Recent Threads
|
We're glad you came by, but you might find what you're looking for elsewhere. TI-Basic Developer is not the site it once was. While its information on commands and other calculator features remains almost second-to-none, its forum, archives, and even hosting service, Wikidot, have been decaying for years. The calculator community would love to see what you're working on, or help you in your next coding adventure, but TI-Basic Developer is no longer the place to do it. Instead, you should head over to Cemetech (primarily American) or TI-Planet (primarily international). Both are active, well-established forums with their own archives, chatrooms, reference material, and abundant coding tools and resources. We'll see you there, we hope. |
I want to see what religions we believe in. i'll try not to discriminate, but i am curious.
I'm 大乘佛教 or Mahayanist Buddhist. but i also believe in a lot of the Chinese deities and superstition. sadly the closest Buddhist temple is 5 states away. but we do have a shrine, good news is that we don't burn incenses like my grandmother.
…ya…
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
I dunno. I put quite a bit of thought into philosophy, religion, and mathematics. First note that having a religion does not mean you believe in a deity. In fact, there are religions that do not believe in a god, and I'm sure you have met people that believe in a deity, but do not follow a religion. I personally believe that there is a possibility that there is a deity, but if there is, my attentions are of little importance. I also personally believe (for now) that everything was here before any deities and that if there are deities, they formed from existence. I'm weird, but mathematics is a heavy influence on how I look at chaos and randomness.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
ya, they were originally normal people, just highly praised
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
codebender is twelve; yes, that is a legitimate detail to consider here. He'll develop a natural aptitude to explore the outside of his forced microcosm in time, but that hasn't hit home with him yet.
Per evolution, it's been a positive trait for children to congeal their individual philosophies toward the whims of their tribe: non-conformance threatens communal stability. From any critical perspective, this amounts to less-free-thinking indoctrination, but members only intend to gratify those who would protect them (again, a survival strategy). Yet it is the tribe, not a god, who protects them – and certainly not the biblical god.
The construct of Insistence Personified in each mind is a self-embellished, contoured echo of a myriad different idealizations weaved by the impulses of every society that it has passed through. God and its miracles are molded and traded by hearsay; in this stage setting, human beings make the rules, which is uplifting and empowering for a psyche that is otherwise occluded by the unknown. Thus, it is often used by people as a retrograde equilibrium point on the scale of sanity when they haven't taken it upon themselves to learn another.
That ignorance, being a symptom of investigative inexperience, takes exactly that kind of experience to overcome. Science has the role of counterbalancing humans' intuition of that-which-is and prefers to let the universe autonomously speak for itself (once you arbitrate formal human interpretation of data) – and this is often to our own discredit. Nonetheless, the contributions of this act to the modern age are undeniable.
Where gods once ruled the land, our further weakening—through analytical means—the divide between what is and isn't known uniformly calls into question the requirement for a deity in each case examined. Or, they are all just really good at playing hide-and-seek. But the interesting part of it is that even if gods were factors in our environment, all that we've come across still suggests that everything is exactly how it would have been if they weren't.
Perhaps my only quarrel is that much of the sciences today are driven with the supernatural out of mind (which is partially why they are called natural sciences). Its goal is to discover the universe through its natural laws and processes. It is an admirable venture, but it begins by excluding an entire set of possibilities in the supernatural; I will grant, though, that the reason science does this is by falsifiability. The supernatural, by its nature (lol, nature), is unfalsifiable (it can never be proven false). All of the natural scientific theories are (or at least are supposed to be), but by the time you get to exploring the world and finding out how it works for yourself, the best spirit to begin with is that of an open mind, considering both the possibility of a God (or some supernatural force/intelligence) and the possibility of an absence of one.
Personally, I have come to grips that a lot of aspects of the universe can indeed be explained by nature; for instance, gravity probably does not need God to help it. I lean toward a theistic view due to things such as the origin of order and the origin of information. In a sentence summary, if the world began in a chaotic state and everything tends toward chaos (Second Law of Thermodynamics), then where did the order and information of today come from? There are actually explanations to these by the natural sciences, but I do not find them convincing, nor do I think they ever can be due to the way known natural laws work, hence my theistic view.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, though, I am still investigating probability as a possible reliable origin. For instance, if the Universe were infinitely large and had an infinite amount of matter, then it would be statistically certain that an exact copy of earth and the people therein exists elsewhere in the cosmos. Of course, the Universe is neither infinitely large nor holds infinite amounts of matter, but the numbers are large enough to entertain the possibility that order and information arose from statistics.
The important lesson here is that you do not begin with the conclusion. Let everything speak for itself (:
Timothy Foster - @tfAuroratide
Auroratide.com - Go here if you're nerdy like me
Weregoose, I have considered you a very smart and reasonable person before this incident, but this is ridiculous: please do not discount me for being 12 years of age. :(
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
He does have a point. I'm only 20. Somebody that has lived 20 years more than I has very likely been exposed to more. Most people lead a sheltered life during their childhood and never remove themselves from that phase as they pass into adulthood. There are very many things to learn, and you don't even have to look far. You also can't be afraid to learn "wrong" things :) Even if something is wrong, you can still learn from it.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
I'm just 13 and consider myself a devout Presbyterian Christian…
The man shuddered as the shadow drew a glistening sword from his back. Creeping closer and closer with his pale eyes burning into the man, the shadow slowly raised his blade and before he could thrust it down, the man heard the shadow hiss something.
"The Shadow Clan's presence must be like a whisper. Always felt, but never seen…"
I've never found any substantial proof for any religion. But of course, given that a god or supernatural entity would be omnipotent, I find it entirely possible that one could choose to stay hidden from us. It's impossible to be sure. Therefore, the best choice of religion - in my opinion - is to be agnostic.
But the major religions in the world are impossible to disprove - else they wouldn't exist today - and the fact that there are multiple major religions makes me believe that every religion is simply a figment of imagination. My lack of confidence in a human's ability to perceive leads me to be an Atheist.
Prove to me specifically that Christianity is wrong. I do not believe it is possible. ;-)
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
I'm not sure that's possible… and yeah, those guys who came here to get calculator stuff are going to think we're hypercritical religious radicals
The man shuddered as the shadow drew a glistening sword from his back. Creeping closer and closer with his pale eyes burning into the man, the shadow slowly raised his blade and before he could thrust it down, the man heard the shadow hiss something.
"The Shadow Clan's presence must be like a whisper. Always felt, but never seen…"
Actually, I think this has been beneficial: all of the current users have posted on here, first of all, so those kind of are the people who came on here for calculator stuff. Second, this thread got a bunch of old members (it seems) up to date and posting agin. All in all, I think this thread has been pretty beneficial so far.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
That is actually a really good point, codebender. We got a decent survey on who is actually active around here :) As to proving Christianity without invoking the Bible, that would be tough, but it sounds like a neat challenge. I'll probably have to think a few decades on this one, though…
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
decent…
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
It's likely not possible - people have been trying for thousands of years (2012 years) and none have succeeded at actually proving it… That's why we have multiple religions today - none that are practiced today have been disproved, yet there is no solid proof for any of them. Each of the major religions are extremely good arguments that that is why so many people practice them. If one had been disproved, no one would be of that religion and if one had been proved, there would be no other religions.
dont forget bc years
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
oh yeah lol… I forgot about every other religion and was only thinking about Christianity, which started ~2000 years ago… XD sorry Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions that started before 4 BCE!
I'm agnostic. I believe that there is (or at least, might be) a god, but I do not believe in a specific one.
By using logic, it is impossible to prove anything true. You can only prove something with pure fact. Also, if you want to get logical, that was a 'Red Herring.' (Or, dodging the point by using an unrelated topic.) :P
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
You are sorely misusing several words here. A logic is a formal system in which objects start out as axioms and become transformed by a fixed set of rules to generate theorems, which are to be considered truths only within that framework. A proof is a sequence of transformations from one theorem to another. A fact is merely a statement of such a theorem. This is all done so symbolically and mechanically as to cut off any further human slant in the process.
Did you know that mathematicians in the early 1800's were able to produce an entirely new form of geometry by returning to axioms first devised in 300 BC and altering one of them? Of course this was met with huge resistance and was decried as heresy from traditionalists, but this new body of work turned out to be crucial in the descriptions of topologies of the sphere and curvatures in time-space. These are concepts we use to launch satellites into orbit.
If you want to get logical, that's how a change in axioms can help carry a civilization. Or a person, mind you. If we map your set of axioms to me, you say I'm going to Hell. If we map mine to you, I say you can focus on doing more important things with your life.
Weregoose is precisely right. Logic works in the frameworks of its axioms. Hyperbolic geometry is but one of many example.
If you want to get logical, that's how a change in axioms can help carry a civilization. Or a person, mind you. If we map your set of axioms to me, you say I'm going to Hell. If we map mine to you, I say you can focus on doing more important things with your life
I love your use of math in both of your posts. They make me smile :) Plus, that one was pretty funny XD
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
A basic logic lesson:
Red herring fallacies
A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies)
(P.S., Xeda, since you do know more than a molecular biologist with a middle school education, I know more than the "great scholars of old" with mine. I take logic as a class in middle school.) :D
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
I am a Christian and I believe that Christ died for my sins to save me.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
(account deleted)
I dunno. I put quite a bit of thought into philosophy, religion, and mathematics. First note that having a religion does not mean you believe in a deity. In fact, there are religions that do not believe in a god, and I'm sure you have met people that believe in a deity, but do not follow a religion. I personally believe that there is a possibility that there is a deity, but if there is, my attentions are of little importance. I also personally believe (for now) that everything was here before any deities and that if there are deities, they formed from existence. I'm weird, but mathematics is a heavy influence on how I look at chaos and randomness.Whoa. I don't think I would have said it that eloquently, but that seems like the way I am. My family is actually Christian but not really me.
The main thing that stuns me is life. I'm taking Biology this year at school. All that amazing complexity of cells and proteins and life in its entirety just boggles my mind. And so I have a hard time telling myself that all of that just popped out of nowhere. Yet I have an even harder time telling myself that all of it was created, all of the complexity and everything, by somebody/something. And so I'm a little in between agnostic and atheist but probably a little more one the atheist side. I kinda expect one of these days for scientists, say quantum scientists, to find something out that kinda bridges the gap between hocus-pocus religious stuff and hocus-pocus science stuff. But who knows.
We had a discussion on religion in my philosophy class, but it is difficult to bring to bare my knowledge of mathematics (and various sciences) to describe how I understand the universe. It would take people years of study and interest to get to where I am at, so it isn't easy to discuss. People don't get the concept of self organising systems and complexity. They think they know chaos, but they don't understand it.
By the way, if you ever get a chance, I suggest taking a course that deals with chaos, fractals, or self organising systems. As y'all evolve in your programming, you will be exposed to some truly beautiful facets of it :3 If you've never heard of cellular automata, check it out, too!
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
Because your so impressed with life, how can you think a massive explosion like the "Big Bang" caused it all?! That is like saying, "We dropped a nuke on Pakistan, and it made a shopping mall." Plus, how could a stupid explosion create such an incredible thing as life? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
The Big Bang was something no person on this planet can prove. Many can say it was a collision between a massive amount of matter and antimatter, but one can argue with the question of where these two objects came from. Other can rant it came from a deity, and that this deity simply gave little nudges to assist evolution and whatnot. Then again others think it was from a different universe, or some element of the periodic table we have yet to discover, and such.
And to top it off, nobody knows how life was formed from a reaction between rain and scorched earth. Yeah, your Pakistani shopping mall example is… interesting.
The man shuddered as the shadow drew a glistening sword from his back. Creeping closer and closer with his pale eyes burning into the man, the shadow slowly raised his blade and before he could thrust it down, the man heard the shadow hiss something.
"The Shadow Clan's presence must be like a whisper. Always felt, but never seen…"
I'm agnostic. I believe that there is (or at least, might be) a god, but I do not believe in a specific one.
also:
Because you're [whatever]
There's a difference between agnostic and atheist. I do believe there are events in the past that are inexplicable by science alone, but I do find some stuff in the Bible and other holy books a little ridiculous to me.
Also, there have been studies as to how life came about, wherein they simulate early-earth conditions, and a decent number of them have formed amino acids and I think that one even produced a very basic bacteria.
There are explanations other than what you believe.
There is a word (I forget what it is at the moment) that means you believe something, but you know you might be wrong.
Which parts of the Bible confuse you? Also, I wasn't specifically referring to you, Boba Foxx. All Christians, at one point or another, question their faith. However, I do not believe their are multiple solutions. I find all other religions have too many contradictions in them for me to believe. From a purely practical standpoint, look at other religions. It is more practical to believe in Christianity. If you are atheist, you are going to go into a black, void less pit when you die, regardless of how you lived. In Mormonism, all people will go to some sort of heaven, some better than others. Except for some religions, it does not matter how you lived in your life. So, if you live as a Christian in life, you have more of a chance to live in an 'after-life.'
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
They don't confuse me, but I find it a little unbelievable that a deity who hasn't directly acted for a few hundred years would happen to send his own son, who is also him, but still just one person to pay for the sins of everyone, ever.
Also, for every religion, there is a cynical but still realistic explanation.
For example - no offense meant to anyone - but evidence suggests Mary was 14 when she gave birth to Jesus; some people suggest she was a desperate woman coming up with the excuse that God got her pregnant, and therefore she could not be stoned.
Also, if Jesus had a twin, that would explain his raised-from-the-dead shtick.
I'm in a bible class since I'm in a christian school, and some of the stuff just isn't terribly… plausible. I'm not even talking about old testament stuff (I did all that last year).
Don't get me wrong; I do agree with basic christian morals of accept & forgive other people, but how it is practiced today and some of its specifics do not agree with me and/or itself.
Just realized I accidentally quoted Xeda using a code block instead of a quote thingie :/
I read something somewhere about cellular automata and it seemed really cool! I forget where I read it though.
Fractals are super cool, I used to be obsessed with them.
We had a discussion on religion in my philosophy class, but it is difficult to bring to bare my knowledge of mathematics (and various sciences) to describe how I understand the universe. It would take people years of study and interest to get to where I am at, so it isn't easy to discuss. People don't get the concept of self organising systems and complexity. They think they know chaos, but they don't understand it.
You sound like such a boss there. "Comprehender of Chaos" is your new epithet (we're reading the Oddysey in english right now ;)
you guys are starting to scare me…
maybe i shouldn't have started this post…
Fractals are awesome, i like the one where the human brain's nervous system resembles a model of the universe
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
@Boba Foxx, here is a link to a video which should answer your questions about the incarnation. Now bare with me; the graphics are crumby, and the story is a bit cheesy, but if you just listen to the whole thing, it should answer some of your questions. So don't laugh at it and turn it off, just watch the whole thing, then see if your questions remain unanswered. (Use headphones, if you must.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIEMDTFupXU
The rest of your questions, I can anser in a private email to your real Wikidot account. (Just log into your email.)
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
bravoandwellsaid
The man shuddered as the shadow drew a glistening sword from his back. Creeping closer and closer with his pale eyes burning into the man, the shadow slowly raised his blade and before he could thrust it down, the man heard the shadow hiss something.
"The Shadow Clan's presence must be like a whisper. Always felt, but never seen…"
Thank you.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
I really don't like talking about religion, because it causes so many fights. Historically, it's caused a lot. But I just have to respond, even though I know what kind torrents of flame wars will continue from here. In response to codebender, who said "Because your so impressed with life, how can you think a massive explosion like the "Big Bang" caused it all?! That is like saying, "We dropped a nuke on Pakistan, and it made a shopping mall." Plus, how could a stupid explosion create such an incredible thing as life? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist."
Probability. It took a long time for life here to form. And we're just one planet among the countless others in the universe. Life is pretty incredible, but it's had countless chances to form and Atheists believe that this planet was just "lucky" to be the one that life formed on.
And "Prove to me specifically that Christianity is wrong. I do not believe it is possible. ;-)".
A lot of religions have formed, but less than 10 are practiced a lot around the world today. They have survived hundreds of year because they are impossible to disprove. For example, Christianity. Everything in the Bible is possible because God can do anything. The existence of God is proved by the definition of God. It is circular logic, which proves nothing. What I'm saying doesn't disprove Christianity, but it does show some flaws in reasoning.
Also, I'm pretty proud of these forums! If this thread had been started anywhere else, a flame war would've erupted within 3 posts, but this has managed to stay pretty clean so far.
You're right Dino, it has been a pretty nice discussion so far! Unlike presidential debates XD
Ah but what an interesting thread I've come upon here :D
I am, what they call, a radical Christian, or at least what I call, a radical Christian. :) Although codebender, I must disagree with you on the statement that just because you can't disprove Christianity means it's true. After all, I find it difficult to disprove Islam or Buddhism either. And of course, from a biased Christian point of view, we will never, by nature of the human mind, be likely to prove Christianity false. We are unlikely to even try.
Despite all that, I do believe the Bible is 100% true.
That is where things get a bit sticky. After seeing how the Bible is divided up (at least for the Old Testaments) it is quite evident that many of the stories were never meant to be considered "physical" truth. Many stories are told in order to provide lessons and lay down law, while others are indeed true. Historians can all agree that there are many events that occurred in the Bible that are historically accurate.
Saying the Bible is "true" is a bit vague; however, saying the Bible is canonical no doubt makes sense. Half of it is intended to be more of a collection of stories, each written toward a different group of people, but not necessarily being an actual account of what happened. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the books were originally titled as separate books and then used for the Bible. I honestly have no problem with reading a book that really just holds a collection of books, all with differing genres and themes.
It's very interesting that you point out that we cannot prove Christianity false. I would say that since something physical cannot directly affect something spiritual, and likewise, it might be impossible to provide evidence to support either or. When I was younger I thought that the "soul" was an actual part of the body; after learning that it was only a spiritual embodiment of our mind, I understood that the two worlds cannot directly be brought together. Of course God can use His will do conjure anything He wants, but we as mere humans cannot see it unless He shows us physically. I stress physically because as lowly humans we do not have the capacity to foresee anything clearly, be it spiritual or physical.
Also, since we're on the topic of religion, I wanted to share my favorite quote on the topic. I think it's hysterical.
"If God doesn't exist then what are all these churches for? … And who's Jesus's dad?"
- Michael Scott (from "The Office")
Heheh! Love circular logic. I like using this: At the end of the universe, all matter was sucked into a huge super-supermassive black hole. Then somehow the black hole couldn't hold all that matter and spewed it out much like the Big Bang. The matter came out with so much force, so quickly, that all of it went back in time - to the time of the beginning of the universe. This was the beginning of the universe.
When people hear that, they automatically point out that it is circular logic and I point out that it is the case with most religions. Then they shut up.
On another note, I find the watchmaker theory plausible.
Wooh, wall of text time :D Sorry if I am a unclear or rambling in some parts of this, I just woke up a little while ago. I'll probably read this later and make a face like this: o_O
First, I will say that your big bang explosion statement is slightly misguided. You are implying that all life existed as soon as the expansion started to occur. However, being a self organising system, it had to take many years (billions of years for us) to start making life as we know it. The argument that I actually hoped for was, "Where did the big bang come from?" To this, I could reply that it is hypothesised that we are actually in a black hole. if you perform the computations, you will find that the escape velocity for our universe is greater than the speed of light (in other words, light cannot escape our universe, just as light cannot escape a blackhole). From this, we can infer that we are in a balckhole and that other blackholes are universes themselves. This seems a bit crazy, right? But then, most people think that infinity is an absurd concept, simply because most people cannot grasp it. They then give up and stop pursuing infinity. But now, if the universe is infinite, and god is infinite, they cannot be compared to say one is greater than the other (because in this case, the universe has an order of size of the largest infinity, and Judeo-Christian theology posits that God is infinite as well). We cannot say one is greater than the other, so they must then be equal, but going with Judeo-Christian theology, this cannot be the case. This is an interesting thought, to me, that I am still trying to muddle through. You can alternatively argue that the difference between the universe and God (again, I am using Judeo-Christian theology) is that God is an intelligent creator and the universe is not. For many, this provides comfort and reassurance that there is meaning to life.
@codebender: At some point, in one of your posts, you invoke the logic of "Pascal's wager." Blaise Pascal is a famous french philosopher and mathematician and made advances in probability theory. He showed, using logic, that believing in the Judeo-Christian God can be justified as the best option (though you should believe in God because of faith, not for the purpose of a safe gamble!). It is a pretty simple argument and I am sure you can find it in Wikipedia (I don't want to get it wrong). However, there is one tiny flaw with his argument and it is one that you may have made, too. In the post where you state:
So, if you live as a Christian in life, you have more of a chance to live in an 'after-life.'
This is essentially what Pascal tried to prove, but not everybody has this worry. When I die, I am prepared to no longer exist. My thoughts will cease and I will be gone for the rest of eternity and I am comfortable with that. There are some people that have a fear of this, though, whether it is because they don't want to part from their loved ones, they don't want to lead a "pointless" existence, or for some other reason. For these people, your argument and Pascal's reasoning are completely suitable. For others, though, the reasoning and the argument are both empty. :/
@42maelstrom: Thanks :P
Now, on a note of my own, I believe most people in the calculator programming community do ascribe to one faith or another. Again, I personally do not, but I do not hold anybody in any higher or lower esteem if they do. One of my good friends from back home is a devout Christian and is in no way theologically challenged. He is a few years younger than I and we both got into calc programming at about the same time. Though he never joins forums and he is an excellent programmer. However, more importantly, he is one of the most intelligent people that I know. There is no subject that I can broach that he is not at least partially familiar with and I am sure there is nothing in what I have said that could shake his faith. He is somebody that I highly respect because he understands how things work and his belief in God is fully compatible with his knowledge.
I can always have respect for somebody that seeks knowledge and truth, regardless of our differences, but I lose respect for those that are too afraid to learn more (and there are many people that are like this). This is one reason for why I like calculator forums :P The folks here want to learn, they share their knowledge, and we improve on each others understanding. Hopefully, this topic doesn't degenerate into anything worse, though. This is a sensitive topic, but it has been a topic in the past that was handled in a civil manner.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
But if you are wrong… I will not know if I go into non-existence, so it should not matter if I die and go into a black, void less pit forever.
(P.S., I am allowed to argue, considering that since this is a Politics and religion thread, "Arguments and rants are welcome.")
:D
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
(P.S., I am allowed to argue, considering that since this is a Politics and religion thread, "Arguments and rants are welcome.")
Yep, it's not a problem :D
But if you are wrong… I will not know if I go into non-existence, so it should not matter if I die and go into a black, void less pit forever.
If I am wrong, then I will be surprised with more existence and I will do what I always do with that extra existence— think and learn. Unless, of course, I will not have the ability to do that, in which case I have learned everything or I cannot think. In the latter case, would that not be an eternity of death? However, if I am right, then I will no longer exist and my knowledge comes to an end, but I won't have the ability to be bothered by this. So instead of assuming my eternal existence, I prefer to assume my finite existence. This means that in order for my knowledge to survive, I must pass it on to others, and this is what I actively do. I try to do as little bad and as much good as I can in the little time that I do have :)
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
@Roguebantha, I know not proving it wrong does not prove it true, but it shows that Christianity has a likely chance of being true. I do not believe all Christianity is circular reasoning. @Mr Dino, perhaps you have only been exposed to arguments like, "God is real because the Bible sys so." That proves nothing to anyone. Here is the reason we cannot understand endless time: imagine a cube gets turned into a square, and gets put into the second dimension. Now, if the square tries to explain the third dimension to a bunch of flat shapes who have never left the second dimension, none of them would understand, because they have no way to comprehend the information at hand, since they have nothing to compare it to.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
The reason you cannot prove Christianity true is because God did not want a bunch of mindless followers. He wanted the people who had faith.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
There are only two possible ways to disprove christianity, one of which is to die and see what happens, and the other of which involves a time machine and going back to the birth of christ to see what really happened. I don't see either of these happening in such a way so that the entire world can hear about what is true and what is not any time soon.
Also, another way to phrase your cube-square analogy would be like this:
A sphere goes to visit his circular cousins. However, when he sees them, he only intersects their plane in a circle. So if he were to move up and down through their plane, he would appear as a circle that grows and then shrinks. It's all a matter of perspective.
You may not be able to prove Christianity is false, but I can prove evolution is false. This is a speech I wrote when I was 10 years old…
Problems with Evolution
Hello, my name is Joshua Mitchell and today I would like to discuss you with some of the obvious problems of the evolutionary theory.
Did you know that according to a 2009 Gallup Poll survey nearly 4 out of every 10 Americans (39%) said they "believe in the theory of evolution," while only 25% said they didn’t? Another 36% said they did not have an opinion either way! Furthermore, can you believe that in 2008, only a year before, 44% of American’s said they believed God created humans in the present form? That’s a huge drop in just one year. Today I hope to prepare you to answer the arguments of an evolutionist. In this speech, you will learn about problems in the evolutionary tree, the “Big Bang” theory, and several other faulty evolutionary arguments. Most of the children in my neighborhood by the ages of 8 to 10 years of age either read their science books or watch TV and receive convincing arguments favoring the evolutionary theory which they use to argue with me. I hope you can learn some ways to defend what you believe against the faulty arguments of an evolutionist. In this speech, I hope to show you some inconsistencies with evolution. Obviously there are many I can’t list here because no one can know all the many lists of problems with evolutionary thinking, still I will list a few of them.
First I will start with problems in the evolutionary tree. There are thousands of missing links in this tree, and by that I mean gaps between two animals such as the fish and the frog. Logically, evolution does not make sense because of a major lack of evidence. No one has discovered the fossil that is made up of half of one animal and half of another. The few fossils which have surfaced that could be considered half of one animal and half of another are either fake, such as the Piltdown man, or hotly debated upon by scientists, such as the archaeopteryx. The halfway stage for most animals couldn’t survive. A “bat” (more of a rat-like creature at the time) with a changing diet and stubs for wings couldn’t survive to evolve or reproduce to create the “modern bat”. Also, why hasn’t anything evolved in man’s six thousand years of recorded history? And, if fish had “millions of years” to evolve, why are there still thousands of fish today that haven’t evolved?
Second, I will explain why people who believe that God created apes that He evolved into men are wrong. God said in Genesis 1:27 that He created man; apes did not evolve into man. Also, God said in Genesis 1:27 that man was created in His image. Apes however were not created in the image of God.
There are also problems with the “Big Bang” theory. Only an intelligent designer can make a code, language, or being. Only intelligence can create intelligence. Therefore, a mindless fireball, such as the big bang, cannot create something as complex as DNA codes. So how can an evolutionist think the same mindless fireball could make all of mankind?
Now I will discuss some faulty evolutionary arguments. Evolutionists believe there are no absolutes. By believing there are no absolutes, you are saying an absolute. This is a popular principal taught by Atheistic Evolutionists. They say that the claims of Christianity are preposterous because we believe that God has always been. I would like to ask them “who do they think created the Big-Bang’s energy particles?” The similarities that scientists have discovered between the DNA of an ape and the DNA of a man don’t mean anything to me. Evolutionists still try to say though, that a man’s DNA is 99% the same as that of an ape, but, DNA of a man is also 75% similar to the DNA of a banana. To me this only goes on to show that our intelligent designer, Almighty God, used a similar plan when he created both apes and man. As an analogy, if an inventor were to create the most efficient model for an airplane, he would probably use a similar model for other airplanes he created. Evolutionists believe there is no right and wrong. This is a faulty belief because if there is not right and wrong, why do people across multiple cultures seem to “know” (from their conscience) that murder is wrong? Obviously, there has to be someone who established a moral right and wrong. Could this be because there is in fact a moral law-giver?
Science teaches us that cells can’t go from simple to complex. If cells don’t have all the correct parts they can’t function. Molecular biologist, Michael Behe uses a mousetrap as an analogy to illustrate this point. “A mousetrap has several parts, all of which are necessary for it to work, that must be present in a particular fashion to catch a mouse. A mousetrap with one or two of these parts is not a simple mousetrap capable of becoming a more efficient, complex mousetrap- it is no mousetrap at all. So is it with cells….They either come together all at one or don’t. Darwinism has no answer here. Rocks can’t turn into people. Something has to be always living or never living: abiotic or biotic. Cells are too complex to simply develop by chance. One has over a trillion bits of information in it (more letters than exists in the world’s largest library!) Nearly everyone admits that there appears to be an orderly and intelligent design in the appearance of our universe. Even Richard Dawkins confesses, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose.”
An unaided naturalistic evolution would have taken billions of years to have evolved by chance. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as entropy, doesn’t give them that much time! Entropy would place a barrier for expanding energy in the Big-Bang theory thus it couldn’t go to spread through the world to make the world. So Big Bang’s energy could not have created anything.
It is statistically extremely improbable that life cold evolve by mere chance. The statistical probability of evolution happening by chance has been found to be unlikely. It would take 8 trillion tries per second. At this speed it would take 10 to the 147 power years just to make one stable gene!
If we don’t spread arguments against Evolution like this to others, and if the same 3% annual rise in belief in evolution stays steady, then by 2019 nearly 7 out of 10 Americans (69%) will believe in the theory of evolution. However if we can spread the arguments against evolution to others, America can slowly increase the number of people who believe God made the world.
There are many problems with evolution, and I’ve only listed a few, but you can learn more to build upon this brief introduction of ideas. I hope today I have given you a good foundation upon which to build. I have presented to you a little bit of what I consider to be some of the major problems with the evolutionary theory. I hope the next time you meet an evolutionist, whether it be on an airplane, in a classroom, or at your place of work, that you will have the courage to present the truth. I am up for the challenge, how about you?
(Please excuse me if the flow is not good. Thats kind of difficult if your 10.) :)
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
You may not realize this, but the Earth has been around for quite a while, and its environments vary quite a bit. Life took billions/ of years to come about, it's not like, as you allude, we believe animals just evolved overnight. Lastly, the Bible says God created us in His image. Who's to say that god isn't an ape of some sort, and we evolved from there?
Also, I go to a Christian School, and they have no qualms about teaching Evolution. They believe that it //is true, since the amount of evidence behind it is, wel, staggering.
Really? God is an ape? XD Don't make up silly arguments like that. :(
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
Well in theory its true. The bible says that we were made in God's image, and since humans are the only beings with enough intelligence to comprehend things like religion and such, God was targeting homo sapiens. So one can conclude that God is an ape.
The man shuddered as the shadow drew a glistening sword from his back. Creeping closer and closer with his pale eyes burning into the man, the shadow slowly raised his blade and before he could thrust it down, the man heard the shadow hiss something.
"The Shadow Clan's presence must be like a whisper. Always felt, but never seen…"
it's not like, as you allude, we believe animals just evolved overnight
Careful now… don't forget about the alleged Cambrian Explosion (:
Really? God is an ape? XD Don't make up silly arguments like that. :(
In good debate etiquette, try not to call another's argument silly, especially if you do not provide a scholarly response (such as reasons why Genesis alludes that Adam was man, or even why Paul in 1 Corinthians alludes the same thing).
Timothy Foster - @tfAuroratide
Auroratide.com - Go here if you're nerdy like me
First I will start with problems in the evolutionary tree. There are thousands of missing links in this tree, and by that I mean gaps between two animals such as the fish and the frog. Logically, evolution does not make sense because of a major lack of evidence. No one has discovered the fossil that is made up of half of one animal and half of another. The few fossils which have surfaced that could be considered half of one animal and half of another are either fake, such as the Piltdown man, or hotly debated upon by scientists, such as the archaeopteryx.
In this case, you must look further back in the tree and you must also look at the fasct that organisms of this size are typically comprised of millions, billions, trillions and more cells. If you picture 2 cells interacting, then one hundred, they can work in conjunction with each other. A few thousand can start to form a tissue, millions can form organs with specific functions, and billions can form sophisticated organisms. Evolution never says that there is precisely a "half and half" state in evolution. That would be ridiculous XD
The halfway stage for most animals couldn’t survive.
That is probably true in most cases, but again, that isn't how evolution works.
A “bat” with a changing diet and stubs for wings couldn’t survive to evolve or reproduce to create the “wooden bat”.
Remember, evolution of such a large organism as a bat will take quite a while. The diet of an animal might change due to its environment, in which case the best suited will survive, the ill suited will die. Eventually, the diet of successive generations will be much more adapted to the new environment, and likewise the organism may develop slightly altered digestive organs. As to the addition, removal, or reduction of appendages, that can be chalked up to a survival trait as well. You might ask how the removal of appendages or reduction can be an advantage, but think of this: If a bunch of bugs that are used to the daylight get trapped very deep in a cave where there is no light, what purpose will their eyes serve except to consume energy that could be better used elsewhere in their body? This does not mean that they will lose their eyes over time, that would be flat out ignorant and could only be an assumption made by somebody not familiar with biology. However, if their is a mutation in one of the bugs that causes it to be born without eyes, it will not be weeded out of the gene pool as it might have on the surface where light and sight were necessary. You can see, then, how a simple mutation could survive in the species and make its way through the species.
Also, why hasn’t anything evolved in man’s six thousand years of recorded history?
There have been plenty of things that have evolved, even in the past hndred years. Typically, though, these are very simple organisms or viruses (which aren't actually living, which is why I distinguish the two). Many bacteria reproduce so rapidly, that beneficial mutations crop up in almost any environment. Manipulating the environment, scientists can observe the process of evolution. Often, though, they simply get stronger bacteria of the same species, as opposed to new bacteria.
And, if fish had “millions of years” to evolve, why are there still thousands of fish today that haven’t evolved?
There is a simple explanation. You are assuming that the theory of evolution implies that everything must evolve. But ask yourself, what does the theory of evolution state? In basic terms, it says that the best adapted survive, and the ill adapted will die out. As more advantageous mutations crop up, the species may become much more different than its ancestors, effectively becoming a new species altogether. In this case, the fish must have something right if they have survived for millions of years, so why would they need to evolve?
There are also problems with the “Big Bang” theory. Only an intelligent designer can make a code, language, or being. Only intelligence can create intelligence. Therefore, a mindless fireball, such as the big bang, cannot create something as complex as DNA codes. So how can an evolutionist think the same mindless fireball could make all of mankind?
That isn't exactly true, actually. The philosophical implications of Conway's Game of Life (a mathematical system at its core) is one of many, many examples where intelligence can be formed without intelligence. This in no way disproves your statement, though. However, many/most/(all?) reactions are chaotic. Chaos is not randomness, don't make that mistake! Because they are chaotic, they will have what are called attractors or basins of attraction where predictable, non-chaotic events occur. Sometimes, these lead to stability in the system, and this in no way requires intelligence behind it. The only intelligence comes from the observer. If we did not observe the system, it would still have these properties.
Now I will discuss some faulty evolutionary arguments. Evolutionists believe there are no absolutes. By believing there are no absolutes, you are saying an absolute. This is a popular principal taught by Atheistic Evolutionists. They say that the claims of Christianity are preposterous because we believe that God has always been. I would like to ask them “who do they think created the Big-Bang’s energy particles?”
I am not sure if this is in fact an Evolutionist argument, but you are completely correct in finding this absurd. From a logical standpoint, the statement contradicts itself. To say it is a popular principle is a bit of a stretch, probably (hopefully XD). Maybe some uneducated atheists would think it preposterous that something could always have been, but really, it makes sense. The more popular view is that existence has always existed and that our universe is but a small sample. In the case where god is believed to have always exist, a theistic argument is:
However, the atheist version is:
It is a bit more concise.
The similarities that scientists have discovered between the DNA of an ape and the DNA of a man don’t mean anything to me. Evolutionists still try to say though, that a man’s DNA is 99% the same as that of an ape, but, DNA of a man is also 75% similar to the DNA of a banana.
I think you are quoting uneducated people. I wish they would stop arguing their misguided points >.> Most DNA is unused. Only a very tiny portion is used. (Wow, I just thought of something: If God is perfect and all knowing, why do we have so much excess and clutter? Nature is pretty unoptimised at times…) Anyways, it is more important to look at how similar the active code is.
Evolutionists believe there is no right and wrong. This is a faulty belief because if there is not right and wrong, why do people across multiple cultures seem to “know” (from their conscience) that murder is wrong? Obviously, there has to be someone who established a moral right and wrong. Could this be because there is in fact a moral law-giver?
I think that a refined evolutionist thought was probably not read properly and has been misinterpreted. I think the evolutionist would say that "right" and "wrong" are not innate and that actions aren't "right" or "wrong." Instead, actions can be advantageous to survival of the species, disadvantageous, or they might not have enough of an affect to cause much. in the case of murder, it is clearly not an advantage for survival! If a society was comprised of individuals who all murdered, that gene pool would not last very long and would be quickly lost. We would be left instead with people that would value life as those would be the people still alive to pass on their genes.
Science teaches us that cells can’t go from simple to complex. If cells don’t have all the correct parts they can’t function. Molecular biologist, Michael Behe uses a mousetrap as an analogy to illustrate this point. “A mousetrap has several parts, all of which are necessary for it to work, that must be present in a particular fashion to catch a mouse. A mousetrap with one or two of these parts is not a simple mousetrap capable of becoming a more efficient, complex mousetrap- it is no mousetrap at all. So is it with cells….They either come together all at one or don’t. Darwinism has no answer here. Rocks can’t turn into people. Something has to be always living or never living: abiotic or biotic. Cells are too complex to simply develop by chance. One has over a trillion bits of information in it (more letters than exists in the world’s largest library!) Nearly everyone admits that there appears to be an orderly and intelligent design in the appearance of our universe. Even Richard Dawkins confesses, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose.”
Your last quote is in the wrong context, but I will address that later if I have a chance.
Clearly, the science teachers in question are not familiar with a concept I learned of in middle school and was posited and simulated a few decades ago called the Heterotroph Hypothesis (note that "theory" means it is proven, "hypothesis" means simply that it hasn't been proven). It was once believed that cells cannot be formed from anything but other cells, so this leads to the question, "Where do the first cells come from?" Naturally, one answer is "God." The other answer is that cells can form from simple organic compounds. The next challenge is trying to figure out how the organic compounds were formed. simulating what the beginnings of earth would have been like (after it had sufficiently cooled), it was shown that organic compounds could have been created and given that there were millions (billions, actually) of years to do this and we could do it in a much shorter simulation, it is reasonable to form the hypothesis that cells formed from groupings of organic matter.
It is statistically extremely improbable that life cold evolve by mere chance. The statistical probability of evolution happening by chance has been found to be unlikely. It would take 8 trillion tries per second. At this speed it would take 10 to the 147 power years just to make one stable gene!
I am not sure where that statistic came from, but in the whole universe, the statistics are much, much better. First, what was the sample space? Was it just a small cluster of molecules, or were they using the entire universe? Plus, there are many orders of magnitude more tries per second at any given point in the universe. Every Planck unit is one step, and there are about 1.85492*1043 of these units every second. That cuts it down to about 4.312854463*10^115 seconds, and that is on some unknown scale. The universe has been around. Interestingly, the age of the universe in seconds is very close to the same decimal part. I wouldn't be surprised if the arbitrary figure of "1 in 10^98 chance of life occurring" had been used or maybe 1 in a Gogol and they did their math wrong. It seems eerily precise XD
I am tired .__. I hope I have clarified a few things? I would rather you be well informed about what you think opposes you. An educated argument is often better than one that is based on assumption and preconceived notion.
EDIT: Several posts were made during my long response. From a theological standpoint (not necessarily from the perspective of the lay person), "God" is not a human because God does not have a form. Likewise, God is not an ape :P
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
It seems my hopes have been dashed. This thread will become a flame war if it doesn't come to a stop soon. I just hope we can all come out of this not hating each other…
But my nature compels me to respond. This is because my natural instinct is to teach and spread knowledge, and I believe that I am correct here. (I'm not saying I am, but it is human nature to think he is correct so I think I am.)
codebender, your speech is very good and compelling, especially for a 10 year older. (: But I would like to argue.
Also, why hasn't anything evolved in man’s six thousand years of recorded history? And, if fish had “millions of years” to evolve, why are there still thousands of fish today that haven’t evolved?
Dogs have evolved from wolves. There were no such things as German Shepards or poodles or rottweiler thousands of years ago - only wolf. Because oceans stay moderately the same, unchanged by humans (except in the past few hundred) for so long, fish have not had to adapt. Why would they evolve if they didn't need to in order to survive. That said, there are probably a few fish that have evolved recently - I don't know because I did pretty bad in Biology (nomenclature, ugh…) and I'm doing this without research.
I don't even understand the premise of your second point - were there really people that thought God was an ape? …
There are also problems with the “Big Bang” theory. Only an intelligent designer can make a code, language, or being. Only intelligence can create intelligence. Therefore, a mindless fireball, such as the big bang, cannot create something as complex as DNA codes. So how can an evolutionist think the same mindless fireball could make all of mankind?
The point of the Big Bang theory - and it is a theory, not a law or recorded fact - is that something infinitesimally small once existed trillions of years ago that exploded. Scientists don't claim that was the beginning of the universe. The theory just says that evidence points to the idea that there once was something infinitesimally small that exploded and formed the universe as we know today.
"Therefore, a mindless fireball, such as the big bang, cannot create something as complex as DNA codes. So how can an evolutionist think the same mindless fireball could make all of mankind?" The idea is chance. Try running Conway's Game of Life and let it run forever. Of course, it is statistically impossible that something like Starry Night or the Mona Lisa won't form. The universe is so old, anything can form.
Life on Earth has similar DNA because life on Earth formed under the same (or similar) conditions. Carbon is abundant on Earth, so life formed from carbon. DNA is similar because of these two reasons.
As an analogy, if an inventor were to create the most efficient model for an airplane, he would probably use a similar model for other airplanes he created.
There are many animals that live in pitch-dark caves and have absolutely no use of eyes - yet they have eyes. Whales have extra bones in their spines for no reason. Perhaps most importantly, humans' are pretty symmetrical - but a human heart is not in the center of the chest. These attributes serve only to hinder their creatures - but not hindered enough to make them go into extinction. An intelligent designer would not add these attributes. This makes us question if an intelligent designer did design the creatures we know. But evolution is a pretty good explanation for it. If you would like me to explain it, please ask!
Evolutionists believe there is no right and wrong. This is a faulty belief because if there is not right and wrong, why do people across multiple cultures seem to “know” (from their conscience) that murder is wrong? Obviously, there has to be someone who established a moral right and wrong. Could this be because there is in fact a moral law-giver?
Morals help us live together, and it is beneficial to live together. For example, it is against morals to kill or steal. Killing is generally bad for living (duh) and stealing can hurt a group. Because those who could live together like that prospered, they could reproduce. The people with "moralic" (new word!) genes would be able to pass those genes on.
Science teaches us that cells can’t go from simple to complex.
We have no idea how the first Prokaryote came to be, (that's pretty much what religion is all about), but we have hypothesized that somehow one large Prokaryote ate a smaller one, but the smaller one continued to live inside the larger and helped it in a symbiotic relationship. The smaller changed the DNA of the larger, and when reproducing, created the first cell with an organelle. This continued to happen - remember, anything can happen over an infinite amount of time, and Earth is pretty darn old.
An unaided naturalistic evolution would have taken billions of years to have evolved by chance. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as entropy, doesn’t give them that much time! Entropy would place a barrier for expanding energy in the Big-Bang theory thus it couldn’t go to spread through the world to make the world. So Big Bang’s energy could not have created anything.
TheThinkingAthiest on youtube gave a pretty good explanation for this. Go check it out! I don't remember clearly, but it had something to do with Earth not being a closed system.
It is statistically extremely improbable that life cold evolve by mere chance.
Sorry, but that's a lie. I've been presenting evolution alternatives to the idea of an intelligent designer - alternatives, but this is definitely wrong. Statistically, there is a 100% chance that life could evolve within an infinite amount of time.
"At this speed it would take 10 to the 147 power years just to make one stable gene!" Yeah, the universe is trillions of years old. That's plenty of time. Oops.
As for your first argument, I have know knowledge about that. People probably have tried to come up with falsified evidence of evolution. But remember, people tried to prove that the universe was the center of the universe! And they were… right… That was a bad example. But people tried to come up with false proof that Newton's laws could be used accurately.
I certainly believe that it's possible that some supernatural being created the Big Bang and left it, much like The Architect from Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom series. I believe this is the Watchmaker idea.
Just think: If we managed to create an exact copy of our solar system and create the exact seeds of life on the copy of Earth, the people on that planet would grow up exactly as we did and just let it be and not interfere. (Well, they would see different stars and have different constelation myths and have different meteor shower timings, but that's not that much of a big deal. Say we created an exact copy of our observable universe. Anyways - ) By the time they progressed to the stage of our present day, 2.1 billion humans would believe that they were created by God. But they weren't - they were created by us. No one (except for those like me) would suspect that other humans had created them as copies of themselves.
me they progressed to the stage of our present day, 2.1 billion humans would believe that they were created by God. But they weren't - they were created by us. No one (except for those like me) would suspect that other humans had created them as copies of themselves.
This is certainly possible. But the sad truth is, we haven't figured out how we truly came to exist and we likely never will. I present evolution as an equal on par with that of other ideas, and I believe in it because it does not explain things from the very beginning. I don't believe we ever will find out the whole truth, but we certainly can try to chip slowly at understanding and create a rough image of how exactly we came to existence. I think that our final understanding can is the line y=0 and our understanding can be modeled by f(x)=1/x, where x is time.
This continued to happen - remember, anything can happen over an infinite amount of time, and Earth is pretty darn old.
I want to clarify that it isn't quite true that anything can a happen. This only means that there are infinitely many things that can happen, but not all things can. To use numbers as an example, there are infinitely many rational numbers, but not a single one is irrational. Likewise, there are infinitely many impossibilities.
If anything was possible, your argument against God would be invalid as you would be ceding the point that God can exist. Since by the definition of God (from a theologians perspective, not necessarily the laymen's perspective), if God exists, God necessarily exists, then that would mean that if God ever exists, then God always exists. Since God exists outside of time, then even if you argue that it would take an eternity for a God to exist, that would imply that God exists now and has always existed.
This was one reason that I believed a deity existed for a while, but then I used math to make the connection that infinitely many possibilities does not imply all possibilities.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
Yes, that's true. But I'm not arguing against god. I believe that anything is possible, which is why I'm partly agnostic, but I'm leaning toward atheism.
I mean, what if in some far future, we discovered how to control elements on a planet and become pretty hard to kill? And then we managed to create life on that planet. We would still quarrel because we're humans, and to the inhabitants of that planet, we would be like the Greek Gods were to the Greeks.
I certainly believe that anything is possible, which is why I was arguing for evolution, but not specifically against god. But the evidence makes me lean toward atheism.
@Mr. Dino
>"At this speed it would take 10 to the 147 power years just to make one stable gene!" Yeah, the universe is trillions of years old. That's plenty of time.
Even the higher estimates only go into the billions. (mainstream science places it at around 13.75 billion years old1)
This is far less than 10 to the 147th power in years—the age of the universe, as given in the link above, is only 10 to the 10th.
Even trillions of years is very small in comparison:
10 to the 12th(one trillion years): 1,000,000,000,000
10 to the 147th(claimed estimate of years needed for gene formation): 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
@Venyx, thank you for the help.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
lol Xeda, ninja'd by 7 minutes and our responses are pretty similar. I took like an hour to write mine…
I took about that long too XD We do make some interestingly similar arguments, like the blindness-in-the-cave idea and the moral code stuff :D I don;t think it will come to a flamewar at this rate, though, but I could be wrong ._. There are enough moderators here that we can put a stop to it, though, if it does come to that.
I think as long as we act in a civilised, educated manner, it will be alright, and we will get to learn some cool stuff :D (I admit, my education might be pretty horrendous, but it is an education).
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
@Xeda, are you trying to say that you are smarter that a molecular biologist because you had a "middle school" education? I think that is a little unfair. :-/
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
@Mr Dino, I am just going to use a different pair of lenses when I leave this thread. @Xeda, I see you like to try to prove me wrong, but where are your arguments?
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
Well, many molecular biologists are pretty old, and Xeda is relatively young. She could've learned something in middle school that had been recently discovered that the older molecular biologists never learned about because they graduated before it was discovered, put into the curriculum, or they just never heard about it.
And thank you for planning to do so. I'll try to, and I hope others will do so as well.
@Mr Dino, it is very unlikely for evolution to occur by chance.
First, I would like to ask you this:
Are you, or an explosion better at doing even basic tasks and scientific projects?
Now, answer me this:
Can humans create anything like a complex cell, even with hundreds of people working on it and with the most advanced tools in the industry?
And lastly:
Could a giant fireball do better?
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
@Xeda, I see you like to try to prove me wrong, but where are your arguments?
She's not trying to prove you wrong… Did you not read the second to last sentence of her post? She's making you aware of possible counterarguments so that you can either be prepared in a high stakes environment or investigate the matter further and come to new conclusions.
Timothy Foster - @tfAuroratide
Auroratide.com - Go here if you're nerdy like me
Can humans create anything like a complex cell, even with hundreds of people working on it and with the most advanced tools in the industry?
We could if we were given trillions of years, like how it is believed life came about.
@Mr Dino, it is very unlikely for evolution to occur by chance.
But given infinite time, there is a 100% chance. Even if the chance were 0.00000001%, according to probability, it would happen.
Because it's so unlikely for random genes that occur to be advantageous, evolution is extremely slow. It takes many, many years.
Are you, or an explosion better at doing even basic tasks and scientific projects?
Me, but… if I could speed up time and wait until it randomly happened trillions of years later so that the amount of time I felt was barely a second, I would become lazy and let the explosion do it.
Can humans create anything like a complex cell, even with hundreds of people working on it and with the most advanced tools in the industry?
And lastly:
Could a giant fireball do better?
I don't believe so, but possibly they might. Humans haven't figured out how to create life, so I don't believe so. But we humans surprise ourselves every day with our capabilities, so maybe. I don't know.
I'm not sure if a fireball could do so, but certainly given enough time, I believe an explosion like the one depicted by the Big Bang could.
My answers are pretty constantly "If everything is random, anything is possible given enough time."
Also, what are your thoughts about the last scenario I proposed in my argument earlier? The one about us creating a copy scenario of our history. I'm interested as to what you think about that.
@Timothy Foster
Yes, precisely. I have not come to a conclusion in my arguments, so I could hardly expect to tell you what is the right answer.
As to this:
@Xeda, are you trying to say that you are smarter that a molecular biologist because you had a "middle school" education? I think that is a little unfair. :-/
That is an interesting logical leap; I am not at all saying that and my arguments say nothing of the sort :P However, note that I said it was something I learned in middle school. My biology education neither started nor ended there. I may not know much, but I started studying biology (particularly anatomy, physiology, and cellular biology) when I was seven. I started molecular biology in highschool, and though I do not invoke that knowledge, I do know a little bit. Also, my point was that the heterotroph hypothesis (and again, I should note the use of the word "hypothesis") does show us that organic matter can form from inorganic sources. In the experiment, if memory serves me, the fact that there was not enough O3 in the air and the violent environment (lots of high charged energy like lightning), it would have been rather easy to create organic compounds and it was easy to show that these compounds would form in clusters. The "hypothesis" part is from the fact that it hasn't been proven that this is in fact how life started. It still is important because it disproves the outdated assumption that "cells cannot go from the simple to the complex." Almost all cells are formed from parent cells, but it is possible under the proper conditions for cells to form without being formed from other cells.
Also, codebender, you are pretty young and you do sound pretty smart and it sounds like you think about things quite a bit. I'm looking forward to seeing what you know and learn in the future! If I start getting out of line, feel free to ask me to stop! I had a roommate for two years that very much enjoyed debates, so I am sure that I might go a bit hard at some points. My roommate also enjoyed debating with me because I liked to defend multiple opposing sides of an argument. I have had phases where I argue for religion and others where I don't. Unfortunately, I found a flaw in my last attempt to prove the existence of a deity based on how theology would have it defined (well, I think I have a flaw, I am still trying to figure it out). I do like to think on the subject, so maybe I will post my broken argument for god at some later point.
And just so I don't forget, if I do ever make that post, I also made a fairly solid argument against freewill (but I specifically note that I haven't figured out if it proves determinism).
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
@Boba Foxx and @Mr Dino, if a bunch of intelligent scientists could create life in a laboratory, then that shows it takes intelligence to create life.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
It only shows that intelligence is sufficient to create life, it doesn't show that it is necessary.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
Correct. It simply discredits your point about infinite time creating life.
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
Correct. It simply discredits your point about infinite time creating life.
I don't see how… You might need to point it out to me as I my brain isn't working for me at the moment XD
And I did not say that infinite time creates life (if you were referring to me). I, in fact, argued that infinite time in no way implies that life must form. However, since life does exist, infinite time and space would imply that there are infinitely many copies of life.
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
Sorry, I could not explain yesterday: my parents were calling me to dinner. I as trying to type as fast a possible. You guys were saying, "people could create life if given infinite time." But by saying so, you are not really proving anything because, although the big bang also had "infinite time," it did not have intelligence. (I was mainly referring to Boba Foxx.)
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
I would like to thank all of you for your large posts and information. Thank you for your time and effort reproaching my arguements. (I enjoy it!) :D
Coffee + Radiohead = ^^
Note to self, reference this post when arguing about the universe and god.
:D
So ummm, I'm assuming the majority of this community are Christians?
The Silver Phantom welcomes you
Actually, only three out of the 10 (I think it's 10… regardless, not the majority) openly professed Christianity.
Timothy Foster - @tfAuroratide
Auroratide.com - Go here if you're nerdy like me
I believe there were 4 Christians, 1 Buddhist, 1 atheist (me), and several in between people that never professed what they were (I think 4 people). Christians weren't the majority, but they count in the highest (assuming the others are their own separate religions).
I cannot find the link, though I've been looking for the past 45 minutes or so, but there was a poll put up on Omnimaga, and quite a majority of people were religious, but I don't think it asked for a specific religion (it was meant to get a general idea of the demographic).
Z80 Assembly>English>TI-BASIC>Python>French>C>0
For those of you who might believe in some sort of afterlife… there's two ways you can understand it: feigning that you truly understand what it means and actually understanding it. I mean feigning because the concept of forever is not often taken into much consideration.
Many of you believe in living forever in the afterlife. Forever. FOREVER. If you don't already understand it, it is like a curse. In today's world you wake up, go to work, eat, talk, and go to sleep. With goals, your life has meaning. Eternity provides unlimited amount of time to reach these goals and… this entire concept is just really hard to explain. You'll be doing the same stuff over and over again. Forever. No end. Gosh, this hurts my head. FOREVER.
Yeah, that's pretty scary. My will to keep on existing pushes me to wish that I truly believed in some sort of glorious afterlife, but I know that I'll eventually become so bored I'll just want it all to end.
@codebender: "Because your so impressed with life, how can you think a massive explosion like the "Big Bang" caused it all?! That is like saying, "We dropped a nuke on Pakistan, and it made a shopping mall." "
A. You're*
B. Are you quite sure you understand what the Big Bang theory is?
Personally, I do believe that there is a fair bit in the universe that we do not understand. I believe that there is a God, but i wouldnt necessarily call myself a Christian. I believe that there are many things in both nature and mathematics that we cannot explain just yet. And because this is so, i believe that there are, shall we say, spirits in the code. I guess i'm sort of a cross between a Pagan/Wiccan/Christian.
Tom R.
Blacksmith, woodsman, patriot, and programmer.
Mostly it's because I believe that there is a Major god with many Minor Gods. I don't really know how to classify that.
Tom R.
Blacksmith, woodsman, patriot, and programmer.