than what you can sense. Therefor, to prove one of these true (as both cannot be proved at the same time, from my understanding) it would make the other wrong. In simpler terms, the correct statement is saying Nothing = Nothing, and its adversary is stating Nothing = Something, a contradiction, and thus, not possible.

Thus, it is a conundrum of two unprovable theorems, according to practices of observable science. If we are to prove the first, then that means then that would mean that second would have to be false. But to prove the second would mean that we would be able to sense God, and God would no longer exist outside of our observable means, and that would prove the first true.

Therfor, to prove either one of them true, one must (and would) prove them both true. The solution is to Find God. God, in these terms, is simply defined as whatever started the motion in the universe in the firstplace. Of course, we could only find a part of him, because if we managed to sense all of God, then that would mean that he was totally within the universe already, and that would mean that the rubber ball moved on its own, ie, created its own movement! Oh no! So we would have to find traces first.

Wait, what about the fact that we exist? That would be a footprint in itself, because if we weren't started by an Outside Force, then we couldn't exist by current scientific law, unless it IS possible for something to move(start) itself. That would be the only other answer. But why would something start itself, why would nothing simply become something? I dunno! Because that would be creation as well. Weeeeeeee!

>>43 is wrong.
The latest scientifical approach to the "beginning of the universe" question, the infinite regress problem is breaking it down to an asymmetry within the singularity of energy from which all derived.

woah this thread got biggers

No, >>43 is plain retarded. Sorry to be blunt.

What does evolution have to do with creation? Nothing. What does energy have to do with evolution in this context? Nothing. What does adding support to the theory of evolution have to say about God? Nothing. What does the existence of God have to say about evolution? Nothing (unless He/She/It tells you so). Who says that God is an omnipotent, omniscient, unknowable, absolute personal entity? Just the Bible.

The whole argument is based on numerous false or unknown premises.

He's saying that the energy needed to create the Big Bang had to start from some "thing."  That thing can't be defined, but it is some form of energy enacted to create the Big Bang.  Otherwise, there would be just matter with no energy to push it outwards into the universe.  What this intitial energy is is unknown.  But if it were an intended, intentionally energy, it might be called "God" in some sense.  Assuming this intitial energy was sentient, it might have planned our universe forming and creating Earth for life to grow on.  But even so, it might not be an intelligent energy.  It might be a great cosmic burp that had no meaning or reason behind it, and we're only a speck of bacteria on the ends of this burp cloud.

>>47
Having everything come from "nothing" isn't mathematically plausable really.  There is a subset of the m theory which has to do with how everything suddenly exploded out of "nothing".  Anyway, the m theory (aka what the string theory has become) allows for the possibility of parallel universes.  Our universe, along with lots of other paralell universes, are like sheets on a clothesline flapping about our 11 dimensions, called membranes.  They say that the big bang was the result of two membranes crashed into each other at a certain point?  That is what they say happened with the big bang, and that's not the first time it's happened.  Proponents say that it has happened in the past, forever basically, and will continue happening infinitly.  Anyway, don't know much more than that since all I've heard about it is what I saw on nova and in discover magazine.  But what if that theory, which makes great mathematical sense, is true?  How would god play into all this if there never was a beginning and there never will be an end?

>>44
asymmetry within the singularity
lol

Nobody can say with absolute confidence whether God exists or doesn't exist. It's true to say that we shouldn't try to deny scientific facts, but have to accept them as they are. But even after accepting all the scientific fasts, we can still have faith. And I think that is a true faith.

>>49

hahah yea that guy is a retard

how can a SINGULARity be Asymmetrical..... ITS SINGULAR!
(symmetry requires more than 1 in the literary sense)

>>51

lol how can ANYTHING be derived from just a singularity? IT'S SINGULAR!

And YET the universe derived from a single singularity (common stance of science today). Thus the singularity had to be imperfect to a certain degree.

This isn't metaphysics where everything is geometrically and logically perfect, sonnyboy

>>51

yeah, let's just throw logic out the window

>>>(symmetry requires more than 1 in the literary sense)

note the sense of the word, it was a pun

>>43
SUMMARY: We can't explain it, so it must be God!

That's about the worst logical fallicy one can make.  Don't call it god, just say "I don't know."  That's honest.  That means you're making no claims of being right, are not being pompous enough to create an answer by defining something called "god," and -- most importantly -- show that you are willing to learn more about it in hopes of one day getting a real answer. 

I don't see what's wrong with "We can't explain it, so it must be God!"  It's not like things cease to be done by God just because we know HOW he does them.  It goes like this -
Slack-jawed Yokel: "I wonder where we came from?"
Nascar Fan: "God made us."
Other Guy: "We evolved from other species."
Nascar Fan: "OK, God made us evolve from other species."

You can't really argue against that.  However, there's also no reason at all to believe that other than being insane.

>>56

Sure you can argue against that.  What need is there for any diety?  There is nothing to suggest any intervention in the whole process.  It's making the claim more complex than necessary.  If that's how people want to reconsile their faith with undisputable scientific fact, that's fine.  I won't say god COULDN'T have used evolution to create man.  But as long as we're talking about method, inquiry, and logic, it's best to leave god out of it.

We don't know if god had anything to do with it.  We just don't know.  It's dishonest to make additional claims.  I may as well be saying space aliens did it.  What it really comes down to is that you're not saying anything at all.  "Why is the telephone ringing?  <i>God did it!</i>"  Sure, you can say that, and for all we know, it could be true.  But that's not an explination.  It doesn't say why something is one way and not another.  It doesn't lead to any new insight or knowledge.  Saying "god did it" only means you're stating an occurance.  It doesn't explain the how or why, so it's pretty much useless.  It's a worthless statement which just confuses the issue.

kusosure

>>57
"There is nothing to suggest any intervention in the whole process."  I mentioned this.

Yes, you can argue against it.  What I meant is that you can't make any definate arguments against an omnipotent god - the person can always weasel out of whatever you say.  This is part of the reason why it's a not scientific or logical belief - it's not falsifiable.

Yes.  Given the current state of Western theology, particularly all the Plato and Aristotle that Thomas Aquinas stole, filed the serial numbers off of, and gave to the Catholic Church, all claims about God are deliberately non-disprovable.

And Karl Popper put paid to that account a long time ago.  If a claim isn't disprovable, it isn't testable.  If it isn't testable, it tells us nothing.  Therefore such claims are semantically empty and have zero information content.  They're meaningless noise.

>>37

Do the Hebrews really need to know about some animal that has been dead for a long time, or would it be another thing they wouldn't understand.

The Problem with people bashing the Bible, and some people supporting it, is that they think the bible is an absolute record of everything that happened, it isn't. Just the stuff that would really matter, the chronicles of the Hebrews, what christians need to do (instead of trying to explain everything with science) and how it is going to go down in the end.

I don't think anybody bashes the bible for historical innacuracies.  It's a work of fiction, with some historical influences, but still just a literary work.  The problem with it is that fundamentalists try to use it for justifying their idiotic goals, but then weasl out every time they get shown how the bible doesn't apply or is inconsistient or incorrect.

>>62
Interesting that you call it a work of fiction (at least with the conviction that you seem to do so with) when Darwin references it as a historical account.

And, as we all know, Darwin was a paragon of omniscient intellectual perfection, incapable of error.

>>64
Considering how the biology comunity treats the theory of evolution as natural law, yes, we must assume that he was incapable of error

>>65
Are you that stupid?  Check this out, here's a theory by me:
THE EARTH EXISTS.

Now, if you agree that I'm right there, then everything else I say must obviously be 100% correct too, right?  You do realize that that is what are saying, don't you?  Just because someone says something one time that seems to be pretty accurate does NOT neccessarily mean that everything else they ever say must also be true.  Sorry to rock your world.

>>66
You've completely missed the point.

Meh.  Alan Schwarz said it best.  "Science and religion are orthogonal.  You can neither combine them nor use one to understand the other."

>>67
No, 65 is just confused.  Evolution isn't believe because it was made by Darwin, who's incapable of error.  It's believed because it fits the facts that have thus far been found.  I'm sure it's been changed a bit from what he proposed.

Either that, or 65 is REALLY confused, and doesn't know what "incapable" means.  Just because someone is capable of error does not mean that they will always err.  In fact, it's even possible for someone who is capable of error to never make any errors in their entire life.  65 just doesn't understand "thought".

I'm ot sure if this has been said yet in this long topic, but I didn't think the laws that govern our universe would apply to the Bang, because if there were no universe, there would be no laws saying an infinitelly dense singularity couldn't pop up in the middle of "nowhere" and expand exponentially until today.
But that's just my own idea. I've heard so many say, "You believe in science? Science says matter can't be made from nothing so you can't believe in the Big Bang."
So I thought, well, if there's no unvierse, then how can our current laws govern the creation of this?

"believe in" is improper to use in a scientific context.  I provisionally accept a certain hypothesis, a certain model, pending empirical disproof.  "belief" is irrelevant.

Question:
If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, how much incest has gone on since then?

>>71
Fucking a, man...  Fucking a.  This is what creationists don't understand - they think that scientists/reasonable people just accept evolution is true for no reason other then that they feel that it's true, not realizing there are lots of good reasons to believe it is, and none to believe it's not.  This is because it's how they decide on what to believe.  Sure, there are those who believe in evolution without understanding why they should do so - but even they believe in it because science provisionally accepts it, and they know that science doesn't just accept stuff randomly.

In conclusion:  no reason to accept creationism, many reasons not to; many reasons to accept evolution, no reason not to.

if god created us, THEN WHO the FUK created god?

its quite simple. therefore the world must of always existed and time is going in a circle over and over again and at the end of each circle world gets destroyed and recreated

also if god is so perfect and never makes mistakes then he wouldnt create humans.

so far we only destroyed gods planet which he tried so hard creating

People who believe in god are too lazy and stupid to figure out how the universe works, so they go and say some magical fairy man made it.

>>43 God doesn't exist

>>47 Did you see the Elegant Universe on NOVA? :D

>>62 Like Les Miserables (sorry only thing I can come up with)The bible is just so goddam old people lost sight of who wrote eventually turned it into religion. Then some nut comes along sees this book as a way to gain power and sways the public into believing blah blah blah blah Organized religion if in my opinion the worst thing humanity ever created. Why do I think this, cause they're trying to keep the rest of the world down and dragging our knuckles.

Sorry to interject here. HAY GUYS GUESS WHAT?! EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, SO IS GOD! WE CAN'T PROVE NOR DISPROVE EITHER ONE!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

64>> And you aren't?

Oh and 43>> what the hell are you doing browsing forums based on porn?

Also, maybe the universe used the collapsing energy from itself before in order to explode again?

And a final statement, god is a paradox in himself, If he's so powerful, is there a wall that he can build that he cannot jump?

>>76
You need to go find out what a theory is.  God is not a theory.  Evolution also can be disproven/proven.  Unless you're getting philosophical and trying to say that "nothing" can be proven/disproven.

>>76

The possibility that a theory of evolution can be disproved (because it makes testable claims) is what makes it a theory in the first place.

>>76
god may exist... in a higher dimension, say the 12th

at the very least a godly power exists with mastery of the structures postulated in the 12th dimension

god actually intervening in your daily life, or making cool places like hell and heaven for you to go to... is another question

superstring theory is the best lead we have so far
we'll get gods power one day... that sneaky bastard

the final problem is origin, who made all this shit?
no one has even attempted to theorize there, we are still guessing at the simple base mechanics of 4 dimensional physics


So will the final theory be in 10, 11 or 12 dimensions? According to Schwarz, the answer may be none of these. He feels that the true theory may not have a fixed dimensionality, and that 11 dimensions only emerge once we try to solve it. Townsend takes a similar view, saying, " The whole notion of dimensionality is an approximate one that only emerges in some semiclassical context."

So does this means that the end is in sight-that some day soon we will be able to work out the Standard Model from first principles? When I put this question to some leading physicists in this field they were still cautious. Townsend likened our present state of knowledge to the old quantum era of the Bohr atom, just before the full elucidation of quantum mechanics. "We have some fruitful pictures and some rules," he says. "But it's also clear that we don't have a complete theory."

Witten, too, believes we are on the right track. But he says we will need a few more "revolutions" like the present one to finally solve the theory. "I think there are still a couple more superstring revolutions in our future, at least," says Witten. "If we can manage one more superstring revolution a decade , I think that we will do all right." From Harvard, Vafa adds: "I hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel'. But who knows how long the tunnel is?"

>>79
About the existence of a God or supreme force... it's all about how romantic and symbolic you want to get.  I mean, one of the holy grails of science is a GUT (grand unified theory), right?  Unify Electroweak, Gravity, and the Strong forces into one force, right?  Just think about it... an all-present, ultimate power that controls and creates every aspect of the universe, including humans, and exists simultaneously in everything from ants to humans to white dwarves - sounds like "god" to me.  Some might say that god has a will, but really... you can say that gravity works its effects on you because it "wants" to if you believe that, and there's not way to counter you... lol.

>>79
Uh, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

"God may exist in the 12th dimension" is a meaningless noise.

What testable predictions stem from such a hypothesis, if hypothesis it be?

clearly it is not a hypothesis evidenced by the word 'may' - no assumptions are made

yet there is too much we dont currently understand to rule out the possibility of a "god"(as a creator, not a maintainer)

nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of "god". again, origin has never been satisfactorily explained

once we are able to alter the frequency of vibration of p-branes competently(likely never - as they are still a theoretical construct) we will have obtained the power of "god"

some say a "theory of everything" IS god, in a metaphysical sense

our universe is comprised of fractals, from the orbits of planets around stars to the electron rings around a nucleus at the atomic level.. its simply a question of scale

most suspect there is a unified theory out there, yet to be fully understood

though its quite possible we may never comprehend it.. certainly not within any of our lifetimes

There is too much we don't currently understand to rule out the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.

Nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.  Again, invisible pink unicorns have never been satisfactorily explained.

Once we are able to alter the frequency of vibration of p-branes (p is for pink, as in pink unicorns--the invisible kind) we will have obtained the power of invisible pink unicorns.

Some say a "theory of everything" IS an invisible pink unicorn, in a metaphysical sense.

>>83 how boring

>>83
>p is for pink, as in pink unicorns--the invisible kind

p is for n or x or * or ? - its a variable relating to a class

*=branes are a class of sub-atomic structures that depending on their shape and vibration produce various higher-level atomic structures.. electrons, protons.. this is the deepest level on the universal fractal that we are somewhat familiar with and can see(at the moment)

logically one then asks: what makes up an electron? something must... this is the problem that m-theory(super-string theory) uses the "p"-brane class to address

now, if mastery of the sub-atomic level of matter is not "god's power".. then tell me what is... because it happens to be the ultimate goal, as well as comprehending the knowledge gleaned while working towards the end of a "unified theory"

of course all theories must be mathematically tested, and m-theory has gone the farthest with the least perturbations... we are clearly getting closer

as per theory, one would be able to conjure up arbitrary atomic structures at will by modifying the frequency that the sub-atomic particles vibrate at... ofcourse many years of development will be required to arrange and control these particles that we can barely conceptualize(at the moment)

but it will happen, sooner or later... this problem is far too large to be cracked by one person in their lifetime, it will require generational contributions through time(the 4th dimension) to beat this particular game

as for god...

the fact that some entity may have already mastered all scales and dimensions and started a reaction going one day(what caused the big bang?)is not beyond probability... we are just reaching the edge of comprehension of a particular realm which must be "gods" domain... in the view of religious people..

>>83
"There is too much we don't currently understand to rule out the possibility of invisible pink unicorns.
Nothing in theoretical physics directly negates the possibility of invisible pink unicorns."

Yes, you are exactly correct.  In fact, they must exist inside our own universe somewhere within some other hubble volume, if not in this one.  However, I suspect you were just talking about whether they exist on our planet.  A lack of evidence for something is not contrary evidence.  You forget that there is a world of difference between not believing in something and believing that something does not exist.

For instance - say I know a girl named Melissa, but not very well.  I don't know whether she has any dogs.  At this point, I shouldn't assume that she has dogs for no reason, so I would not believe that she has dogs.  However, I also would have no reason to be sure that she has no dogs, so I wouldn't believe that they don't exist - believing in something's non-existence without evidence is not much better than beleiving in something's existence without evidence.  This is why I don't respect athiests much more than theists.

Now, as far as the unicorns go... yes, you'd be a fool to believe that they exist on earth with no evidence.  However, you wouldn't be much better to go around supporting their non-existence with no evidence of that, either; although, admittedly, it seems a more likely case.

p-branes? moer liek peabrains AM I RITE?

>>86
Atheism is a lack of acceptance of the "god" hypothesis, not a positive assertion that gods do not exist.  Atheism is the default state, though most children are brainwashed out of it by their parents and society as they grow up.

o rly?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

Perhaps you meant some form of agnosticism?

Yes, rly.

Agnosticism is a personal position of not knowing whether the "god" hypothesis is valid or not, which some extend to saying that questions about "god" are inherently unanswerable.

Atheism is lack of belief.  Theism is belief in gods, and the a- prefix is a negation.  A-theism is lack of belief.

Atheism and agnosticism are compatible; it is possible for a person to be both at once.

The "god" hypothesis is by its nature untestable, and is therefore not really a hypothesis at all.  As it cannot be tested, it tells us nothing, and is semantically null and void.

I do not claim to be able to prove that there isn't a Starbuck's on Mars, but I find the idea improbable.  What does that make me?

You know... just because you believe a word to mean something does not make it so.  Please show us a some evidence that this is the main definition of athiesm, since the dictionaries I'm checking seem to disagree with you.  Your etymology sounds good, but the meaning of words changes, as I'm sure you know.

Your belief about Mars is reasonable.  It does seem unprobable based on any factors we could know.  Only if you made a positive assertion that there definately was no Starbucks on Mars would you be acting unreasonably.

Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? 

He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

oh shutup.. you know you love it
you guys just like to argue endlessly about bullshit

The burden of proof is on those who make the positive existential claim.  Let those who claim to believe in a "god" prove their assertions.  Unless and until they do, I will not take them or their bizarre superstition seriously.

>>94
there is likely more than the physical plane of matter
theoretical physics only addresses the physical universe... and has a tenuous understanding of that universe at best

who can explain conciousness is the real question,
how these arrangements of minute particles can somehow percieve and are somehow aware..

all of you who are so ready to write off the entire spiritual realm because of a reactionary disgust with religious zealots may want to rethink that
though admittedly organized religion is more of a cult and a mass population control mechanism than anything else

>>95
What makes it "likely"?

>>96
reading comprehension anyone?

conciousness is what makes it "likely"

>>97

Non sequitur.

How does consciousness make such a thing likely?  Explain.  And while you're explaining, explain how consciousness can be anything but a phenomenon of the flesh-and-blood brain in light of the case of Phineas Gage.

phineas gage from the 1800s? they exhumed his body and tried to discern the state of brain damage pre- CAT scan era

please, is that your great case study that conclusively invalidates the possible existence of a spiritual plane?

consciousness is the one inexplicable "phenomenon" in the human brain - the base from which we perceive. flesh and blood indeed
we understand the processes of the brain, synapses and neurons, electrical impulses - but that is purely the technical level..

consciousness is almost too fantastic to explain with science, even if we were to completely master the physical world and exactly replicate a human brain from it's sub-atomic components... i would doubt we could make it "conscious"

the intricacies of "mind"(vs brain) are so immense that any reasonable person would accept the _possibility_ of a non-physical plane in which "mind" exists

the leap from possible to likely solely depends on your personal intuition and level of skepticism toward the immeasurable coincidence and inexplicable nature of "consciousness"

100get orsth

things like "the son of god" are utterly ridiculous though

all forms of organized religion, ritiual and tradition are laughable

but individual consciousness being attached to something greater... as an abstract argument... is wholly plausible

>>99

Phineas Gage was brain-damaged.  Phineas Gage's personality changed completely as a direct result of the brain damage.  This is the norm when people survive severe brain damage.  If a person's personality is governed by something intangible called a "soul," how is it that damaging a few ounces of meat inside his head changed him so much?

If the human mind exists in some "non-physical plane" (can you define that concept without making meaningless noises, by the way?) then how come drugs and alcohol can alter the manner in which our minds work?

It's implausible.  It's completely implausible.  It's as implausible as a claim that there's a Starbuck's on Mars.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

>If a person's personality is governed by something intangible called a "soul," how is it that damaging a few ounces of meat inside his head changed him so much?

who said anything about personality?
and his personality degraded... as with most brain injuries - this is a surprise to you?

personality is but an outward manifestation of "mind".. via the speech center and motor control sections of your "flesh and blood brain"

if you damage a section of your brain, or lose a leg, or fail a kidney... those respective parts of your body will cease to function in a direct cause-and-effect result

gage, in 1848, had severe frontal lobe damage from what we know(which is incredibly anecdotal) he therefore ceased to be "his old self" due to non-functioning sections of "his old self's" brain

just as with a fake leg, you would limp... its a physical inevitability

if his "mind" can no longer use a once-relied-on section of his brain due to the fact it is no longer there, how can you expect his demeanor in the physical plane to be same as before

likewise releasing chemicals into your blood stream, this blood reaches the brain and alters its operation... on a technical level
think of it as packet loss between neurons due to increased unplanned activities brain-wide, each chemical has its own activity patterns in the brain..

most chemicals suspend "normative operation" of the brain therefore altering your "mind's" perception of reality, since it is viewing reality through the body organ of the brain...
akin to how covering your eyes would drastically cut the input to your brain's visual center and your "mind" would then be missing that particular resource (visual input is measured in bits/sec as are all synapse-neuron transactions in the brain)

"non-physical plane"
think of the brain as an interface for "mind" and the body as an array of peripherals

this interface analogy is related to jung's "collective subconscious" as an extension

if archetypes can be distributed by sheer biomassive conception... then what else can be, and how "completely implausible" is a non-physical dimension.. even if we only exhibit a vague trace of a similarly transcendental "collective subconscious".. keep in mind our brain organs run at fractional capacity

there have been scientific collective conscousness experiments, one currently ongoing at princeton, there have been mountains of anecdotal evidence.. scientific breakthroughs have happened simultaneously around the world among separate teams of intellectually devoted researchers

it is far from completely implausible, how much coincidence will you ignore

the last point is.. your world view on this issue is really about a modus vivendi for your life
will you stand hardnose as a zealot for your only lifetime defending a cold purely accidental universe with no imperceivable aspects... looking only with our 5 senses and based on the limited experimental verification of our _current_ scientific _theory_
or will you try and contribute to the research

>>103
>>who said anything about personality?

I did.  Please try to keep up.

>>and his personality degraded... as with most brain injuries - this is a surprise to you?

No, it isn't a surprise, because the mind is, as far as science can determine, 100% a phenomenon of the meat.  Damaging the meat damages the mind.

>>"non-physical plane"
>>think of the brain as an interface for "mind" and the body as an array of peripherals

Can I think of it as an invisible pink unicorn?

>>this interface analogy is related to jung's "collective subconscious" as an extension

Maybe it's related to "an invisible pink unicorn" as an extension.

>>if archetypes can be distributed by sheer biomassive conception...

Leaving aside the questions of what an "archetype" is and what "sheer biomassive conception" even means, that's a pretty big "if."  As my mother would say, "You're trying to make an awful lot of soup out of one onion, aren't you?"

>>there have been mountains of anecdotal evidence..

"Anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.  As Heinlein said, "if you don't have facts and figures, it is opinion."

There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" that Elvis Presley is flipping burgers at a Dairy Queen in Chattanooga, Tennessee with Richard Nixon running the cash register.  There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" that little green men from Neptune are raiding rural America in flying saucers, performing disturbing proctological experiments on hillbillies.  There are "mountains of anecdotal evidence" for the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, ghosts, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and the Boogie Man.  Do you find these claims as plausible than mystical conjectures about "souls" and "gods?"  If not, why not?

>>it is far from completely implausible, how much coincidence will you ignore

As Douglas Adams said, "It's only 'coincidence' in the same sense that it's a 'coincidence' that a puddle of water is shaped EXACTLY like the depression in the ground where it lies."

>>a cold purely accidental universe

This is the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences.  Two and two make four regardless of whether you personally feel bad about that fact or not.

>>looking only with our 5 senses

Which of our 5 senses do we use to perform positron emission tomography?  Which of our 5 senses do we use to examine human heredity in the Human Genome Project?

>>and based on the limited experimental verification

Well, yes.  If it's not experimentally verifiable, it's meaningless noise.

Occam's Razor is simple:  "do not multiply entities beyond what is needful."  If you have multiple hypotheses to choose from, you start with the one that assumes the fewest number of things to exist that you didn't already know to be real.  So far neuroscience is making rapid advances without requiring any hypothesis involving a "soul."

>>103 gage, in 1848, had severe frontal lobe damage from what we know(which is incredibly anecdotal)

The man's head is on display in a jar of formaldehyde at Harvard Medical Center. How is this anecdotal?

                       0 --< WRYYYYYYYY
        _   .aaaaa.  ----- >>104
        H   8P""""`.   |
      __H._ 8| o_  |  / \
     |==== \8|((,/ '______
     |  __  Y8a888aP ___   #:
    / ,'   `.Y8888P.'   `. #:
   | :       :888(/       . \
   `-|  (\)  |:=:"|  (\)  | _>
____ \       /(=) `       '________a:f____
      `-._.-  **** `-._.-'   <-- >>103

the _clinical data_ is anecdotal.
his head in a jar is a quaint little trophy, truly meaningless

why you place so much emphasis on gage is beyond me, he is perhaps the earliest documented case of a person who survived a massive brain injury and continued to live in some capacity... but there is no lack of brain damaged individuals today in any hospital in the country.. the difference is today we have properly vetted clinical methods and technology (versus the 1800s)

i applaud technical advances in neuroscience, but even when(if) we understand to the last how the brain works technically... it will still come short of explaining consciousness. this has always been the largest "given" in the neural sciences

retreating to your parroted attempt at reductio ad absurdum argumentation "invisible pink unicorns" is becoming laughable, i suggest you find a less feeble way to make your points

speaking of "invisible" how is the mathematical k-theory currently being used quantify m-theory/sst not an "invisible pink unicorn".. its math, right.. it must be concrete and unchallengeable, right..

mathematics is a conceptual method of processing the observable input gathered by our 5 senses just as mathematics is a way to scrutinize any random theory conjectured out of thin air

at high energy particle colliders data is collected and then visualized into 3 dimensional plots so we can comprehend it's meaning.. the scatter angles of quarks relate to geometry more than anything else

biomassive conception simply means a critical mass of minds thinking the same thing, read jung for his definition of "archetypes" and how they are distributed through the "collective subconscious"

collective consciousness is being scientifically tested as we speak, there has been too much anecdotal evidence collected and more recently directly observed by researchers to ignore. see the princeton study

there is a slight leap from collective consciousness(if verified) to a conclusive "non-physical plane", but it raises a plausible possibility... and that possibility is all that is being argued here

conclusive proof that there is no "god", "soul" etc.. will never be found and conclusive proof to the contrary will never be found
i do not believe in a "god" per-se.. in the classical sense

what strikes me most, is your insistence that there can not be a  plane of the non-physical, what makes you so sure, why do you assume our perceptions are at their ultimate development.. that we can therefore see or know all that exists.. your argument is akin to shouting at the darkness

it is baselessly arrogant to assume we can even theorize(let alone prove) the mechanics of all aspects, planes, dimensions or facets of the universe(physical and otherwise)
our current perceptive abilities are the limiting factor, that fact does not mean supra-perceptive aspects can not exist

the possibility of a non-physical aspect is wholly plausible and is currently being experimentally researched as best it can be ...while we waste time arguing

Give it up.  I dropped a steamroller on you and am currently standing atop it, striking a pose, and shouting "WRYYYYYYYYY."

thats a pretty shitty steamroller

Yeah, but it's still pretty heavy.  WRYYYYYYYYYYY

God and science are orthogonal. Science has nothing to do with God, since (according to most religions) God can't be observed.

What's this whole long thread of wankery about? God may exist. God may not exist. We don't know. I'm sure we can all agree on this?

>>107
I don't know about >>102, but for me it's not that I would make a negative assertion of a "non-physical plane" (whatever that would even mean... way too vague), but just that I would wait to make a positive assertion of one, which you seem to have no problem with.  Based solely on anecdotal evidence and that you like the idea, you're willing to believe it 100%.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think conscience is some special thing... perhaps that even only humans have it.  Conscienceness, like god, is unobservable and untestable, and thus a moot point.  It's impossible to even see if any human other than yourself is conscious, or even prove that you yourself are conscious.  For all another observer can tell, no one anywhere is actually conscious.  The only way to "know" someone is conscious is to be conscious yourself and "feel" that you are conscious... hardly scientific.  For all we know, all mammals are conscious, all animals are conscious, all living beings are conscious, all ROCKS are conscious, or even ALL ATOMS are conscious.  There would be no way to tell if we couldn't communicate with them, and even then, it's still impossible.  If consciousness isn't some miracle given by the great boot spirit (GBS) to humans, but instead a common way for animal brains to function, then it loses a lot of the implications that it might otherwise have.

>>112

Truth.

I have already told him that there are lots of anecdotal stories about flying saucers, leprechauns, and Elvis hiding out in the Deep South working at a Dairy Queen.  I asked him to tell me whether these anecdotal stories were as convincing to him as his preferred anecdotal stories and mystical conjecture about "souls" and "gods," and, if not, why not.  He did not answer.

Which is why I'm still on top of that steamroller, posing and shouting "WRYYYYYYY."

pff..

and there are 20 Y's in WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

it comes down to intuition, obviously there will be no proof in our lifetimes considering the pace of scientific progress

again. the collective consciousness study at princeton is purely scientific and has nothing to do with anecdotes

keep posing, im taking a picture for later ridicule

and yes, of or belonging to Y

>>114

"It comes down to intuition?"  WTF?  No.  It comes down to empiricism.  Everything else is opinion.

And the only picture you're going to be taking in the foreseeable future is of the bottom of a steamroller.  WRYYYYYYYY

im done with you >>116

>>117

You're not going anywhere, stuck under that steamroller.  WRYYYYYYYY

Someone explain this "WRYYYY..." thing. I've seen it on Japanese pages as well.

ttp://users.tpg.com.au/lauriew/Avatars/mudah.swf <-- the different tabs on the right show different ridiculous, cartoonish martial arts techniques.  The button at the bottom, which changes to "THE WORLD" when the mouse cursor crosses it, is what this is referring to.

warota

Most of them suck, but the last two win. Especially the last.

holy crapola this thread has like infinite comments

123 > inf

The essential problem isn't that evolution is 'a theory, not a fact'; it's that creationism is 'a fabrication, not a theory'.





...you didn't me expect to read whatever the hell the other 123 posts said, did you?

Well, yas.  The scientific approach is:
"These are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"

The creationist approach is:
"Here is the Bible. What facts, half-truths, and out-and-out lies can we come up with to support it?"

>>125
for scientific... what if the all the facts are yet uknown

for creationist... pff the bible is fairy tales STFU && GOMP

>>126
That's why they try to find out facts.  They go gather facts, as effectively as they can, and then from THOSE facts, try to draw conclusions.

Man is this long. But, if you want to go back to the consciousness deal... there is no real reason to believe consciousness exists outside of the body any more than the Platonic 'ideals'. Consciousness, as far as science can see, is merely a feedback loop between sense and environment. In the end, the human mind is no different than a carbon-based computer, eager for data and able to transfer files to its copies; even though upload time can take awhile.

On creationism v. evolution, the main subject of the thread (and totally unrelated as far as I can see to consciousness), there are many problems. First, creationism and evolution CAN coexist; Pope John Paul II had reconciled the origin of the species with church doctrine, saying that God injected the soul upon the fusing of two ape chromosomes into (iirc) chromosome 2. Evolution deals with how life changes over time; creationism deals with how life came about. It is consistent to say that God created life and left it, like a clockmaker, to work with the springs and cogs of evolution. Now, as to the veracity of creationism itself, there is no logical dispute. Abiogenesis theory is still in the early stages, but there is no doubt that the presence of an 'intelligent designer' is not necessary. Besides, even if we did find out "Hey, amino acids were created by lightning in Earth's early atmosphere," would it matter? Natural phenomena have always been attributed to gods and goddesses, whether it be a volcano or water condensing on a window in the shape of the Virgin Mary. You can always take the magic out and  still have a creator; he just used a saw and hammer (i.e. evolution, lighting) instead of a wand. Nonetheless, when you find all the basic reasons for everything, is it necessary to add in the deity? Then you get into intrinsic value of religion, after the empirical truth has been eliminated.

>>128
The General Theory of Relativity can coexist with a belief that the Earth is flat, for someone sufficiently ignorant or insane.  So?

>>Then you get into intrinsic value of religion, after the empirical truth has been eliminated.

When empirical truth has been eliminated, what remains?

>God injected the soul upon the fusing of two ape chromosomes into (iirc) chromosome 2

LOL WHAT

so the soul is injected into a chromosome? then we should be able to observe it... a chromosome is a relatively massive biological structure, we have the capability to analyze them completely

creationism is entirely fairy tale

apparently intelligence is what results from endless variation on random chaos, leading to ever more complex constructs

the force driving intelligence is the mystery, not the statistical mechanics of probability explaining how the first biological life formed on this particular clump of orbiting matter... quite likely it was lightning, but that is entirely beside the point

as far as i can tell, anyone who is a creationist has just given up on being rational anyway, and is not really worth talking to. there is so much evidence supporting evolution that dismissing it all or trying to come up with some psuedo science explanation is just avoiding the "unpleasant" truth.

the creationists who belive that some intelligent being set the universe in motion (before the big bang) and something else altogether. no one has any idea what happened before the big bang, so its anyones guess, and you might as well belive whatever you want.

>> you might as well belive whatever you want.

sounds like the best plan.
there seems like too many from both sides who wish to enforce there ideas on others.

and both have lacking evidence and so both require a little "faith"  like what was there before the big bang? what was there before god?  there had to be something to start with or there would be nothing here now. perhaps the 2 are linked in together.
i "belive" there is more to us then the phy body. but i also belive theres no way to prove ether.  which leads me back to that word "faith" in what u belive in and
>>131's reference: you might as well belive whatever you want.

>>128

Unfortunately, the people advocating creationism as an "alternative" to evolution aren't trying to reconsile one with the other.  They want Christian Biblical Creationism to trump over evolution.

Political issues aside, from a scientific viewpoint, creationism is bogus.  It has no evidence, and would only make things unnecessarily complicated. 

Now, if you want to reconsile your beliefs with the available evidence, go for it.  Hey, maybe somebody's religion does have it right, we don't know.  It's okay to merge science and religion for spritual reasons.  The problem comes when people deny and ignore facts to avoid changing their religious orientions.

Courts have ruled in favor of Creationism because there is no large pissed off armada of scientists to defend Evolution, the same is not so for Creationism. It's simply easier to give the green light to Creationism. I personally believe in the coexistance of science and God.

>>134
I don't know any courts have ruled in favor of Creationism.  If anything, they've ruled against it, doing away with those silly "Evolution is just a theory" stickers.  It's school boards which are the problem.  Instead of trying to determine cirricula from experts, they try to decide it based on popular opinion.  Because everybody knows popular opinion determines truth, not reality.

WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

>>132

Shut up, fag.  I've heard enough apathetic hand-waving agnostics who just want to get along.  There is a way to prove shit; it's called the Scientific Method.  And in case you start shooting of on what is unprovable, we have Occam's Razor to knock you back into reality.

In short, pulling shit out of your ass to fill gaps in your understanding is not a valid logical approach.  You use the scientific method, gathering data, testing hypotheses, and if there are multiple explanations you pick the simplest one until that is proven wrong.

>>135

I live in Cobb County, where the sticker thing took place!  I feel special.

we have Occam's Razor to knock you back into reality

Not that I disagree, but please don't forget that Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law. Just because Occam's Razor eliminates several possibilities does not make those remaining ones true. There are a myriad examples in science where Occam's Razor was wrong.

This is purely pedantic, but if you're going to argue for or against God/Creationism/whatever, you'd better have watertight semantics. Using Occam's Razor to "knock [x] back into reality" is egoistic argumentative bullshit.

True that Occam's Razor is a guideline and not a rule, but the specific uses of it I'm referring to are when creationists and new-age bullshitters keep crying "BUT YOU ADMIT THAT IT'S POSSIBLE GOD EXISTS" shit.  Occam's Razor serves as a simple method of telling people that some possibilities are far more plausible than others.

pulling shit out of your ass to fill gaps in your understanding is not a valid logical approach

Best quote in this thread. Belief defined in 12 words.

HAHAHA, DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!

Belief defined in 12 words.

It also defines what a hypothesis is - which is a valid logical approach.

>>142
If you test your hypothesis.  Belief as 140 defined it is forming a hypothesis and calling it fact.

>>143

I don't the majority of Christians would call the bible and its contents facts. If they were facts, why would you have to believe in it?

i don't beleive the earth is round

>>144 (I'll assume a "think" was supposed to go in there)

Of course the majority believe them to be fact.  Belief means taking things to be fact upon no evidence.

>>145

Come on, you can come up with a better troll post than that sorry thing.

I truly don't know that the world is round. I am just unquestioningly beleiving the words of a bunch of books.

Does "Belief = Fallacy" disprove "Belief = Fact" by definition?

Belief = Shit

Get a brain morans

>>147
No, it's not just that - you're also believing that humans behave a certain way, and that if someone could prove, or even make a good case for the world being flat, they would surely do so for money, fame, the sake of being right, or perhaps even some high ideal of truth.

Belief means taking things to be fact upon no evidence.

There's no evidence for "knowledge" or "truth in science", either.

I think this thread just jumped from the makes-sense road

>>152

Actually this thread is making a charming, adolescent convulsion into real problems of epistemology, which is a good and beneficial thing for all involved.  Even if you do not 'believe' in God, because you cannot prove Him, and even if you do not believe in the infallibility in your senses, you most likely believe that your senses and faculties are in good enough shape enough of the time to arrive at facts, from which you can conclude true knowledge.  Nor could humans operate if they didn't tacitly 'believe' certain primitives.  But this is probably something Hume covered.

Berkeley > Hume

It's sickening how people in the country don't believe in BOTH. OMG Black-and-White either or!!11

Well, here's what I think:

<FISH><

>>154

Just no.

>>147

Now you're getting into a different issue.  That is the issue of trust.  Trust is how much credibility you assign a person versus how extraordinary their claim is.  I claim there is a street sign across the road from my house.  Now, I am an anonymous poster on the internet, so I don't have much credibility, much a street sign is a very mundane claim, so a rational person is justified in believing I have a street sign across the road from my house.  Now, I claim there is a fire breathing dragon in my garage.  That's a very extraordinary claim, and with my uncredibility, you are justified in not believing me.  As for the round world, people you take to be very credible, your family, your friends, scientists, etc. all make the claim that the world is round.  That's somewhat extraordinary as it contradicts the first impression from your senses, but a huge number of very credible people claim it, so youu are justified in believing it.

=^..^=

>>155

<DARWIN><
 /\   /\

/\ I saw that on a guy's car.

>>159

Seen plenty of those. Too bad people here think you can't put Jesus and Darwin in the same boat.

>>159
That's weird.

  I only have seen the begining 20ish post ...so anyhow ...I'm going to finish reading... and then... will continue ... but until then ........ Animals ( humans ect ) evolve...but to say that we Evolved. from The great ape family...is still silly...have any of you studied them?...over the past 
??????? years?...And if you have ...are they getting more like Human beings?...
also ...why are they still here?

>>162

I'm sorry sir, I'm going to have to ask you to leave the internet.  You're too fucking stupid.

>>162
gb2/troll school

read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" by Charles Darwin

lolz

>>160

You shouldn't HAVE to 'reconcile' the ideas; people's even bothering to attempt to do that is nothing more than an unfortunate byproduct of our insistence upon viewing Darwinism in simpler terms than it was intended, and of our inability to discard religion proper.  Both are discredits to human nature.

>>163

If you're too stupid for the internet, suicide is your only option.

you mean science is real and religion is made up ?
thats not what the preist told me when he was ramm'in my ass

>>166


Truth.

meh, we have no proof, or facts for any science, only what whats his face said, "I think therefore I am" i think thats the only fact in the universe. that there is something somewhere which is me. whether created or evolved or neither, whether this is all a 'dream'. so no one knows if even any of this is real so its pointless to discuss. but everyones entitled to try to do whatever they want(express opinions). mine is, creationism. cos its so much happier. ^___^

meh, we have no proof, or facts for any science, only what whats his face said, "I think therefore I am" i think thats the only true fact. that there is something somewhere which is me. whether created or evolved or neither, whether this is all a 'dream'. so no one knows if even any of this is real so its pointless to discuss. but everyones entitled to try to do whatever they want(express opinions). mine is, creationism. cos its so much happier. ^___^

The people who are so against evolution giving the excuse that its  merely a theory are just using it as a WEAK excuse.

Their main motivation is becasue they are just arrogant and want to think that they are special and think that being evolved from monkeys is demeaning to them. If evolution had shown that humans evolved from raptors or wolves maybe they would change their tune.

Dude, if we evolved from raptors that would be badass.

>>172

Ironically, these are the same people who claim humanity was formed out of clay.  Cuz, you know, that's so much more meaningful.

I believe in evolution, but i hate people who use evolution to disprove god, because those people are retards, just because god didnt make everyting the way it is now, doesnt mean that it didnt create existance.


but thats way off topic

>>175

No one uses evolution to disprove God.

>>176
technically youre right
ive heard a lot of idiots try though

>>33
I assume you believe in the bible so i will answer your question in a simple sentence.

Could it be because people were so stupid back then, then writing the bible they didnt know about science, dinosaurs, or even a thought that something was made before them?

Are we talking about the same rational thinking biology community that insists that magnatism has no effects on the human body despite the many experiments that have shown numerous fascinating reactions to potential differences and electromagnetic radiation before all funding for this research was cut around 1980 due to political pressure? Yeah sure, I trust the biology community in everything they say about evolution.

>>179

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA.

Get out.  No, really.

He's right.  That's why you need my neodymium rings and foot bracelets.  They are the only magnets powerful enough to make you live forever.

>>180
And this is the exact reaction I expect, because you're too lazy to look at the experimental results yourself. It IS widely accepted that bones are Piezoelectric. For some reason though, the biology community is unable to extrapolate beyond that.

there is an entire invisible dimension of magnetic fields

the chinese call it chi, and accupuncture is how they manipulate it

the planet has magnetic fields and so does every biological mass

though what this has to do with creationsim and/or god is beyond me

insists that magnatism has no effects on the human body

Where'd you get that from?

And associating magnetism with the piezoelectric effect is pretty tenuous... just how many webers are we talking here?

>>183
It has nothing to do with creationism specificly. However, given that the biology community generally scoffs at the idea that there are electric currents in the human body despite evidence of just that effect, I don't think I can take anything the biology community says without a degree of scepticism. They community at large has not proven to me that they are great pioneers in science. By the way, accupuncture is still not widely accepted by the biology community as anything more than placebo.

>>184
There's an old school of thought called vitalism back before the potentials in neurons were really understood, that beleived that neurons were conductors. Since this has been proven not to be the case, and idea of currents existing naturally in the human body has been met with a large wave of resistance and political pressure. I didn't specify before, but I'm not talking about things like large electromagnetic radiation causing the body to heat up or cells to mutate. I'm talking about much smaller magnitudes, and a much larger topic that I don't feel like writing a summary about.

Anyways, I'm not putting out any more argument than this, because this topic has been beat to death.

idea of currents existing naturally in the human body has been met with a large wave of resistance and political pressure.

Please, tell that to the neurology and biological psychology folks. This resistance will be news to them! I guess saltatory conduction and action potentials are their imagination.

Your brain runs on electricity. Your motor neurons depend on current. Your beating heart wouldn't work without it. And what about all those energy pathways?

"Your brain runs on electricity. Your motor neurons depend on current. Your beating heart wouldn't work without it."

Those are all action potentials which are more a result of ion gradients than electrons traveling down a conductor. They are a result of ion gates along an axon opening and closing triggered by a threshold potential. Thats all biochemistry more than bioelectricity.

lol shark electrosensitivity, similarity of "ion gates" to actual logic gates in electronics...

ion gates and logic gates? Now that I can laugh about.

Those are all action potentials which are more a result of ion gradients than electrons traveling down a conductor.

The same argument could be used on a battery. All that potential is due to a chemical reaction. So is that not current?

The entire system depends on current, since without current the sodium gates wouldn't even open.

>>190
You can argue that. But that is not the popular belief. Now you begin to see my dilema, since that does seem like a reasonable hypothesis.

>>191
DrLang:

How does any of this tangential argument about preestablished properties of biological energy fields raise any reasonable doubt whatsoever about the voracity of the scientific community with regards to the current theory of evolution?

Your series of posts taken as a whole seem like an obfuscation tactic. I'll preempt where I see this going with this statement: A theory about a Creator-God that snapped his fingers 5000 years ago to create Adam and Eve will never warrant response from the scientific community.

Let's hear your ulterior point already.

>>192
I am not taking this anywhere near the theory of a creator god. Reguardless of what your belief is, The current theory of evolution requires a certain amount of faith. Quite a bit of faith from the evidence I've seen presented. I will not hold faith in a theory when the very community coming up with it denys that it requires faith to believe in. The theory of evolution is an important one, I won't deny that. But based upon my own observation, the proponents of the current theory of evolution need to get their heads out of their ass. That is all.

"The current theory of evolution requires a certain amount of faith."

That claim is older than time itself, and it's still wrong.

I imagine the reason the biology community doesn't accept that magnetic fields effect humans (or whatever it is) is because they unable to find results in an experiment to their satisfaction. I think the biology community probably says they don't know, rather than it doesn't happen.

Having said all that however, I haven't looked at any of the experiments you talk of and could therefore be talking out of my arse. Care to post some URL's to these experiments?

>>195
I'll list a few references for you. Can't really do better than that.

Marino AA, Cullen JM, Reichmanis M, Becker RO. "Fracutre healing in rats exposed to extremely low-frequency electric fields." Clin Orthop 1979 Nov-Dec;(145):239-44

Becker RO, Murray DG. "A method for producing cellular dedifferentiation by means of very small electrical currents." Trans N Y Acad Sci 1967 Mar;29(5):606-15

Friedman H, Becker RO, Bachman CH. "Effect of magnetic fields on reaction time performance." Nature 1967 Mar 4;213(79):949-50

If you look into Rober O. Becker, you'll find lots of information on the field, both suport and criticism.

I'm too friggin lazy to read 200 posts...so here is my contribution if it has not been posted yet:

http://www.talkorigins.org

>>173

Dude, unless you want to debate whether you want to be served Rotisserie style or Shake & Bake then no it wouldn't :P

199 GET

200 wait I'm not being original

Did creationists create evolutionists or did evolutionists evolve from creationists?

>>201
I'de say a little bit of both.

>>201
Evolutionists evolved from stupid forms of life to smart, while creationists are clearly not evolutionist.

age

Scientists don't really know how evolution works; it describes some unknown and undefinable mechanism of biological change. There are many good ideas about species variation, but none really explain what drives evolution, and of course it has never been observed first hand anywhere.

Evolution is paradoxically impossible not to believe. Science can only deal with what is observable and repeatable, and any  new ideas about how evolution works are going to fall within the framework of "naturalistic" biological changes, with the result that whether god did indeed have a hand in it becomes irrelevant.

However, the inability of scientists to produce an acceptable model of evolution's mechanism, effectively associates any change at all that is scientifically observable in the natural world to be assimilated into an overarching, consolidated grand-evolutionary theory. Basically, CHANGE = EVOLUTION, it comes down to that.   

 


     

>>183
I find this digression on chi to be quite hilarious. It reminds me of the time a I read a quotation in a popular magazine which went something along the lines of "Western science is now beginning to see the dissolution of the barriers between food and medicine". Of course anyone with any knowledge at all of so called "Eastern" medicine will realise they had known it for millenia.

Yes, but how much of eastern philosophy isn't pure baloney?  There's a lot of untestable statements that lead to superstition and magical thinking.

What are you saying? philosophy is all crap?

No, it just makes claims that can't be proven/disproven, although some of it may be accurate

>>205
"Scientists don't really know how evolution works; it describes some unknown and undefinable mechanism of biological change."

Truth. They would have you believe that such mutations are random and weeded out through natural selection. Yet what they are proposing is a severe statistical improbability... even given millions of years. The fact that evolution occures is very apparent, but the current theory on how it occures is hard to believe. I want to see some radical ground breaking ideas on what else might be a driving force of evolution.

>>210

To correct Twain, there are four types of lies.  Lies, damn lies, statistics, and creationist probabilities for abiogenesis and evolution.

We shouldn't protect endangered animals. They are obviously evolutionarily inferior. Natural selection much be allowed to occur.

>>212


Humans Must Die

>>212
With that attitude, even the Earth will turn to be evolutionary inferior and we'll fuck up ourselves without having had a chance to expand.

It's not like we should protect endangered animals, it's like we should STOP FUCKING KILLING THEM FOR FUCKS SAKE!

>>214
LOL, you think we can destroy the Earth? You overestimate humans. Unless we blow it literealy into pieces, this planet survived being nothing but volcanos. Im pretty sure it can survive any nuclear annialation of all living things that we can come up with.

>>215
It might be so, but if we destroy ourselves, we prove us evolutionary shitty, but we have killed millions of other species in the process, which makes me think we are a stupid virus that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

Watch more George Carlin.

>>216
millions of species have died on the Earth many many times. IT'S ALL A CYCLE, WOT.

>>218
It's not a cycle to throw shit into rivers until everything dies. I call it "retardation".

"The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic...plastic came out of the earth, the earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children...could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place:  it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us.  Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question...why are we here?  Plastic, assholes."

Please stop with the pretending the earth is alive.

>>221
THE EARTH HAS MAGNETIC FIELDS DUE TO A MOLTEN SPINNING CORE BUT IT IS NOT ALIVE

Prove the Earth has a molten spinning core

>>223

WE MUST GO TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH!  WHO'S WITH ME?

>>224
Depends, are there hot chicks down there?

>>225
If there's chicks down there, I guarentee they are hot.

>>226
smoking hot

>>224


Jules Verne is in.

infinite worlds, perhaps an entity just decided to make his own...much as we would make our own forum out of invision or what not, or how moot made 4chan, and is now revered. He did'nt create the code, he just put it here, and drew us to it. On another note, the problem of the mind being just meat.
I like to think of the mind as our interface to the body. Basically, our "souls'" way of controlling this vast piece of machinery. Much like you need a computer to access the internet. Who knows, maybe the body is just a shield for the body. AT field anyone?

Cryptic stuff.

>>229
You fool. moot IS a god. Now bow down before him you heathen.

I can imagine that somewhere in the far future 4chan has gained independent consciousness and realise ZOMG humans are the pox. Then it will vaccinate itself against us. EVOLUTION FTW. 

>>232
Perhaps it will become aethiest and deny the existance of a moot.

Creationists believe in micro-evolution, not macro-evolution; ie. they believe that viruses/bacteria can evolve to defend against new medicines or that dogs can evolve into new breeds.

They don't believe in macro-evolution which is chimpanzees evolving into humans or amphibians evolving from aquatics.

It's like God made a chimpanzee and then tweaked a bit here and took away some hair and voila: humans. Or to better fit the Bible, God made humans and then modified the human genes and a chimp appears. Because chimps are just cute, you know.

I got all of this information from here: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

The reason I hate the micro-evolution argument is because it is difficult to argue against, but formed by the pure stubborness of the creationists.

"God must exist, but this evolution argument is a tough one, therefore lets merge the two" = micro-evolution.

I'd ask them to explain the dinosaur.

>>234
Believers have a hard time believing in what seems too grand for their little heads.

>>236
Or maybe they just don't believe in macro-evolution.

>>235 "The reason I hate the micro-evolution argument is because it is difficult to argue against"

Hahaha that makes you no better than a creationist

The micro-evolution argument is bullshit.  Prove that some mechanism exists to stop small changes from accumulating to form large change and go win the Nobel prize for it, then I might look at it.

>>239
you can't prove the opposite of that either. fossils don't count because the creationists can just say that it was made by god who killed it because he made a mistake or something like that. humans just have not had a long enough history to see and record changes from one species to another.

it was made by god who killed it because he made a mistake or something like that
God doesn't make mistakes! Incidentally, shouldn't circumcision be considered sacrilegious? It's essentially saying that God made a mistake when he designed the penis and we need to remove part of it to correct that mistake.

legendary thread

sage for let it go

>>242
I wish 4chan word filters worked here. Snacks? (Around Snacks, word filters)

>>240

Is you retarded, boy?  You can't prove that small changes can accumulate to create large change?  Go take some math.

>>244
Word filters suck, ducky boy.

>>1
Well, a lot of people don't really know for certain what evolution theory is, however they will state they believe in evolution because other theories, like creationism, are retarded.  Thus, people will have more faith in a theory they don't even know about rather than have faith in creationism.

Just goes to show how crappy and pc our education system is
"I pledge [allegiance] some occasional recognition
to the [Flag] symbols of oppression
of the [United States] diverse indigenous peoples of [America] the landmass referred to by oppressive European conquistadors as "America"
and to the [Republic] totalitarian theocracy for which it stands,
[one nation,] a Balkanized patchwork of cultures,
[under God,] under each individuals' personal belief system
[indivisible,] divided into innumerable unique communities of culture,
[with liberty and justice for all.] where some are more equal than others.

>>248
Go cry, emo kid.

>>248
Go smoke crack, leftard kid

>>248 is a commy terrorist.

>>248 would be happier living in Cuba... rite? (Or are Cubans trying to get the fuck out of their free, unopressed, indigenous, plural country as soon as they can??? Can't ask them because they're not allowed to browse the intarweb, lol.)

>>249
>>250
>>251
>>252
dont seem to understand the meaning of sarcasm

>>253 doesn't seem to understand how to display a sarcastic intention in a post and therefore is unsatisfied that fellow 4channers are not mind readers.

Thank you, and GOODNIGHT.

>>254
Wow you are so smart. Amirite?

>>255
Yes. I did just make a blatant fool out of you, so I can understand why you feel hurt.

DOES IT STING? DOES IT?

Ohhhh I just realized 12 years old post here.

Thank you, and GOODNIGHT.

>>257
Why? Is it past 7pm already?

Let's be stupid.

Let's gb2/VIP

Sweet idea dude, let's go!
...
...
Is this a date?

go pvt?

>>33 "If god were to explain the beginning of life to the people of today, he would describe it according to the actual scientific terms, don't you think?"

if God where to... lol wait, god's not going to explain anything, because "god can do everything" and "God" is too good to communicate, haha, maybe he'll tell you when you're dead and goes to heaven, which will be completely useless since you can't communicate with people on the physical side. so... god is pretty much useless if you want to know how things work? so why is it just right i should believe that God actually knows anything, just tell me WHY it is i should believe god as anything to do with anything, other than a 2000 year old book?

>>264
you don't have to believe. just respect the fact that they believe.

this is creationism vs. evolution. so you have to take as given that god is real for the argument.

>>265
 but that's pretty much why this discussion is so fucked up.
we have a bunch of people who believe in god, and for who believing that god is real is needed for their argumentation to be  sure.
And we have a bunch of people who don't think god is real, and simply won't "assume" that god is real, for the sake of their counterparts theory to be true.

So untill someone "proves" that God is real, the discussion will never end. :S

>>265 "this is creationism vs. evolution. so you have to take as given that god is real for the argument."

Only if you're a creationist and, accordingly, wrong.  You never have to take God's existence as a given.  That's why creationists draw fucked up conclusions and scientists don't.  Chant it with me:

OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
And inferences based ONLY on that evidence.

>>267

er wot? an who observed humans evolving, oy?

>>265

Despite criticism this is a valid point. If there is no God, then it makes no sense to talk about Creationism. Full stop.

Therefore, if you refuse to admit the possibility of God, it makes no sense to argue against Creationism. Full stop.

If one admits the possibility of God the argument makes sense; if not, it is precisely equivalent to arguing which is more aerodynamic, a unicorn or an F-16.

>>269
ohh come ON! everybody knows unicorns don't exist! DUH!

The F-16 is more aerodynamic than the unicorn. So do you mean that evolution rocks?

>>271
yes

>>271

Intelligent de-

OH SHI

>>271

Intelligent de-

OH SHI

No, stfu, unicorns are perfectly aerodynamic. They are Riemann surfaces. Here is mathematical proof:

f : C \ {infinity} -> C, f(z) = z
g : C \ {0} -> C, g(z) = 1/z and g(infinity) = 0

See what I mean?

From a Euclidean perspective, they appear to have extension (i.e., take up space), but from the perspective of gravity and electro-magnetism, they are point objects. That's how they can appear to move faster than the speed of light, and travel through solid matter.

This is based largely on the Riemann-Hilbert work on Cthulhian hyper-extension, which allows extradimensional beings of inconceivable horror to rotate in 3 dimensions while holding still in their nth dimensional home.

Also, God exists and he's really angry at you.

>>f : C \ {infinity} -> C, f(z) = z
>>g : C \ {0} -> C, g(z) = 1/z and g(infinity) = 0

Does that mean that unicorns are aerodynamic and that creationism rocks? I thought unicorns were mythological creatures (like creationism, in a way) that don't really exist. Oh yer, THEREFORE, WHAT UNICORN HAVE YOU TESTED THIS AERODYNAMIC SWEET UNICORN THEORY ON. I SEEM TO HAVE A FOUND A LITTLE WHOLE IN YOUR THEORY YOU RELIGIOUS PROPANGANDIST. GO BACK TO CHURCH YOU BIBLE BASHER.

>>275
"No, stfu, unicorns are perfectly aerodynamic. They are Riemann surfaces."
No.  Unicorns are solids embedded in R3.  A Riemann surface must cover the complex plane. ^^


>>269
"Despite criticism this is a valid point."
No it's not.

"If there is no God, then it makes no sense to talk about Creationism. Full stop."
No.  Whether or not something is realistic has nothing to do with whether or not talking about it makes sense.  In fact, there is at least one thing that can always be stated sensibly about unrealistic scenarios: the fact that they are unrealistic.


"Therefore, if you refuse to admit the possibility of God, it makes no sense to argue against Creationism. Full stop."
It's not refusing to admit anything.  A good scientist never refuses to admit anything.  He simply states only what can be inferred from observable evidence (i.e. evolution; and no one had better get started on "evolution isn't observable"; do your homework and look up "infer").  And it still makes sense to say that Creationism /doesn't/ make sense.  Disbelief in something doesn't mean you can't talk about it anymore.  What are you, some kind of sense-or?

>>268
Lol, we study it. It's called archeology. Our behavior and it's evolution is study by Sociologists. Wow. Religious Conservatisim breeds serious ignorace :/

This coming from a dev neuro grad.  Science often is mistaken by people as absolute truth.  Whereas, in actuality, it is merely expression and/or explanation of truths.  Science is a tool people, a logical method of approach to queries.  To enslave yourself to your own tool defeats the very logic from which said tool originated.  One must remain flexible when out to seek what one may not know.  So when one completely writes off that which is not currently recognized as science, one succumbs to the same forces that plague much of organized religion.  That is, he forgoes his own wisdom to make room for the intellect of others.  "Blind worship" to those hating on religion.  "Idolatry" to christians, among others, hating on science.

Remember that science is not the reason we have five fingers, but it explains the shit out of how we end up with five fingers.  My personal conclusion thus far on the so-called creationism vs. evolution debate is that it's all one and the same.  Consider the very crayola fundamentals of superstring theory.  If God is as omni-everything as his camp says he is, then he is HUGE.  Compared to us, who are TINY.  So what was a mere thought to him can be eons of evolution to us.  Did the first cell precursors not arise in clay substrate submerged in the "soup"?  And the name Adam also has certain roots in an ancient word, adoma(serious sp), meaning clay.

Just remember how we can never be absolutely sure that there is no "higher" consciousness in the animals and bacteria we manipulate in the lab.  You can't see the world as a bird if you're not a bird.  And it follows that the things larger than us, like those smaller than us, will be just as impossible to fully comprehend.  We can discover it, name it, analyze and manipulate it to invoke reproducible results.  But we can't be it.  At least, not with the collective consciousness we have today.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a friggin' FACT. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge in the mathematics and mechanisms involved will be able to see this. And if you don't have such knowledge, then you have no business making an opinion about it. But go ahead anyway, you'll at least seem to be intellectual to the other half-wits who don't understand it either. I know I'm being terribly arrogant and pompous, but I'm RIGHT, AMIRITE? RICHARD DAWKINS FTW!11//1!1

Evolution is not a theory, it is a friggin' FACT. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge in the mathematics and mechanisms involved will be able to see this. And if you don't have such knowledge, then you have no business making an opinion about it. But go ahead anyway, you'll at least seem to be intellectual to the other half-wits who don't understand it either. I know I'm being terribly arrogant and pompous, but I'm RIGHT, AMIRITE? RICHARD DAWKINS FTW!11//1!1

>>280


Finally someone in this thread with a brain.  There is the FACT of evolution, in that shit evolves and all organisms have common descent, and then there is the Theory of Evolution, which explains how it works, like natural selection, punctuated equilibria, and other such fancy words.

>>280


Finally someone in this thread with a brain.  There is the FACT of evolution, in that shit evolves and all organisms have common descent, and then there is the Theory of Evolution, which explains how it works, like natural selection, punctuated equilibria, and other such fancy words.

>>282
no the fact of evolution is that there is genetic mutation from parent to child. everything else is theory.

noone has proven that an organism can build up enough mutations to change into a complete different species or that all organisms have a common descent. in fact all organisms don't have common descent because biologists regularly create new organims from protein strands or somthing like that.

>>284
Biologists havn't been able to create an actuall organism yet. They've been able to create things akin to viruses I believe, but those do not count as organisms. I read on /. that one group said they were getting close.

>>285
Still it is very likely that all organisms did not evolve from one single cell organism but many single celled organisms.

that there is a lovely point.
not gonna say anything for or against it.  just the fact that it is a truly lovely point, one often overlooked.  again, because many forgo their own questions for the rote answers of academia.

>>287
Well said old chap. The viral infestation manifesting itself in the minds of the plebian masses, the rote answers of academia, needs an antibody and that is you Anonymous, rewarding those who fight this plague with a firm and steady hand.

>>288
Aye.

Big  Bang  of  Time

Zhang  Touhong

 

   The principle of constancy of light velocity  was founded,but people can��t easily identify with it by instinct now.Since the Big Bang theory was discovered,the scientific world only pay almost all attention on studing the Big Bang of ��space��,while,the question of time,is still kept being studied in classical phyisic scopes.It is necessary to conclude such a models of Big Bang:Bisides the Big Bang of space,there is going with a��Big Bang of time��.Space and time just like the two parts of germ plasm in a fertilized ovum,whose ratio is constant equel to the velocity of light,thus passed through enough gestation,until the birth of universe.Which character of universe��s fetus period is the essential origin reason of why the light velocity is invariable.

   Big Bang of time was impossible happen in chaos or out-of-order, might as well to find a certain model here,so that the space-time would be endowed with some structure,and which structure once partly catabolized to substance��s structure,the substantial mass and force were catalyzed.So the model must resemble the atom��s structure,also like the wave expand from the epicenter.

    Imagine the time before Big Bang like a neutron model atom which had and only had a ��interior nucleus�� electron orbit.What is called Big Bang is that,the neutron model atom decayed,extranuclear electron orbit came into being,electron radiated and transited into orbit, untill became a jarless atom.

Earlier stage of the Big Bang is called Planck period,just was the neutron model time.It is come from the expressins:tp=(Gh/c5)0.5 ��tp:Planck time;G:constant of universeal gravitation;h:Planck costant;c:velocity of light��.tp=1.35121244479��10-43second.In a common nucleus,the number of the neutron��s is a little bigger than proton��s,It means only small half part of the nucleus appeared to participate in the Big Bang.Might as well suppose t1=0.59112749749��10-43 seconds to be the time that participated in the Big Bang ,that is because t1 adapt to��tp-t1��:t1=1.28,Which is the ratio between the neatrons�� number and protons�� in a jarless atom.

The Big Bang was begin with that:t1,exsisted in the orbit of the interior nucleus,like a epicenter,spreaded to the outer,and brought out an extranuclear orbit in which had time of t1.Now the orbit��s scale was r1,and r1:t1=c.Let��s imagine the time arranged like the form of a line ,the shells drilled throught by the time was homogeneous,every one unit time occupied a shell.In the second phase,the old t1 was pushed to the second shell by the new t1 and was reflected inwards by the second shell's outer boundary.   For the support of the forfront of a shock wave that later expand outwards from the hypocenter,the boundary  that between the first and second shell ,had the function of outwards reflection too, thus formed a potential well with the outer boundary .Time oscillated back and forth in this one unit wide potential well, its quantity became a new number after it finished the path that started from the place of nucleus .In synchronism with an oscillation cycle,shock wave spanned a shell and arrived the second shell's outer boundary,the width of the potential well became nearly to zero.Still with the action of the two opposite direction ,just in there the new time was pressed as something membrane-like whose width was near to zero,suddenly exploded twofoldly.Collating electron shell,it exploded to 22t1(now the orbit radius was 22r1,the ratio was still c.hereinafter alike).In the third phase,the hypocenter of the nucleus triggered the 22t1 path staight cast elasticaly and spirted to the outer boundary of the 22th shell,which boundary always form some potential wells that shall be reduced one by one shell with the boundary between the shells at where the forfront of shock wave later expanded outwards from the hypocenter arrived.Time returned to the outer boundary of the 22th shell after the 3 times osillationand reflections in the 3 potential wells ,pressed by the action face to face,time membrane-like exploded to (22)2t1.And so on,till the sixth phase,the most outer shell��s time exploded to ((((22)2)2)2)2 t1.Because the seventh element cycle is not full or jarless,in the seventh phase no longer beget Big Bang,only brings out 10t1.

In this way the seven phases Big Bang had produced the time of t2��

10+12+22+(22)2+((22)2)2+(((22)2)2)2+((((22)2)2)2)2=4295033110(t1)

About the subatom that compose the atom,it is known that the most basic substantial particle are 6 kinds quark and 6 kinds lepton.Both of them can be separated into 3 generations.That must be the result of time through passed t1 to t6 altogether 6 generations Big Bang,and the universe passed through 6 times phase changes.For the same reason,there is t6=(4295033110)5t1��the t6 is the time of 86400 seconds in a day.

From the epicenters of ��7 days�� , t6 continued to explode to 4295033110 days.Now,we can see the day and the night exactly correspond the two electron in opposite direction in an orbit.which embody the harmonious of the universe.

Now,the "string quartet"of Big Bang was near the epilogue, however, concerning the Big Bang maths model of  10��12��22��24��28��216��232,it resemble the model of reproduction by fission,there must be emanative ��directions��(like the magnetic quantum )of time.Those different directions made up the lines and surfaces of a soccer-like universe that the ancient  philosopher Plato suspected.Researched the universe microwave background radiation,scientist have sustained the conjecture.For 2 point confirm a line,1 time have no direction,at there the number of time��s direction is the exponential of every term.So in every generation of Big Bang there were 2+4+8+16+32=62 directions.The total number of directions in 6 generations was 62��6=372. The Big Bang is isotropy,that means the time in every direction exploded and diffracted to 4295033110 days at last.The phenomenon that the nebula or solar system is a surface form,and the ancient earth magnet passed through several changes,shows that the universe must have had a ��magnetization��.So,those time in different dirctions were magnetized and spliced,formed a total time in the same direction of 4295033110��372 days.(Thought space is 3 dimention,in which,the matter inertial motions only in a line,its undulatory property is secondary.The side direction influence in the process of magnetization,indirectly became the First Cause.).

Turn to the unit of year,Big Bang came into being 4374500868.110 years .Because the universe is finity ,the light runs in the universe will come back to the origin after a long time.Which means that the line is a concept of part,and the circle is a concept of whole.Between them there is a relation with ��,try to let 4374500868.110 years multiplied by ��the output is 13742899790.377 years .With this age,the universe was born.

The earth��s age mensurated is not more than 4.6 billion years and the new data of the age of universe is 13.7 billion years. .Ancient biology was brougt up by the earth��s matter that later commixed and changed by the water.There is some reason that the age of their remains and fossil's in that environment ,is the weighting average of 7 phases of Big Bang about 624928695.44 years ,that is close to the time in the geology when 0.6 billion years ago the phanerozoic eons (cambrian) began .

Cosmic material was thus created:Big Bang of time had produced the space-time cells of possessing H atom��s rudiment structure and rule,that is to say,there was a certain Big Bang genretion whose scale resemble that of H,and the ground level and law of energy level was like H too.So if the outer orbits transited separately to the place within the seventh orbit ,regard a orbit as a electron and reckon it,on the one hand ,it conduce the space-time distorted,the force appear ,on the other hand, what the obtained light energy aggregated towards the nucleus, according as the mass-energy relation of E=mc2 , turned into the mass of quasi H that atom weight 1.280285.Under the premise of keeping the total atom number unchanged,those unstable atom group took place �� decay,so the universe are made up with 71.57%H and 28.43% He.Which accord with the astronomy observation data.

So, may suspect like this:Big Bang of time took place in ��6 days�� of a week,had a rest at the beginning of the mankind civilization.
timebangl@163.com

tl;dr

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>291
holy shit! what the hell is this?

Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, faggots. One deals with how life was created, and the other deals with how life adapts. No fucking point comparing those two.

>>293
this is true, but creationists actively attack evolution, so when else do we fight back?

>>293

It's not mutually exclusive, neither /excludes/ the other.  You might have meant a different phrase.  Either way, I get your point.  All the same: >>294 gets close to making a good point.  There is an active cultural effort to link the two as opposing doctrines, /especially/ as it pertains to the evolution of man.  There is a percieved conflict there, due to an assumption that Adam and Eve had to look like modern man.  Their appearance is undefined, or rather, defined as "in the image" of a being whose appearance is undefined.

>>295
Creationists often believe evolution eludes to creation not by god, so that's why this bullshit Creationism vs evo stuff started again.

creationists are furries in disguise

>>295

You can fairly take it one step further.  The meaning of "in the image" isn't defined.  I happen to think that it means nothing wrt outer appearance, but rather is an allusion to conscious self-awareness.

>>40
wasnt it flat ?

spaghetti noodle monster > god

>>40
wasnt it flat ?

spaghetti noodle monster > god

That's Flying Spaghetti Monster! Call It by Its right name before a pirate walks you off the plank!

>>294
You have to fight back. But at least fight back intelligently by by forcing the fact that creationism and evolution are not opposing theorys of the same phenomenon. Fighting back in the name of evolution by discrediting creationism only adds fuel to their fire as their irrational fears about the theory of evolution are made rational by the evolutionist community overstepping the bounds of the theory of evolution.

>>302
Unfortunately, we have to explain for evolutionists who are just bandwagoner's (i.e. the  SCINZE RULEZ people, or anti religious rebels). I think >>294 might have been eluding to this, but didn't put in such eloquent terms. I'm glad that some people have brains, because on both sides most have proven themselves as assblowers who don't know what Evolution really is

>>303
Amen.

Yeah bolth sides are based on guesses whitch are against the scientific meathod. plus dinosaurs prove that genisis was a parable so that the ancient people whould shut up and leave god alone. Anyway they should teach science in schools, the kind with hypothosis that are respected, the testing of said hypotosis, and the maturity of fact.

>>305
lol

>>305
Chairman ROFL Mao thought so.

bump

>>308
What the fuck?

lol

holy crap 2.5 yr old thread is old

>>309
You didn't sage it right fucktard

>>312
amidoinitrite?

>>313
no

314.1592653589793232846 GET

>>315

holy shit, winget.

DSFARGEG

Revive!

>> 318

noo!!! YOU CREATED A TIME PARADOX!!!

8=D Penisage 8=D

Creationists vs. Evolutionists
Round 3454357OMGWTFBBQ6734

Creationist: You're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!

Charles Darwin: Buttsecks!
God: ROFL

rofl this thread got necro'd

lol creationism

Creationist: You're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!
Creationist: No, you're dumb!
Evolutionist: No, you're dumb!

Darwins: Buttsecks!
Dawkins: OH GOD YES IM COMING UNF UNF, SEND ME MOE BIBLE THUMPERS TO INSULT. QUIKC EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH

*Dawkins comes on god's face*

O O O

CREATIONIST LIES

    　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
    　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　im table cat! michio kaku is right my other parts are scattered in a parallel dimension due to a malfunctioning teleportation over matter hax
    　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
    　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　

38 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-20 03:55
41 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-21 17:41 we could be in the middle of intergalactic communication and not even knowing it!!
O SHI-!
42 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-21 18:15 >>41
michio kaku is my new god
43 Name: Anonymous : 2007-12-21 18:15 he has tenure so he can say what the fuck he wants for $$$ lolololol

because people are brainwashed at birth with lies of Christianity so they are to stubborn to accept anything else besides what they are used to

evolution has fact
religion has fairytale.

evolution is kewl.

I have a videotape of Hell if you want, there were a lot of Christians whit their balls exploded

that would be kewl to have.

when demons start coming out of that oil pipe you'll be singing a different song let me tell you

creationism attempts to step away from science. And evolution is just a theory...btw, without looking anyone know the first name of the guy that came up with the theory of evolution?

Personally, I use science to proliferate faith and faith to pursue science. If you understood this from the beginning, then you would also understand that science and faith are are enmity (mutual opposition). They are life giving in every aspect as they move to fill each others place. Why speak of impossibilities? To step away from the confines of what we know (which is limited) in order to embrace what we don't know (the unknown/that which we are ignorant of) in order to live, learn, and love. You think that such things have limitation...what eludes your perception, your knowledge, is the awareness of depth of everything. The depth of reality, the depth of character, the depth of involvement, and the depth of soul/spirit.

Strive for that which you've never done before and you'll prove the existence of faith to the only one whose ever needed the proof. Yourself. You are the miracle-making-miracle. What are you waiting for? Some hack-job, wanna-be to come along and muck things up some more for you to bitch and moan, blame and use as a scapegoat so you don't have to do what's hard, what's painful, what's dangerous, what's right? Doesn't that make you a coward? Do you wish to live the rest of your life as a coward? That choice is also yours...be sure you choose the one to which you wish to remain committed.

This war isn't about terrorism, about oil, about people killing people, about resources, about moral authority, nor about possession. This war, life, is all about and always was ever just about one thing that no one cares to address; the war on ignorance.
Between the self-aware and the ignorant, the self-aware use the ignorant to self-sustain by getting them to give away their money (pride) to do so thereby absolving them of sin, yet in the same token saving someone's life by providing them with a means to acquire sustenance. What do the ignorant do? They do what they know to do, repeat what they know works and make shit up in the spur of the moment which is still just a regurgitation of what they know. Oh, and also feign ignorance when accused or blamed while proclaiming to be right and righteous in the same breath. The problem is and never was about people, it's about belief. What we believe can move mountains or put to rest a raging river. Just because some people don't want to connect the dots, use common sense, and logic doesn't mean they are intelligent. nor stupid...they are just doing their best to waste time and accomplish nothing which is what they wanted all along. So how do you win against ignorance? You give them what they want at a price. You bleed them dry for every thing they've got until they are enslaved by their own greed and consumption. So the only one that's beaten to death by sin is themselves. And what do these ignorant ones do? They cower into the dark, into a place where they can not be found, to be alone, to die of shame.

The existential question is, will you allow that person to be you? How do you know you aren't already? Blind faith? Belief? Please don't insult your own intellect by twisting the meaning of words to suit your own selfish defensive needs...either own your choices and consequences or those that are Willing will take yours and sell you the solution for the subtle, simple cost to your soul/spirit/sanity. Live or die; your choice.