The Great Debate (religion)

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 32 · Next

Author	Message
Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1417 Credit: 181,761,828 RAC: 158,539	Message 1222226 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:35:30 UTC - in response to Message 1222213.
	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. Random chance does NOT mean throwing a bunch of chemicals into a bucket and out jumps homo sapiens Some things only work together. Which came first, the sugar or the enzyme to crack it, thus allowing the next stage of development to proceed ? I'll bet one was around a long time before the other. It just had to sit there, apparently useless until probability threw up the number that made it "useful". Happenings like this can happen many times over billions of years and give the appearance of "a plan". It's similar to the way wind, rain and sand can sculpt a rock into a recognisable face. T.A.
	ID: 1222226 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222231 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:39:49 UTC - in response to Message 1222221.
	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. Im not short quoting you. Im asking about this one point.... You believe---Schrodinger's cat? A game of chance. In a nutshell this is gaming. In a nutshell this is chance taught in school, and design left out.
	ID: 1222231 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222233 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:42:23 UTC - in response to Message 1222222. Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 16:43:07 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. Weather it's being said out loud to the student matters not. It's a game of chance. I do accept very large parts of Darwin as true and correct[the book he wrote]. It's what was done with his work after that I object to.
	ID: 1222233 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,513,949 RAC: 9,506	Message 1222237 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:54:07 UTC - in response to Message 1222231.
	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. Im not short quoting you. Im asking about this one point.... You believe---Schrodinger's cat? A game of chance. In a nutshell this is gaming. In a nutshell this is chance taught in school, and design left out. I am not familiar with Schrodinger's cat. But mathematics is capable of calculating chances, therefore odds, on which all gaming is based. By the probabilities the payoffs are determined, and by mathematics the house wins. More of a bell curve in this case. Most of the marbles dropped through pegs are going to land towards the middle. Some will not. It can be estimated fairly accurately how many will not, but not which ones. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222237 ·

Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1417 Credit: 181,761,828 RAC: 158,539	Message 1222238 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:56:09 UTC - in response to Message 1222221.
	Oh all of the gods must exist. Remember that God has a thousand names. So the actual number of gods could possibly be quite low Or none of the gods must exist. Or both. And we don't find out the answer until they close the box :-) T.A.
	ID: 1222238 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222240 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:57:42 UTC
	Soft Spirit, Once again Im not short quoting you. Im asking about this one point again. "I am not familiar with Schrodinger's cat." Please google it. Id rather not talk past each other. You seem to understand it anyhow.
	ID: 1222240 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222241 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 16:58:23 UTC - in response to Message 1222238.
	Oh all of the gods must exist. Remember that God has a thousand names. So the actual number of gods could possibly be quite low Or none of the gods must exist. Or both. And we don't find out the answer until they close the box :-) T.A. :-]
	ID: 1222241 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8942 Credit: 36,628,487 RAC: 60,031	Message 1222242 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:00:27 UTC - in response to Message 1222233.
	Darwin wasn't all correct or all wrong he didn't write a law he wrote a Theory. A theory that has changed little and for the most part has stood the test of time. One thing he said was partially incorrect. He assumed, from his limited data sets, that evolution progressed at a slow steady pace. We now know this to be at least partially incorrect. There are a multitude of recent examples of moths in England that had a mutation for darker coloring. the whitish moths were dominant until the England start burning coal and covering the land in soot. The white colored moths were eaten easily and the black moths became dominant in just a few moth generations. ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1222242 ·

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10321 Credit: 5,088,960 RAC: 6,376	Message 1222244 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:06:24 UTC - in response to Message 1222219.
	*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? As the brain is a chemical thing, chemistry rules. If God controls chemistry, e.g. mutations, there is no free will. You have to decide if there can be a "soul" if there is no free will. Your memory is a chemical bond. You contracting a muscle is a chemical bond. If God controls when and how these happen, then you do not have free will. ____________
	ID: 1222244 ·

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2480 Credit: 7,448,447 RAC: 13,882	Message 1222245 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:10:25 UTC - in response to Message 1222186.
	Ah, the idea is to redefine random as design. Sort of like when the Microsoft folks tell you it's a feature not a bug. I wonder where they got that from. *random mutations* Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.
	ID: 1222245 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,513,949 RAC: 9,506	Message 1222247 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:12:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222240.
	Soft Spirit, Once again Im not short quoting you. Im asking about this one point again. "I am not familiar with Schrodinger's cat." Please google it. Id rather not talk past each other. You seem to understand it anyhow. Ahh well.. not having a background in quantum.. um.. anything... a bit complex for me. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222247 ·

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2480 Credit: 7,448,447 RAC: 13,882	Message 1222248 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:13:01 UTC - in response to Message 1222219.
	Isn't that a random deviance from it is all designed? 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: 1222248 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222252 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:29:22 UTC - in response to Message 1222248.
	Isn't that a random deviance from it is all designed? 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? No, what makes you think we operate the same as the earth, lifespan, nor does the earth have a soul. We are made in His Image.
	ID: 1222252 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222254 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:30:55 UTC - in response to Message 1222242.
	Darwin wasn't all correct or all wrong he didn't write a law he wrote a Theory. A theory that has changed little and for the most part has stood the test of time. One thing he said was partially incorrect. He assumed, from his limited data sets, that evolution progressed at a slow steady pace. We now know this to be at least partially incorrect. There are a multitude of recent examples of moths in England that had a mutation for darker coloring. the whitish moths were dominant until the England start burning coal and covering the land in soot. The white colored moths were eaten easily and the black moths became dominant in just a few moth generations. One swallow does not make a summer~Aristotle----------However, 50 do make a fine summer. 50-Peer-Reviews
	ID: 1222254 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,513,949 RAC: 9,506	Message 1222256 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:34:05 UTC - in response to Message 1222252.
	Isn't that a random deviance from it is all designed? 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? No, what makes you think we operate the same as the earth, lifespan, nor does the earth have a soul. We are made in His Image. Then that is one really messed up god. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222256 ·

Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 2063 Credit: 28,567 RAC: 3	Message 1222257 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:36:52 UTC - in response to Message 1222244.
	*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? As the brain is a chemical thing, chemistry rules. If God controls chemistry, e.g. mutations, there is no free will. You have to decide if there can be a "soul" if there is no free will. Your memory is a chemical bond. You contracting a muscle is a chemical bond. If God controls when and how these happen, then you do not have free will. Pinocchio I've got no strings To hold me down To make me fret, or make me frown I had strings But now I'm free There are no strings on me Hi-ho the me-ri-o That's the only way to go I want the world to know Nothing ever worries me Hi-ho the me-ri-o I'm as happy as can be I want the world to know Nothing ever worries me I've got no strings So I have fun I'm not tied up to anyone They've got strings But you can see There are no strings on me
	ID: 1222257 ·

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,513,949 RAC: 9,506	Message 1222258 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 17:40:42 UTC - in response to Message 1222257.
	Thank Lillith? ____________ Janice
	ID: 1222258 ·

Ex Volunteer moderator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 12 Mar 12 Posts: 2883 Credit: 1,158,956 RAC: 830	Message 1222264 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:02:35 UTC - in response to Message 1222213. Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 18:07:50 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. 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. If you throw a bunch of marbles on the floor and let them roll where they roll, some will roll around on the floor right in front of you, others will fall downs some stairs, others roll into other rooms, maybe some fall into the vents, under tables and chairs, etc. If you then pick up one marble, and re-trace its steps all the way back to when it first hit the floor, I suppose you would say that "design" is how that one marble got to be where it ended up? Totally overlooking the fact that the marbles randomly went everywhere. Any one marble can be traced back through a series of events that led it to end up where it landed. You can pick up one marble, retrace its steps and say hey "this is the story of how this marble got here". However that does not prove anything. Because the events that led that marble to get there, were nothing more than a series of random chances. ____________ -Dave #2 3.2.0-33
	ID: 1222264 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,296,425 RAC: 6,438	Message 1222268 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:08:33 UTC - in response to Message 1222222. Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 18:09:09 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. Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this, though, just as with Gary's simulator thought experiment, it is possible (though outside scientific consideration) that the Universe was created a fraction of a second ago with all the elements set up to make it appear it's age coincides with the best approximation of science. On Schrödinger's cat, while it was intended as a thought experiment to suggest the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum events (that the probability function does not collapse until the event is observed) was flawed, neither one of the proponents of the interpretation (Niels Bohr), nor experiments since have required the observation of such an event to be made by something we would typically think of as conscious. Indeed, in the thought experiment, the wave function collapses at the time the detector finds that ionizing radiation has been released, thus, while it might not be apparent to the human experimenters whether the cat is alive or dead, the cat is either alive or dead and not both until the box is opened. The quantum "weirdness" of something being in mutually inconsistent states at once has been reproduced in a number of experiments, and while it may seem "weird" to us, that fact alone does not lead scientists to seek a supernatural explanation. They likely understand our concepts of "weirdness" are in part at least a function of evolutionary pressures that lead us to understand macroscopic phenomena as "normal" and quantum as "strange". Quantum events don't care about our feelings, they happen or don't happen or do both at the same time ;-) ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1222268 ·

bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 1704 Credit: 13,296,425 RAC: 6,438	Message 1222270 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:13:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222242. Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 18:14:56 UTC
	Darwin wasn't all correct or all wrong he didn't write a law he wrote a Theory. A theory that has changed little and for the most part has stood the test of time. One thing he said was partially incorrect. He assumed, from his limited data sets, that evolution progressed at a slow steady pace. We now know this to be at least partially incorrect. There are a multitude of recent examples of moths in England that had a mutation for darker coloring. the whitish moths were dominant until the England start burning coal and covering the land in soot. The white colored moths were eaten easily and the black moths became dominant in just a few moth generations. That seems to be about the "natural selection" side of evolution. Were there both dark and light colored moths present prior to the burning of coal? If so, the evolution via random mutation may have progressed as per your description of Darwin's theory, and a change in environmental conditions resulted in one variation fitting less well to the new environment ... ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
	ID: 1222270 ·

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)