The Great Debate (religion)

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 32 · Next

Author	Message
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,315,732 RAC: 6,389	Message 1222172 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 13:54:10 UTC - in response to Message 1222167.
	We are very closely related to our primate brothers. One might declare, "but they have 48 chromosomes and we only have 46. How can we even remotely be related." because 1 pair of our DNA is actually 2 chromosomes that failed to split properly. Again this is proven by science. Telomeres are found at each end of a chromosome, except in chromosome 12 which has telomeres inside it structure where the chromosomes failed to separate or it recombined 1000's of years ago. We really don't know when. These are facts. And here's the picture: Source: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Human_Ape_chromosomes.htm ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1222172 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222179 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 14:29:43 UTC
	Anyone know this man? A.We exist. B.It is possible for us to not exist? C.Whatever has the possibility of not being, yet is, has been caused to be. 1.We cannot bring ourself into existence, since we must exist to bring ourself to be, which is illogical. D.There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring life into existence. There must be Design 1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence and or Design. 2. Since the we exists, we must have been caused, this denotes Intelligence and Design. E.Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of us and all we see around us. F.The uncaused cause must be God. This is called The Cosmological Argument. St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the argument called the Argument from Motion. He said that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God. God by definition--God is uncaused. ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://books.google.com/books?id=KFdu4CyQ1k0C&pg=PA337&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false You can find the Revised Drake Equation above. The old math here. In the old math we find 10 earthlike planets in our galaxy. The math of Drake himself. Still using the old math we add new numbers below. Based on current lower estimates on just what we know about radiation: R* = 6/year, fp = 0.5, ne = 2, fl = 0.33, fi = 1×10-7, fc = 0.01, L = 420 years N = 6 × 0.5 × 2 × 0.33 × 1×10-7 × 0.01 × 420 = 8.316×10-7 = 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy. The current pessimistic fi parameter is much lower than the original Drake estimate due to the rare low radiation present on Earth. Taking into account the original estimate, the result rise to 0.08 civilizations in our galaxy. No, the chance is not zero. Although zero is just a starting point as I know it. But the Revised Drake Equation brings that chance down way, way farther on the other side of zero.
	ID: 1222179 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222186 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 14:58:08 UTC
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.
	ID: 1222186 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1222191 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:14:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. Chance is nothing more than mathematic probability. If you exclude "Chance" well I guess it is all magic. If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222191 ·

Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,162,033 RAC: 873	Message 1222200 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:42:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222186. Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 15:44:36 UTC
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly. ____________ -Dave #2 3.2.0-33
	ID: 1222200 ·

Sirius B Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 6751 Credit: 1,283,817 RAC: 656	Message 1222201 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:47:23 UTC
	Who is to say Maths is right? After all, that's a man made "solution" (quotes used as not sure of the corect word to use). Man has used maths to solve enigma's since maths became the norm. Again, who is to say its correct... Man? ____________
	ID: 1222201 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8944 Credit: 36,829,238 RAC: 61,073	Message 1222202 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:48:11 UTC
	the human genome has random changes. However, the changes occur a specific pace so one can Identify how old the change is by looking at what percent of the population has the mutation. NatGeo ran a story on Ghengis Khan and his progeny. read more here This doesn'c conclusively prove Ghengis Khan sired so many children but someone in his time did. The likeliest person is him. they give the estimate of 0.5% of all men living today as his ancestors. Assuming he had as many daughters as sons he is responsible for 1% of the world population. 7 billion X 1% = around 70 million ancestors. Thats pretty impressive after just 750 years ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1222202 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,315,732 RAC: 6,389	Message 1222208 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 15:58:47 UTC - in response to Message 1222054.
	But you will not turn around and reject my belief and at the same time use science that you say absolutely has no absolutes, that make you the worst kind of hypocrite. And I said to you in a PM "[a]s I understand it, science is not about absolutes and their advancement, it is about developing a better approximation of various aspects of the world around us through the collection of evidence". Why do you insist on trying to attribute absolutes to science, it has very few, if any, because its practitioners appreciate it's a work in progress, even "absolute zero" is a theoretical value. BTW I have checked skildude's posts, I can't find one with the word "absolutely". [...]remove chance and it's design Remove probability (aka chance) and you remove science. The best approximation that science has is that some events are probabilistic, mutations in DNA are one such event. Some mutations will have a deleterious effect on an organism in terms of making it a better "fit" to its environment, some will have no effect and others a beneficial affect, when there is a beneficial effect from a random mutation, the host organism will have a better chance of thriving and passing on this mutation to its descendants. The process is called evolution through natural selection. It was through this process that all vertebrates share a common structure for their eyes, and cephalopods a different structure. The cephalopod structure is clearly superior, though the number of random mutations required to go from a vertebrate eye to a cephalopod eye are so many that it is highly improbable for any vertebrate to evolve the cephalopod structure from the one it has inherited. If there is a Designer, why did it only benefit the cephalopods with this advanced "design"? Cephalopod and vertebrate eyes are only one instance where evolution has come up with structures that on their surface appear very similar, though are the result of parallel paths of development. There have been marsupials that looked very much like horses, the thylacine looks very much like a dog (though is again a marsupial and unrelated to modern canines), the list goes on. Natural selection results in these similar patterns of structure from divergent sources, as the general pattern is a better fit for a common environment. At least that's the best approximation that science currently can provide us with. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1222208 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222210 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:05:34 UTC - in response to Message 1222191.
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. Chance is nothing more than mathematic probability. If you exclude "Chance" well I guess it is all magic. If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. And you think a little over 14 billion light years would be called infinate? Perhaps I misunderstand?
	ID: 1222210 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222213 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:10:05 UTC - in response to Message 1222200.
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly. Yes, what you call---Randomly. I do not. If one random event fits into another which fits into another, ect, ect, ect, random isn't a word that we can use anymore.
	ID: 1222213 ·

Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1420 Credit: 182,298,056 RAC: 162,004	Message 1222214 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:10:10 UTC - in response to Message 1222191.
	If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist ! T.A.
	ID: 1222214 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1222216 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:11:34 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. So your God decides when each and every radioactive atom undergoes decay, what direction the decay products travel, when chemical bonds form and break, etc. That seems a bit much for me. It also removes free will as his decisions on the chemical bonds prevent you from doing anything except what he divines. So if you sin, it is God who made you sin as he controls your body. ____________
	ID: 1222216 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222217 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:15:16 UTC - in response to Message 1222201.
	Who is to say Maths is right? After all, that's a man made "solution" (quotes used as not sure of the corect word to use). Man has used maths to solve enigma's since maths became the norm. Again, who is to say its correct... Man? Then why is only Darwin used in schools? Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? The list of why's is very long if we say who is correct... Man? Math does tell us what is going on around us. Im just asking why we use some and denounce the rest?
	ID: 1222217 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222218 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:17:03 UTC - in response to Message 1222214.
	If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist ! T.A. Indeed. I was going to wait for her next post but--There it is!
	ID: 1222218 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222219 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222216.
	*random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design. So your God decides when each and every radioactive atom undergoes decay, what direction the decay products travel, when chemical bonds form and break, etc. That seems a bit much for me. It also removes free will as his decisions on the chemical bonds prevent you from doing anything except what he divines. So if you sin, it is God who made you sin as he controls your body. The soul has freewill. The soul commands the body. We have freewill over what we have freewill over. You don't believe in the soul?
	ID: 1222219 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2069 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222220 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:21:53 UTC
	bobby, Im not ignoring you. I know how you like exact. I just don't have that time right now. Later tonight....
	ID: 1222220 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1222221 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:25:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222218.
	If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist ! T.A. Indeed. I was going to wait for her next post but--There it is! Oh all of the gods must exist. Or none of the gods must exist. Or both. It takes a leap of faith to believe in a god. It takes another to believe in one true god. It takes another to believe you know that one true god. It takes another to believe he inspired thousands of people to write his word over millinia. It takes several more to believe those words make sense to you Just a couple more and he can personally be telling you what to do in his own voice. But the biggest leap of faith is to think that whatever created the universe cares about you personally. Wow. Just.... wow. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222221 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1222222 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:27:57 UTC
	quick note on evolution (darwin as prophet is not in the curriculum) Although the scientific evidence that evolution has occurred many times over, this neither proves nor disproves the "Divine" theory. It does however disprove the universe is less than 10,000 years old. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222222 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1222223 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:28:55 UTC - in response to Message 1222214.
	If the universe is infinate, than the improbable not only might occur, but will occur. Allowing that there is a miniscule but finite probability that there is a "creator". You have just proved (a) God must exist ! T.A. Only if it is "possible". ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222223 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,315,732 RAC: 6,389	Message 1222224 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:31:01 UTC - in response to Message 1222217.
	Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? It's not and I understand many physicists have issues calling it a theory, a better name might be the String Hypothesis. Just as Einstein did not agree with the theory of Quantum Mechanics (it seems he was wrong), Feynman argued against String theory (and either he or Hawking are wrong). Einstein, Hawking and Feynman are taught in schools. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1222224 ·

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)