The Great Debate (religion)

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 32 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 38185
Credit: 21,412,639
RAC: 27,701
United Kingdom
Message 1222273 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:16:01 UTC

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,

Ok so far.

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.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.

ID: 1222273 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1222274 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:17:35 UTC - in response to Message 1222264.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 18:18:09 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.


Hawkings, yes. If you believe in chance. I do not.

In part an answer to this question... Anyone know this man?
ID: 1222274 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1222275 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:19:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222273.  

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,

Ok so far.

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.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.


Agreed and agreed, and yes, sometimes it's best to leve them to find their own answer or how someone else thinks.
ID: 1222275 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2627
Credit: 16,473,961
RAC: 2,070
United States
Message 1222277 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:21:49 UTC - in response to Message 1222273.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 18:26:30 UTC

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,

Ok so far.

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.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.



I wouldn't argue that the "simulator" view as a credible possibility, just that there are limits to what can be proved if supernatural entities are [ETA]not[/ETA] off the agenda.

[ETA] apologies, missed an important word.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1222277 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1222278 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:22:42 UTC - in response to Message 1222256.  

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.


What is beauty? ;-]
ID: 1222278 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6438
Credit: 31,850,205
RAC: 6,736
United States
Message 1222281 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 18:28:49 UTC - in response to Message 1222278.  

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]


It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.

Janice
ID: 1222281 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2627
Credit: 16,473,961
RAC: 2,070
United States
Message 1222299 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 19:26:44 UTC - in response to Message 1222274.  

If you believe in chance. I do not.


Thus you reject the current best approximation science provides for the Universe in which we find ourselves. I suspect we are done.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1222299 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222300 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 19:37:47 UTC - in response to Message 1222213.  

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.


Let's not beat around the bush.
A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple.
If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile]

On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis.
ID: 1222300 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222301 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 19:40:35 UTC - in response to Message 1222217.  

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?

No one has called String Theory correct. Not anyone that knows even a little about it. The TV character "Leonard" got it right, "It's just a beautiful internally consistent theory" that has not been proven yet by any means. Via Leonard, even non-science people will have some inkling of where things stand on string theory so far.
ID: 1222301 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222302 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 19:42:34 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?


Gary believes his argument means, with no chance, God decides all, so you have no freewill. Re-read what he said. He said nothing one way or the other about belief in a soul.
ID: 1222302 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222303 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 19:47:50 UTC - in response to Message 1222233.  

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.


Social Darwinism and other misinterpretations to outright deliberate misconstruations have nothing to do with the part about random selection.
ID: 1222303 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 14,091,135
RAC: 1,112
United States
Message 1222308 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:00:51 UTC - in response to Message 1222252.  

Actually, I don't think that we operate the same as the earth.

As to the made in his image view -- that is faith speaking.




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: 1222308 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 14,091,135
RAC: 1,112
United States
Message 1222311 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:03:48 UTC - in response to Message 1222274.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2012, 20:36:35 UTC

And there you go -- you don't believe in chance. It is, as you are saying, a belief.

A colleague of mine said many many years ago, that if the only tool you have is a hammer, the world looks very nailish.

It seems to apply here. If your *belief* system is Intelligent Design, then all you see is filtered through that belief system. It is a belief system (faith) and as such, no argument will shake you from that. Fair enough. Of course, the reverse is also true. Those who hold to a belief system that does not adhere to your belief system will not be influenced by any efforts on your part to convert them.

It is an interesting exercise in exposition though.




Hawkings, yes. If you believe in chance. I do not.

ID: 1222311 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 2,080,387
RAC: 422
United States
Message 1222319 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:36:32 UTC - in response to Message 1222301.  

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?

No one has called String Theory correct. Not anyone that knows even a little about it.

@I.D.

Hence why it's called String "THEORY".



-Dave #2

3.2.0-33
ID: 1222319 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1222327 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:48:31 UTC - in response to Message 1222281.  

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]


It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.


Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick.

God does not make junk.
ID: 1222327 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 14,091,135
RAC: 1,112
United States
Message 1222331 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:52:40 UTC - in response to Message 1222327.  

There you go, world looking very nailish indeed.




God does not make junk.


ID: 1222331 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1222333 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 20:54:06 UTC - in response to Message 1222299.  

If you believe in chance. I do not.


Thus you reject the current best approximation science provides for the Universe in which we find ourselves. I suspect we are done.


Not at all. Hawkings thinks that just 5 balls need to be removed for gravity to ACT over TIME to form what we see.

Who removed 5 atoms?

Soooooo, what if an odd number of H atoms where made and along with that a few atoms of (Li).

Would not either or account?
ID: 1222333 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222337 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 21:02:05 UTC - in response to Message 1222273.  

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,

Ok so far.

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.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.



It's Gary's limb.
Gary stated a hypothetical situation.
Bobby simply said something along the lines of, "Now, if instead, reality really fits Gary's hypothetical situation, then ...".
And I do not think Gary nor Bobby believes the hypothesis, but they are saying we have no way of testing it, to prove or refute it.
ID: 1222337 · Report as offensive
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15120
Credit: 45,561,762
RAC: 47,062
United States
Message 1222338 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 21:03:34 UTC - in response to Message 1222333.  

Who removed 5 atoms?


What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.
ID: 1222338 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 10777
Credit: 3,072,479
RAC: 3,001
United States
Message 1222340 - Posted: 23 Apr 2012, 21:03:50 UTC - in response to Message 1222327.  

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]


It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.


Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick.

God does not make junk.


Appendix, anyone?
ID: 1222340 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Great Debate (religion)


 
©2016 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.