NationStates Jolt Archive

No, a scientific study would be a scientific study. However, in a debate such as the one we have, or in the everyday questions that appear in my head, I should not try to fit God into science, but science into God.

Why limit God to your own preconceived notions?

No, no, no, nonononononono. I say that I can defend the idea of Intelligent Design, Creationism, with the science you want, and the defense needed depends on the argument brought up. I can defend it's validity, but I cannot prove it is true. If the defense suffices, then, by all means, let us continue on to the debate.

Both ID and Creationism are inherently unscientific due to the fact that they do not follow the scientific method. As such, they cannot be defended with science.

Both ID and Creationism are inherently unscientific due to the fact that they do not follow the scientific method. As such, they cannot be defended with science.
they don't follow the method how?

they don't follow the method how?
How are we supposed to prove it? What observations can we make to prove them? Is the hypothesis able to be revised to fit new observations?

That is a debate for later, right now, we are arguing 'twixt the worship of science and the worship of a God, specifically one that MADE the universe.

That isn't what is being argued at all. Worship of God is in no way incompatible with science.

An argument 'twixt two atheist views on the creation of the universe is for another time, another place. Choose a viewpoint you like on whatever side of the spectrum you want, God or science, and settle with it, defend it, attack it, whatever you like.

To be an "atheist" view, it would have to assume that there is no God. No scientific theory does any such thing.

Please, state your evidence to me, evidence that discredits my theories and supports yours, and I will figure out for myself weather it is accurate, and deliver a rebuttal.

You have no theories in the scientific sense. How do you expect evidence to discredit an idea that cannot be falsified?

How are we supposed to prove it? What observations can we make to prove them? Is the hypothesis able to be revised to fit new observations?
the observation that the universe had an ultimate beginning, hence a singularity where it was all contained and the creator to make the big bang happen... in a nutshell
:mp5::sniper::gundge:

You can be a Christian scientist, good for you. However, the borderline is crossed when you begin supporting the theories that go against the very ideals you believe in.

I am a Christian who is also a scientist, and there is nothing at all in any scientific theory that goes against the ideals I believe in.

I, myself, plan to be a scientist as well. Something involving the study of deep space, cosmology, as it's known.

If you intend to be a scientist, you better start working on learning the scientific method.

Yes, fine, whatever. I am not being sexist. Please stop that.

If you wish to argue from a theological standpoint (as you obviously do), you should know that gender exclusive language is looked down upon in theological debate. Words like "mankind" are not to be used and God is not to be given a gender.

You've not exactly delivered much of an argument, if it's an argument at all.
The Bible, as I see it, is very clear when it requires interpretation. In Genesis chapter 1, it clearly does not. It says 6 days, it means 6 days.

And in Chapter 2 when it suddenly changes the order of events? How do you interpret that?

If insisting that evolution could have been part of Creation was your argument, I have delivered a rebutal, and await your response. Bump, if you will.

You have yet to provide any argument other than "I don't agree with it."

Continuing, though, I believe that theory to be a conformist ideal, trying to make the peace 'twixt the two sides by including both.

It is much more conformist to believe what you are told, regardless of the actual evidence.

However, it doesn't quite matter how long the universe was created over in this debate, only weather or not it WAS created.

Guess what? There is nothing whatsoever in any scientific theory to state that the universe was *not* created. What exactly are you trying to debate, then?

theres also a reason why Darwin wrote that if any one part of his theory was proven wrong, then it would all fall apart...

He didn't understand logic?

they don't follow the method how?

They begin with a foregone conclusion, which they will never change, and then look for evidence to back it up. This is especially true with Creationism, and ID is really only a NERFed form of Creationism. ID doesn't follow the method because it (a) assumes a God - a non-falsifiable assumption and (b) is based on the premise "We can't figure it out!"

the observation that the universe had an ultimate beginning, hence a singularity where it was all contained and the creator to make the big bang happen... in a nutshell


That doesn't prove Creationism or ID at all.

Notice that we are not arguing about *creation*, which is a belief that many scientists hold (although it is not scientific, as it cannot be falsified). We are talking about Creationism, which is a whole different beast.

That doesn't prove Creationism or ID at all.

Notice that we are not arguing about *creation*, which is a belief that many scientists hold (although it is not scientific, as it cannot be falsified). We are talking about Creationism, which is a whole different beast.
I dont get why people dont understand the difference ... it is as simple as looking at the deffinition of creationism

Why limit God to your own preconceived notions?

I have nay limited God, but I am prepared to limit science, the thing that steps beyond the boundries given to it by God HIMSELF, and claims to have made the universe all on its own.

I will still argue your point of views, but I will show you what's wrong with them past that border that marks atheism and God, and show you where that infernalized border is.

And in Chapter 2 when it suddenly changes the order of events? How do you interpret that?

_______________________________________

You have yet to provide any argument other than "I don't agree with it."

________________________________________

It is much more conformist to believe what you are told, regardless of the actual evidence.

________________________________________

Guess what? There is nothing whatsoever in any scientific theory to state that the universe was *not* created. What exactly are you trying to debate, then?

1) Chapter 2 doesn't change any order of events. God makes mankind, revolutionary, but not too changing there.

2) Because you have yet to provide me with any arguments except over how long the goshdarn universe was Created by GOD over. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: THAT IS NOT THE DARN DEBATE HERE! Fine, if you want me to start, I will start. If you want to read the argument now, just skip over the numbered list.

3) It would be conformist for me to look upon your arguments, and say 'okay, he's right.' It would be conformist to think of the "scientific evidence" as 100% real. IT WOULD BE CONFORMIST, FOR ME TO TURN MY LIFE INTO A HELLSCAPE, AND TURN AWAY FROM GOD, AND BEGIN A FREAKIN' PARTY LIFESTYLE. IT WOULD BE CONFORMIST FOR ME TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOUGHT BUT DUST ON THE WIND, AND OUR LIVES HERE HAVE NO IMPACT OF OUR NONEXISTENT LIVES AFTER OUR DEATH!!!

4) Moving on, I will tell you that science has its flaws, its contradictions, I point them out, and back them up with other scientific laws. Scientific theories DO, in fact, blatantly, almost with glee, say that the universe wasn't created. Or wait, yes it was. But not by a divine being, but by an enormous cosmic coincidence that resulted in the perfect utopia of a planet surrounded by hellscapes, and the only sentient race in the universe.

Let us start: the Big Bang theory states that the universe was made out of an explosion of energy. If matter can turn into energy, then energy can into matter. That makes sense. The universe continues to expand, and the temperatures finally get cold enough for small atoms to form, like hydrogen and helium. However, by the time it was cold enough for larger atoms, like carbon, or even iron, to form, all the matter had already been used up.
Here lies one problem: if all that existed at that time was hydrogen and helium, where do we get more complicated atoms, like uranium from? Or even, if that's all that existed, where is all the carbon and oxygen, the stuff that some evolutionists claim we were made out of piles of, from?
Apparently, all that matter is from the subsequent stars being formed, and then going supernova (as supernovae create heaver matter, like gold and stuff), however, the current estimated age of the universe (according to the big bang theory) would only be enough for about two star lives, and all the stars in the universe going supernovae would not result in enough heavy matter to make a single solar system of earth-like planets, let alone the universe of them that astronomers are in fervent search for. There lies one problem.

Another problem: according to the laws of science following E=MC^2, when matter is made out of energy, then both antimatter, normal matter with an opposite charge, and normal matter are made. However, since they are created together, and antimatter reactions are a result of antimatter coming in close contact with normal matter, then, by rights, there should be no matter in the unverse, only energy, because the universe would have continued to expand until the energy was too spread out to be in large enough amounts in one place so as to make matter, and if, in some freak accident places, it was, then it would be a cycle of antimatter-normal matter creation and antimatter-normal matter reactions, that only ended until the energy in that place was spread out enough to stop making matter.

Politely ignoring those two huge problems, cosmologists assert that, because they predicted that the universe would have a background temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, and they discovered a temperature of 2.7 degrees, they are absolutely right. One cosmologist compared this as being akin to "Predicting a 50 foot flying saucer would land on the White House lawn, and a 27 foot one actually does." However, this, as we should all know, is not the case, and there is a simple explanation for this piece of evidence, apart from the Big Bang, anyway.
They missed the mark by 2 times as much temperature, although we are talking in terms of almost no temperature, even .00001 degree diferrence (maybe a bit of hyperbole), all around the universe, can make a revolutionary difference in the scientific community. As the universe is more than 14 billion light years wide. That, even if it is a flat and not a round universe, can result in quite a large area to heat up with remnant heat.
The simple explanation for background temperature that is probably longed for, is the stars. Trillions of huge, swirling and moving galaxies, each holding at least millions of mind-bogglingly enormous, superheated balls of fire burning for even a few thousand years (as according to the Creation timeline) could easily create the temperature that we see today.
Not true, you say, because of the size of the universe, it would take longer for even one degree to be formed. We, however, live in a tiny galaxy, with more than 20,000,000,000 stars all packed together in a peaceful-looking, albiet extremely beautiful, organization of stars slowly rotating around a central point. With all these stars packed together, each one turning millions of tons of itself into enormous amounts of heat every second, could result in the temperature we see today.
However, you may create a rebuttal, saying that we sense the temperature of the universe, not our galaxy alone. That is not true; we assume that the temperature we gather from our satellites is the same teperature of the whole universe, but, in reality, we are guarded from the temperature of the universe by the garunteed much hotter temperature of our own galaxy which holds its heat of all those billions of stars like a thermos full of hot soup.]

Those are just some of the arguments I have against the leading scientific theory, so, if that one is wrong, what is the other option, steady-state theory? I don't think so. The Great Green Arklesiezure (have you read Douglas Adams?)? Probably not. It seems like Creation is one of the few left.

Please read the whole post, it contains quite a bit of work and a considerable amount of hard-to-get-over arguments.

Please read the whole post, it contains quite a bit of work and a considerable amount of hard-to-get-over arguments.
you've yet to give any substantive reason why YOUR creation myth is the right one, however. that's the whole point of this discussion...that Creation is not a scientific theory, should not be presented as one, and should not be regarded as one by anybody. until you can provide some explanation of how your myth, and no other, is supported by science, and provide means by which science could test your hypothesis, all you are doing is engaging in elaborate wishful thinking.

you've yet to give any substantive reason why YOUR creation myth is the right one, however. that's the whole point of this discussion...that Creation is not a scientific theory, should not be presented as one, and should not be regarded as one by anybody. until you can provide some explanation of how your myth, and no other, is supported by science, and provide means by which science could test your hypothesis, all you are doing is engaging in elaborate wishful thinking.

MY creation myth vs. the OTHER creation myths is a different argument. I can offer a substantial argument, and state 'what ifs' and 'maybes,' but I cannot offer you scientific proof that something which is not meant to be based off of science, but which science is based off of, is real.

You keep asking me for it, but can YOU provide absolute RELIGIOUS proof that your theories are real? If I am to use your side to prove mine, maybe you should use my side to prove yours.

Oh wait, YOU CAN'T!

It seems unreasonable for you to make me use an almost impenetrable side to prove a fully open side, when I don't expect you to use my open side to prove the almost imprenetrable side.

Please, I beg of you, please, please, please, pleeeeeeease read that whole post that I made earlier, it is a real good argument and took me forever to type.

MY creation myth vs. the OTHER creation myths is a different argument. I can offer a substantial argument, and state 'what ifs' and 'maybes,' but I cannot offer you scientific proof that something which is not meant to be based off of science, but which science is based off of, is real.

offer up your argument, please. keeping in mind that you cannot simply cite your religious text, as we can all cite piles of other religious texts which say you are wrong...you must find objective evidence, if you wish to be objectively validated.


You keep asking me for it, but can YOU provide absolute RELIGIOUS proof that your theories are real? If I am to use your side to prove mine, maybe you should use my side to prove yours.

for one thing, i don't have a single theory of how the universe began...i don't have enough information to conclusively support any hypothesis, yet. my "theory" is that creation myths are all equally improbable and unnecessary, but there is no way science can ever prove or disprove any of them.

but if you want me to provide religious "proof" of a Big Bang theory, no problem. my Aunt's religion teaches that the universe came into existence because of the Originating Force, a Force which propelled the first step of existence and time but was not a conscious being or Creator. the Originating Force imparted the energy which gave rise to everything we know as reality.

there, religious "proof," as substantive as any you have offered for your theory. since you have, thus far, provided no reason why your myth is more believable than any other faith's, i guess that means my Aunt's religious myth is just as true as yours. QED.


Oh wait, YOU CAN'T!well isn't your face red...

It seems unreasonable for you to make me use an almost impenetrable side to prove a fully open side, when I don't expect you to use my open side to prove the almost imprenetrable side.
if you wish your theory to be given consideration by scientists then you will have to play by the same rules as anybody else who proposes a theory to science. if you are content to have your myth regarded as myth, you can leave now and nobody will mind.

offer up your argument, please. keeping in mind that you cannot simply cite your religious text, as we can all cite piles of other religious texts which say you are wrong...you must find objective evidence, if you wish to be objectively validated.


for one thing, i don't have a single theory of how the universe began...i don't have enough information to conclusively support any hypothesis, yet. my "theory" is that creation myths are all equally improbable and unnecessary, but there is no way science can ever prove or disprove any of them.

but if you want me to provide religious "proof" of a Big Bang theory, no problem. my Aunt's religion teaches that the universe came into existence because of the Originating Force, a Force which propelled the first step of existence and time but was not a conscious being or Creator. the Originating Force imparted the energy which gave rise to everything we know as reality.

there, religious "proof," as substantive as any you have offered for your theory. since you have, thus far, provided no reason why your myth is more believable than any other faith's, i guess that means my Aunt's religious myth is just as true as yours. QED.

well isn't your face red...

What's your aunt's religion, can you provide me special references that actually prove that religion is false. Also, if you don't have an opinion, what the heck are you doing here attacking those who do?

if you wish your theory to be given consideration by scientists then you will have to play by the same rules as anybody else who proposes a theory to science. if you are content to have your myth regarded as myth, you can leave now and nobody will mind.

You have a point. I am sorry. I knew it would be expected of me to do what you don't have to. Ah well. I've done it before, so I guess you can start defending the Big Bang theory. You seem to have the capacity to attack my opinion, so defend the other side, especially against my earlier arguments.

I like your signature, Bottle. I just don't like the last line. But where'd you get that from?

I might as well go into why I don't like the last line: because I exist. Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. You've probably seen me say this before, but, if we have the ability to question our existence, we most definately exist. Which could, of course, mean that animals are illusions, but they are nonetheless tasty.

What's your aunt's religion, can you provide me special eferenes that actually prove that religion is false. Also, if you don't have an opinion, what the heck are you doing here attacking those who do?

What his/her aunt's religion is doesn't even matter for the argument. I assume he'/she is probably making it up at the moment. If someone writes a book about some supernatural things, or just makes up the story without writing it down, he/she can say it is his/her religion. It would be equaly 'valid' as any other religious text in the sense that all were once written by a (or multiple) man or a woman (men and/or women). One can think of infinite religions, and nothing has to combine them. So you can't 'prove' anything in a religious way, nor can you say anything substantial about the world that is acceptable to all religions, nor does the rest of the world have to accept anything 'proven' in a certain religion (note the 'a religion' here).

What his/her aunt's religion is doesn't even matter for the argument. I assume he'/she is probably making it up at the moment. If someone writes a book about some supernatural things, or just makes up the story without writing it down, he/she can say it is his/her religion. It would be equaly 'valid' as any other religious text in the sense that all were once written by a (or multiple) man or a woman (men and/or women). One can think of infinite religions, and nothing has to combine them. So you can't 'prove' anything in a religious way, nor can you say anything substantial about the world that is acceptable to all religions, nor does the rest of the world have to accept anything 'proven' in a certain religion (note the 'a religion' here).

The single thing that separates Christianity (and, while we're at it, Judaism) from the rest, is that the holy book, the Bible (and, yes, the Torah, almost exactly like the Old Testament) has divine influence. Although it was (they both were) written by men (women, people, whatever. just for you, preebles), the men who wrote it were divinely influenced. Their works came from God.

Oh yes, Illich Jackal, I love how you post a horrible argument and then leave.

The single thing that separates Christianity (and, while we're at it, Judaism) from the rest, is that the holy book, the Bible (and, yes, the Torah, almost exactly like the Old Testament) has divine influence. Although it was (they both were) written by men (women, people, whatever. just for you, preebles), the men who wrote it were divinely influenced. Their works came from God.

1) don't be impatient, there are other threads too
2) The religion itself says the holy book has divine influence. If i write this at the beginning of my self-made religion, would this make it true? The point is that anyone anywhere can, with a little bit of imagination, write a 'holy book' that is not fundamentally different from any other 'holy book'.

1) don't be impatient, there are other threads too
2) The religion itself says the holy book has divine influence. If i write this at the beginning of my self-made religion, would this make it true? The point is that anyone anywhere can, with a little bit of imagination, write a 'holy book' that is not fundamentally different from any other 'holy book'.

There is evidence to support the Bible's divine influence, things that separate it from any other holy book. No other holy book (except the Torah, I mean, it is just half of the Bible) has the same things going for it. And I would appreciate it if you kept the other forums in different windows, so it doesn't seem like you're leaving all the time, do you want me to post the argument here? I will.

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.
Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Trust me, people have tried to argue against that, and most of them failed miserably.

Naw, I don't wanna run. Ah well, I gotta. I ran more than two freakin' miles yesterday in like 15 minutes. I can run less this morning, though. So, see ya in 10 or so minutes, maybe more, if I clean myself up afterwards.

There is evidence to support the Bible's divine influence, things that separate it from any other holy book. No other holy book (except the Torah, I mean, it is just half of the Bible) has the same things going for it. And I would appreciate it if you kept the other forums in different windows, so it doesn't seem like you're leaving all the time, do you want me to post the argument here? I will.

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.
Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Trust me, people have tried to argue against that, and most of them failed miserably.

Don't get me wrong, i believe there was a historical jesus, just like a lot of other biblical figures and events (such as the flood, which occurs in many ancient myths), i just don't believe in their supernatural nature; neither do i believe the bible to be an at-all-times accurate description of these events.
I believe the bible to have some historical value, but you have to take it with a lot of salt.

As to the predictions: countless predictions have been made in the bible and more in the numerous other religious text that 'did not make the bible'. In general, predictions are rather vague and thus open to a lot of interpretation. Think about nostradamus for example, people still claim he predicted a lot of events (like an eclips a few years ago in europe - only example i know).

Again: what distinquishes for example the christian religion from for example an indian religion, for someone outside both religions?

Don't get me wrong, i believe there was a historical jesus, just like a lot of other biblical figures and events (such as the flood, which occurs in many ancient myths), i just don't believe in their supernatural nature; neither do i believe the bible to be an at-all-times accurate description of these events.
I believe the bible to have some historical value, but you have to take it with a lot of salt.

As to the predictions: countless predictions have been made in the bible and more in the numerous other religious text that 'did not make the bible'. In general, predictions are rather vague and thus open to a lot of interpretation. Think about nostradamus for example, people still claim he predicted a lot of events (like an eclips a few years ago in europe - only example i know).

Again: what distinquishes for example the christian religion from for example an indian religion, for someone outside both religions?

Actually, don't have to run YET.

Not only the predictions in Daniel were made: untold numbers of predictions, made thousands of years BEFORE the fact, were made about Jesus. Then the New Testament was written. However, you could say that the New Tetament was written by the same guy who made the predictions. However, aspects of Jesus's life, including his miracles, were accurately documented by Roman historians, atheists and agnostics, as well as those who followed Iupiter. Here's the amazing part, the part that the historians documented, the Roman historians we all know and trust, documented exactly what was predicted. And the predictions of Jesus were quite specific: "He will be betrayed... He will rise on the third day," et cetera, et cetera.

So, if you know that Jesus existed, and can learn all about his life from SECULAR historians, then you realize that predictions that fit exactly with his life were made thousands of years beforehand, I see no reason that you shouldn't believe the rest of the Bible.

Oh yes, I'm going to ask a question that I asked in my last debate: are you listening to music as you type? I'm listening to The Phantom of the Opera themesong. You know, the organ music? Dadadaaaaa, da da dada daaaaaaaaaaa! It's a 10-minute piece, and its very enjoyable.

Actually, don't have to run YET.

Not only the predictions in Daniel were made: untold numbers of predictions, made thousands of years BEFORE the fact, were made about Jesus. Then the New Testament was written. However, you could say that the New Tetament was written by the same guy who made the predictions. However, aspects of Jesus's life, including his miracles, were accurately documented by Roman historians, atheists and agnostics, as well as those who followed Iupiter. Here's the amazing part, the part that the historians documented, the Roman historians we all know and trust, documented exactly what was predicted. And the predictions of Jesus were quite specific: "He will be betrayed... He will rise on the third day," et cetera, et cetera.

Bring me thouse Roman documents of Jesus miracles and me and the rest of the Biblical Scholars Community will give you a sweetie, i seriously doubt they exist. Just think to your self, why in the hell would the romans care about a cult ospring from Judesism, which was a tiny relgion in a very uniportant back water provice in the roman empire.

Actually, don't have to run YET.

Not only the predictions in Daniel were made: untold numbers of predictions, made thousands of years BEFORE the fact, were made about Jesus. Then the New Testament was written. However, you could say that the New Tetament was written by the same guy who made the predictions. However, aspects of Jesus's life, including his miracles, were accurately documented by Roman historians, atheists and agnostics, as well as those who followed Iupiter. Here's the amazing part, the part that the historians documented, the Roman historians we all know and trust, documented exactly what was predicted. And the predictions of Jesus were quite specific: "He will be betrayed... He will rise on the third day," et cetera, et cetera.

I'll try to illustrate something on your last few examples:

Let us assume these predictions were made before he existed (this does not have to be true). The books of the new testament were written years after jesus died (a side note: a lot of books were rejected by the church). It is reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the writing and the intentions of the writers: They knew the predictions, they wanted to present him as being divine, so they could easely make the story fit the prediction to get more followers. If anyone today wanted to be 'divine', he would surely try to fit some predictions made in the bible or other texts (I'm thinking of cultleaders here) .

On a different note: don't try to prove the bible is the truth; Noone has been able to do that and it's highly unlikely someone will be.

You believe the bible to be different from other religious texts; People from other religions believe their texts are different from the rest. If you for example look at the roman religion, you could not find a difference with my selfmade religion. A follower of the roman religion cannot find a difference between christianity and my selfmade religion. I can't find a difference between the both religions; they are equally valid to any outsider to both religions.

You cannot say that all people from all religions or non-religions have to 'prove' their point in your religion, as this would require anyone to 'prove' their point in every religion imaginable. This is unreasonable, and even impossible due to the infinity of possible religions and because some religions will contradict eachother on certain points.

I'll try to illustrate something on your last few examples:

Let us assume these predictions were made before he existed (this does not have to be true). The books of the new testament were written years after jesus died (a side note: a lot of books were rejected by the church). It is reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the writing and the intentions of the writers: They knew the predictions, they wanted to present him as being divine, so they could easely make the story fit the prediction to get more followers. If anyone today wanted to be 'divine', he would surely try to fit some predictions made in the bible or other texts (I'm thinking of cultleaders here) .

On a different note: don't try to prove the bible is the truth; Noone has been able to do that and it's highly unlikely someone will be.

You believe the bible to be different from other religious texts; People from other religions believe their texts are different from the rest. If you for example look at the roman religion, you could not find a difference with my selfmade religion. A follower of the roman religion cannot find a difference between christianity and my selfmade religion. I can't find a difference between the both religions; they are equally valid to any outsider to both religions. You cannot say that all people from all religions or non-religions have to 'prove' their point in your religion, as this would require anyone to 'prove' their point in every religion imaginable. This is unreasonable, and even impossible due to the infinity of possible religions and because some religions will contradict eachother on certain points.

Exactly, other religions contradict each other, however, Christianity does nothing to contradict itself. Try.

And I really hate it when you insist: 'you're not proving anything.' Of course I'm not, not to you anyway. The Bible is only impossible to prove because of close-mind people like you keep on refusing to take any of the arguments for it as real. You will come up with anything and everything to try to disprove it. And don't say that it's not true, that's why I quoted you.

Exactly, other religions contradict each other, however, Christianity does nothing to contradict itself. Try.

And I really hate it when you insist: 'you're not proving anything.' Of course I'm not, not to you anyway. The Bible is only impossible to prove because of close-mind people like you keep on refusing to take any of the arguments for it as real. You will come up with anything and everything to try to disprove it. And don't say that it's not true, that's why I quoted you.

ah waaaaa!
you do realise your argument is, well insane, ok we will come up with anything to try and disprove the bible, ok But then your just making up outlandish claims you can't and wont back, up

Christianity is the only relgion that dose not contradict its self, are you taking the piss, where is your foundation for this, DO YOU know all the world relgions inatmenlty enough to say this, hell were is your evidence, and hell christianity dose contradict itself loads of freaking times, mainly becuase the old and new testament were written by hundreds of diffrent people all with very diffrent sources and very diffrent agendas, Jew and Gentiles, Hellenised and no Hellenised.
Shit, just one popular example. God is love but have sex with another man and your going on the express to hell.

And what are these arguements for the bible being real, id love to here them.

I'll try to illustrate something on your last few examples:

Let us assume these predictions were made before he existed (this does not have to be true). The books of the new testament were written years after jesus died (a side note: a lot of books were rejected by the church). It is reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the writing and the intentions of the writers: They knew the predictions, they wanted to present him as being divine, so they could easely make the story fit the prediction to get more followers. If anyone today wanted to be 'divine', he would surely try to fit some predictions made in the bible or other texts (I'm thinking of cultleaders here) .

On a different note: don't try to prove the bible is the truth; Noone has been able to do that and it's highly unlikely someone will be.

You believe the bible to be different from other religious texts; People from other religions believe their texts are different from the rest. If you for example look at the roman religion, you could not find a difference with my selfmade religion. A follower of the roman religion cannot find a difference between christianity and my selfmade religion. I can't find a difference between the both religions; they are equally valid to any outsider to both religions. You cannot say that all people from all religions or non-religions have to 'prove' their point in your religion, as this would require anyone to 'prove' their point in every religion imaginable. This is unreasonable, and even impossible due to the infinity of possible religions and because some religions will contradict eachother on certain points.

Regardless, I will argue directly against you: no, the predictions cannot apply to anyone, nor are they too open for interpretation. Saying "He will be born in Bethlehem," can mean one thing, the Savior will be born in Bethlehem.
Saying he is of the house (lineage) of David, can only mean that the Savior will be directly descended from David.
Saying the Christ will triumphantly enter Jerusalem can only mean one thing: the Promised Savior will, at one point in his life, enter Jerusalem in a triumphal celebration.
Saying he will be tortured can only mean that the Messiah will be tortured.
When the predictions state the the Christ will be betrayed by a close friend (it goes so far as to say 'for thirty pieces of silver'), it means that he shall be betrayed by a close friend 'for thirty pieces of silver'. AKA Judas Iscariot.
When it says, and Jesus himself is recorded as saying: He/I shall rise again on the third day. It can only mean two things, he, after a three-day exile, will rise to become ruler of something again, or he, after being betrayed, tortured (see earlier predictions), and killed, shall come back to life on the third day.
Now, think of people you know, think of people even you know exist. Have any one of them even fulfilled two of these prophecies. And, trust me, there are quite a few more than that: "He shall be pierced without breaking a bone" (Jesus was stabbed while hanging on the cross), or "He shall be born of a virgin" (come on, we all know the tale). The only prediction that was open to interpreation is "He shall free God's chosen people." Today, we know that means the burden of sin and the required Levitical laws, but, to those without the savior among them yet, it could have just as easily meant that the Emmanuel shall free Israel from her oppressors (AKA: the Romans).

Exactly, other religions contradict each other, however, Christianity does nothing to contradict itself. Try.

And I really hate it when you insist: 'you're not proving anything.' Of course I'm not, not to you anyway. The Bible is only impossible to prove because of close-mind people like you keep on refusing to take any of the arguments for it as real. You will come up with anything and everything to try to disprove it. And don't say that it's not true, that's why I quoted you.

We don't 'try to disprove the bible', we just accept it as a historical document. Every historical document is not a deathaccurate description of an event, but depending on the knowledge of the writer, his sources and his intentions it is more or less accurate. Even todays history books aren't an exact version of the truth. Take WWII for example: Writers do not have all the information they need to describe it 'exactly as it happened' (documents burned or lost, people died, other people don't know exactly what happened). After this first 'loss of accuracy', you also have to interprete the information. The allied won, and the winner is the one who decides what happened. They again change the 'historical version of the facts' to their advantage.


I have to go now. Vespucii, from my (and most people's, i believe,) point of view, you are 'trapped' in circular logic. You believe the bible to be true, so it is influenced by god, which makes it true, ...
I've tried to 'get you out of the circle' by bringing up selfmade religions, but it looks like it's hard to see how they are the same thing as any religion from your point of view. The last is just an attempt to do the same by looking at other 'neutral' religions.

ah waaaaa!
you do realise your argument is, well insane, ok we will come up with anything to try and disprove the bible, ok But then your just making up outlandish claims you can't and wont back, up

Christianity is the only relgion that dose not contradict its self, are you taking the piss, where is your foundation for this, DO YOU know all the world relgions inatmenlty enough to say this, hell were is your evidence, and hell christianity dose contradict itself loads of freaking times, mainly becuase the old and new testament were written by hundreds of diffrent people all with very diffrent sources and very diffrent agendas, Jew and Gentiles, Hellenised and no Hellenised.
Shit, just one popular example. God is love but have sex with another man and your going on the express to hell.

And what are these arguements for the bible being real, id love to here them.

Your language instills in me a strong desire to stop debating with you and begin my homework again, but I will humor you. Primarily, you don't go to hell for homosexuality, that's not in the Bible I know.
Actually, God is prepared to forgive every sin we, as individuals and as people, are dumb enough to commit. Romans 5:20 "The law was added so that the trespass may increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more." But that doesn't mean that you should keep on sinning now that you are forgiven: Romans6:1-2 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?"

We don't 'try to disprove the bible', we just accept it as a historical document. Every historical document is not a deathaccurate description of an event, but depending on the knowledge of the writer, his sources and his intentions it is more or less accurate. Even todays history books aren't an exact version of the truth. Take WWII for example: Writers do not have all the information they need to describe it 'exactly as it happened' (documents burned or lost, people died, other people don't know exactly what happened). After this first 'loss of accuracy', you also have to interprete the information. The allied won, and the winner is the one who decides what happened. They again change the 'historical version of the facts' to their advantage.


I have to go now. Vespucii, from my (and most people's, i believe,) point of view, you are 'trapped' in circular logic. You believe the bible to be true, so it is influenced by god, which makes it true, ...
I've tried to 'get you out of the circle' by bringing up selfmade religions, but it looks like it's hard to see how they are the same thing as any religion from your point of view. The last is just an attempt to do the same by looking at other 'neutral' religions.

See you later then.
Not quite circular logic. Rather point A to point B logic: the Bible is divinely originated, thus it is true. See, why would a divine being lie to its/his/their creation.
The Bible is unique in comparison to all historical documents: it is 100% accurate, down to the last detail. No historical documents, even our news today, can quite match up with the detailed accuracy of the Bible itself. I don't get why you people don't see this. Yes, books were excluded, but I've read them and only few are inconsistent with the Bible: they were excluded, the pseudopigripha and the apocrypha, because they were falsely accredited writings or, in the case of apocrypha, writings that were written by authors far away from the actual information. The only major difference from the original Hebrew and English are a few translation differences.

100% accurate?


Bull. That's simply not possible. Even assuming the orginal source material is true, there's transcription errors, translations, misreads, misinterpretations, fake-ups (Deuteronomy), and contradictions!

Like I said, the only differences 'twixt the old Hebrew and modern manuscripts are MINOR, TINY translation differences. Like in Psalms, the words "A thousand years..." is actually the Hebrew for a long, undertermined period of time. But that is obvious even to the man who knows nothing of Hebrew.

Call it bull, but weather or not you think it is, it is true. Garunteed 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by Jon Stewart
1300 B.C: Jews become God's Chosen People. Nothing bad ever happens to Jews ever again.

I like that book, that was a funny book. A WHOLE lot of language, but funny nonetheless.

Suuuuure.

Have a list of Bibilical contradictions.

Yes, it's from a biased site, I admit that. But all of the contradictions are true.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html

Until someone gives me proof of an unfakeable miracle, miracles are unproved and therefore not accurate.

In reference to your signature, by the by.

Suuuuure.

Have a list of Bibilical contradictions.

Yes, it's from a biased site, I admit that. But all of the contradictions are true.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html

Until someone gives me proof of an unfakeable miracle, miracles are unproved and therefore not accurate.

Not quite all of them. I read a number, and many of the contradictions listed there are actually fake. Contradictiong fact and metaphors doesn't help your case very much. The other ones, like "God is a man of war," and "The God of peace be with you," are unexplainable, but I must tell you now, God is multifaceted, not a two-dimensional creature like we want, not even limited to three-dimensions like we are, and sometimes hope God is. God is, quite literally, inexplicable. The human mind can fathom very little about him.

Putting that aside, why should I believe ANY of the contradictions from a biased site. A word of advice, don't use biased sources in debates, as they are not widely credible, nor are they even garunteed to be real. I am not even going to try to look up what they are insinuating as contradictions in my Bible. and let me tell you, that the Bible is clear when it needs interpretation and when it needs to be taken literally, and many of the contradictions that the website you showed me (Secularweb? What!?) and others use are, like I said earlier, comparisons 'twixt the parts that need interpretation and the parts that are literal. Say there was a Bible verse that says that, to God, a very long period of time is akin to a day. That's literal. But the verse that says "A thousand years is as a day unto the Lord" would be used as evidence for a contradiction: "God infinite, or aging?" OF COURSE NOT. Metaphors cannot be used in comparison to literal verses..

Okay, I gotta get something done in the house here, so I'll be back in 5 or so minutes.

Call it bull, but weather or not you think it is, it is true. Garunteed 100% accurate.
Where's the evidence show it to me so i can understand, I apologise for my perhaps disrespectful langue, but you just fobbed my point off.

It is my assumption that nobody will read this, as no one in their right minds would actually read 500 posts. I also suspect that what I will say has already been said 20 times in the past posts, but I really only got through the first 20, so I don't know.
However, this issue is hard to approach because there is not really any evidence (actual , not just assumptions; such as the hydrogen ratio thing, the big bang was predicted to have those results because the ratios of hydrogen were already found, it was a circular argument) either way. All scientific theories in this area are assumptions based upon logical hypotheses that fit a set of data, and have not actually been proven to apply. In this area, I think it is a bit of a foolish thing for laymen of science to say that all their theories are "proven"; as if it is not just regurgitated from a 20 page chapter in a Bio 12 text; as they live under the illusion that they have actually read "The Origin of Species". They, themselves, have never proven anything. The fact is that none of these things are actually observable, and so cannot really fit properly under the category of science, at least not so well as the theory of gravty or molecular biology do. The main problem, of course, being that if you go off track just once, you cannot ever correct that mistake and you continue in the wrong direction. If anybody believes they have scientifically 'observed' the big bang, they are lunatics. Which is not at all to say it did not happen or it did. Perhaps there is a theory that fits all the facts better, and we are just not genius enough to discover it, or think it through. I think that an agnostic biologist at the American Museum of Natural History put it best when he said, in regards to evolution, "We know that species reproduce and we know that there are different species now than there were 100 million years ago. Everything else is propoganda."
As it is all logical deduction, there is no reason why logical arguments from the other side should not be considered. (It seems to be the general consensus that nothing outside of science, including metaphysics and philosophy, as if anything is proven to be real.[Descartes]) Anyway, there are arguments that DO make sense in that area of thought, such as (in the proper context) Aquinas' (adopted from Aristotle) Prime Mover Argument, which argues that since everything in the physical world is caused (we exist because we were born, humanity exists because it evolved, the first life exists because of a combination of gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere exist because matter and energy, matter and energy exist because of the big bang, etc...) [none of which is neccesarily true, just for the sake of emphasis] anyway, since everything which exists has a cause, there must be a first cause which does not exist inside the physical universe, therefore God.
In any case, this entire debate has gone completely off what the originator wanted I think. He already believed in the science. He wanted to see someone argue for intelligent design, not whether or not mankind should really be humankind or whether the bible is infallible, he merely wanted an argument which might explain to him why others see the world in a different way.

Not 'really' there have been examples in modern history that seem to prove evolution, the Peppered Moth just one that comes off the top of my head

Peppered moth comes in two varieties naturally White and Black, Until 1800's it recorded that the white variety was far more prominent in south England, this is because it gave it effective camouflage on more trees than the black moth's camouflage did and so less birds ate it. However the industrial revolution comes along and of course pumps out loads of soot, this soot covers the trees and makes them black. Suddenly the is a noticeable decline in the white variety and a huge increase in the black variety, simply because its camouflage made it the fittest to survive in changing circumstances.

Also without evolution how could the diversity of life remain pretty much constant after and before huge climate changes such as ice ages….?

Nb: evolution occurs in generation not years.

It is my assumption that nobody will read this, as no one in their right minds would actually read 500 posts. I also suspect that what I will say has already been said 20 times in the past posts, but I really only got through the first 20, so I don't know.
However, this issue is hard to approach because there is not really any evidence (actual , not just assumptions; such as the hydrogen ratio thing, the big bang was predicted to have those results because the ratios of hydrogen were already found, it was a circular argument) either way. All scientific theories in this area are assumptions based upon logical hypotheses that fit a set of data, and have not actually been proven to apply. In this area, I think it is a bit of a foolish thing for laymen of science to say that all their theories are "proven"; as if it is not just regurgitated from a 20 page chapter in a Bio 12 text; as they live under the illusion that they have actually read "The Origin of Species". They, themselves, have never proven anything. The fact is that none of these things are actually observable, and so cannot really fit properly under the category of science, at least not so well as the theory of gravty or molecular biology do. The main problem, of course, being that if you go off track just once, you cannot ever correct that mistake and you continue in the wrong direction. If anybody believes they have scientifically 'observed' the big bang, they are lunatics. Which is not at all to say it did not happen or it did. Perhaps there is a theory that fits all the facts better, and we are just not genius enough to discover it, or think it through. I think that an agnostic biologist at the American Museum of Natural History put it best when he said, in regards to evolution, "We know that species reproduce and we know that there are different species now than there were 100 million years ago. Everything else is propoganda."
As it is all logical deduction, there is no reason why logical arguments from the other side should not be considered. (It seems to be the general consensus that nothing outside of science, including metaphysics and philosophy, as if anything is proven to be real.[Descartes]) Anyway, there are arguments that DO make sense in that area of thought, such as (in the proper context) Aquinas' (adopted from Aristotle) Prime Mover Argument, which argues that since everything in the physical world is caused (we exist because we were born, humanity exists because it evolved, the first life exists because of a combination of gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere exist because matter and energy, matter and energy exist because of the big bang, etc...) [none of which is neccesarily true, just for the sake of emphasis] anyway, since everything which exists has a cause, there must be a first cause which does not exist inside the physical universe, therefore God.
In any case, this entire debate has gone completely off what the originator wanted I think. He already believed in the science. He wanted to see someone argue for intelligent design, not whether or not mankind should really be humankind or whether the bible is infallible, he merely wanted an argument which might explain to him why others see the world in a different way.

You've already said that, 10 pages ago.

Hey, um, Scouserlande, are you listening to music as you type?

Hey, um, Scouserlande, are you listening to music as you type?
Not at the moment why?

Just 'cause. I've asked everyone I debate with, and it seems as though I'm the only one who does.

I am listening to that organ music piece, you know, the one from Phantom of the Opera? It's 10 minutes long, and very enjoyable.

Let us start: the Big Bang theory states that the universe was made out of an explosion of energy. If matter can turn into energy, then energy can into matter. That makes sense. The universe continues to expand, and the temperatures finally get cold enough for small atoms to form, like hydrogen and helium. However, by the time it was cold enough for larger atoms, like carbon, or even iron, to form, all the matter had already been used up.
Here lies one problem: if all that existed at that time was hydrogen and helium, where do we get more complicated atoms, like uranium from? Or even, if that's all that existed, where is all the carbon and oxygen, the stuff that some evolutionists claim we were made out of piles of, from?
Stellar nucleosynthesis.

You know what makes stars shine? It's a process called fusion, whereby light elements (such as hydrogen) are fused into heavier elements. Our sun for instance, is now burning hydrogen and turning it into helium. When it runs out of hydrogen, it will expand, becoming a red giant and start to burn helium, creating carbon and oxygen. Now our sun isn't big enough to get past that point, but a bigger star can. They can continue this process all the way up until iron, and after there's enough iron in the core, the star dies, going nova, at which point there are protons and neutrons flying everywhere, they hit the iron atoms or other heavy-ish atoms and fuse further to form heavier elements still.

Now, this is a highly simplistic explanation, but I think it does the trick.

Apparently, all that matter is from the subsequent stars being formed, and then going supernova (as supernovae create heaver matter, like gold and stuff), however, the current estimated age of the universe (according to the big bang theory) would only be enough for about two star lives, and all the stars in the universe going supernovae would not result in enough heavy matter to make a single solar system of earth-like planets, let alone the universe of them that astronomers are in fervent search for. There lies one problem.
Except that the first generation stars are theorized to have been much bigger than even the biggest stars now and would have started with 0 metals. Big stars live extremely short lives. Hell, there are some red dwarves that are still on the main sequence which lack any metals, they would be from the first star formations... and they're still alive because they preform fusion at a very slow rate.

Another problem: according to the laws of science following E=MC^2, when matter is made out of energy, then both antimatter, normal matter with an opposite charge, and normal matter are made. However, since they are created together, and antimatter reactions are a result of antimatter coming in close contact with normal matter, then, by rights, there should be no matter in the unverse, only energy, because the universe would have continued to expand until the energy was too spread out to be in large enough amounts in one place so as to make matter, and if, in some freak accident places, it was, then it would be a cycle of antimatter-normal matter creation and antimatter-normal matter reactions, that only ended until the energy in that place was spread out enough to stop making matter.
Actually, there is a slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter. For every million antimatter particles formed out of pair creation, there are one million and one matter particles formed out of pair creation.

Politely ignoring those two huge problems, cosmologists assert that, because they predicted that the universe would have a background temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, and they discovered a temperature of 2.7 degrees, they are absolutely right. One cosmologist compared this as being akin to "Predicting a 50 foot flying saucer would land on the White House lawn, and a 27 foot one actually does." However, this, as we should all know, is not the case, and there is a simple explanation for this piece of evidence, apart from the Big Bang, anyway.
They missed the mark by 2 times as much temperature, although we are talking in terms of almost no temperature, even .00001 degree diferrence (maybe a bit of hyperbole), all around the universe, can make a revolutionary difference in the scientific community. As the universe is more than 14 billion light years wide. That, even if it is a flat and not a round universe, can result in quite a large area to heat up with remnant heat.
The simple explanation for background temperature that is probably longed for, is the stars. Trillions of huge, swirling and moving galaxies, each holding at least millions of mind-bogglingly enormous, superheated balls of fire burning for even a few thousand years (as according to the Creation timeline) could easily create the temperature that we see today.
Not true, you say, because of the size of the universe, it would take longer for even one degree to be formed. We, however, live in a tiny galaxy, with more than 20,000,000,000 stars all packed together in a peaceful-looking, albiet extremely beautiful, organization of stars slowly rotating around a central point. With all these stars packed together, each one turning millions of tons of itself into enormous amounts of heat every second, could result in the temperature we see today.
However, you may create a rebuttal, saying that we sense the temperature of the universe, not our galaxy alone. That is not true; we assume that the temperature we gather from our satellites is the same teperature of the whole universe, but, in reality, we are guarded from the temperature of the universe by the garunteed much hotter temperature of our own galaxy which holds its heat of all those billions of stars like a thermos full of hot soup.]
Well, now you've confused the astrophysicist. I don't get the feeling you know what you're talking about. Because, really, what you are proposing is silly.

For one thing, it simply doesn't make sense.
For another, it completely ignores that if the universe is 6000 years old, why is it we can see things with our telescopes that are 13 billion light years away?

Those are just some of the arguments I have against the leading scientific theory, so, if that one is wrong, what is the other option, steady-state theory? I don't think so. The Great Green Arklesiezure (have you read Douglas Adams?)? Probably not. It seems like Creation is one of the few left.
Steady state has its proponents. And creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination.

Stellar nucleosynthesis.

You know what makes stars shine? It's a process called fusion, whereby light elements (such as hydrogen) are fused into heavier elements. Our sun for instance, is now burning hydrogen and turning it into helium. When it runs out of hydrogen, it will expand, becoming a red giant and start to burn helium, creating carbon and oxygen. Now our sun isn't big enough to get past that point, but a bigger star can. They can continue this process all the way up until iron, and after there's enough iron in the core, the star dies, going nova, at which point there are protons and neutrons flying everywhere, they hit the iron atoms or other heavy-ish atoms and fuse further to form heavier elements still.

Now, this is a highly simplistic explanation, but I think it does the trick.


Except that the first generation stars are theorized to have been much bigger than even the biggest stars now and would have started with 0 metals. Big stars live extremely short lives. Hell, there are some red dwarves that are still on the main sequence which lack any metals, they would be from the first star formations... and they're still alive because they preform fusion at a very slow rate.


Actually, there is a slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter. For every million antimatter particles formed out of pair creation, there are one million and one matter particles formed out of pair creation.

__________________________________________________________________

Well, now you've confused the astrophysicist. I don't get the feeling you know what you're talking about. Because, really, what you are proposing is silly.

For one thing, it simply doesn't make sense.
For another, it completely ignores that if the universe is 6000 years old, why is it we can see things with our telescopes that are 13 billion light years away?


Steady state has its proponents. And creationism is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination.

Ha ha! The first part that I separated with the line was ingenious. I knew SOMEONE would have realized my error. The second part, where "I confused the astrophysicist" (Really? You're an astrophysicist? Cool, I'm honored!) is directly from a book I read abbout quantum physics, combined with logic and a bit of math.

Oh yes, and I'm currently attatching a file to my next post, it's the song I'm listening to.

The attatchment failed. Too large a file, I think.

oh, and, by the by, your second paragraph of the 2nd part: For one thing, it simply doesn't make sense.
For another, it completely ignores that if the universe is 6000 years old, why is it we can see things with our telescopes that are 13 billion light years away?

God made the universe mature, (I love explaining this to people, because it's so simple, but so ingenious) as in, he made the universe so that objects would appear to be old: light would have already reached us, trees would already have been grown, animals were already aged, and so on and so forth. I mean, it would be quite a boring sky for His beloved Creation if it was all black, and we had to wait thousands, even billions of years to see the beauty of the sky.

This and the Human computer thread got me thinking one night... ok it was last night. The thread about the human body being a computer made me think about some similarities between us and the computer/technologies of today.

Let’s start with the power supply...
Computers & Robotics need electricity... without it, performance... well there is none.

Humans need food, water and oxygen to produce the 'bioelectric' energy needed to function properly... deny any of these and performance starts to go down.

Internal workings.
CPU:
Computers & Robotics have a processor that calculates and regulates the information given to the CPU.

Humans have brains... it's our CPU... our processor so to speak.

Circuitry:
Computers & Robotics wires, cables and integrated circuits are everywhere in the pc.

Humans have the Nervous system, a complex series of ‘wires’ that relay information to our CPU (Brain)

Cooling System:
Computers & Robotics have fans inside… some larger systems use water or temperature controlled Air Units. Should the system get to Hot, performance goes down.

Humans have sweat and our Respiratory systems… these are used to regulate heat keeping us in operational temperatures.

Input Devices.
Computers & Robotics Floppy Drives, Keyboards, Microphones, touch pads/screens, optical cameras/scanners…

Humans Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell… Our Input Devices….

Memory
Computers & Robotics depends on how much we install.

Humans depends on how much we train ours…

Storage devices.
Computers & Robotics Hard drive, and external storage methods such as Diskettes, CD, Tapes, punch cards…

Humans our brain, and external Storage methods such as Paper and writing implement, Tapes, CD, Computers…

Output Devices
Computers & Robotics Monitors, Printers, Speakers and Disks (CD and otherwise.)

Humans Speech, writing, motions…

Protection
Computers & Robotics MacAfee… Norton’s…

Humans Immune system…

Structure
Computers & Robotics have their cases, their superstructure…

Humans have bones and skin.

Articulation.
Computers & Robotics joints and servos…

Humans muscles and Joints.

Programming
Computers & Robotics what ever the programmer puts in.

Humans school anyone?

Form
Computers & Robotics function biased form. Over the centuries, we design computers and Robots to perform specific duties… different ‘versions’ are being worked on each day. Robots designed to paint cars cannot do the same as robots designed for healthcare or for under sea exploration. Computers are getting faster and smaller with each new ‘generation’… also man is constantly trying to build Robots in a humanoid form. But first starting with animal/insect like bodies and are slowly working their way up the ladder.

Humans and other life on this planet are also function oriented. People who live in higher climates are physically different than people who live in valleys… for instance, their lung capacity is different. Each Generation of ‘Humans’ are living longer. Evolution can be said to be earlier versions of the current form. As each form fails in its trial… it becomes obsolete… or extinct. And in the case of Christians… are we not ‘made’ in God’s Image? For some of the others, Man is the highest form one can achieve on earth.

Reasoning.
Computers & Robotics every year we hear more and more of A.I. becoming reality. Video Games and Movies utilize computers that react in a more ‘human’ like method. Programmers are programming Robots to react to their environment… adapt and ‘learn’ through outside stimulus… Wi-Fi/remote allows the exchange of information without the need for cables… and each new ‘program’ teaches the Robot something new.

Humans *whistles*

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Man… could it not be said that each ‘version’ of man is a bench mark in the creation of the ultimate form of Man? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

oh, and, by the by, your second paragraph of the 2nd part:

God made the universe mature, (I love explaining this to people, because it's so simple, but so ingenious) as in, he made the universe so that objects would appear to be old: light would have already reached us, trees would already have been grown, animals were already aged, and so on and so forth. I mean, it would be quite a boring sky for His beloved Creation if it was all black, and we had to wait thousands, even billions of years to see the beauty of the sky.

Why just to trick us, and give astronomers and most the scientific community a job to do? That is ultimately psedo sceince?
If thats god's logic, he dosent deserve to be god.

Politely ignoring those two huge problems, cosmologists assert that, because they predicted that the universe would have a background temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, and they discovered a temperature of 2.7 degrees, they are absolutely right. One cosmologist compared this as being akin to "Predicting a 50 foot flying saucer would land on the White House lawn, and a 27 foot one actually does." However, this, as we should all know, is not the case, and there is a simple explanation for this piece of evidence, apart from the Big Bang, anyway.
They missed the mark by 2 times as much temperature, although we are talking in terms of almost no temperature, even .00001 degree diferrence (maybe a bit of hyperbole), all around the universe, can make a revolutionary difference in the scientific community. As the universe is more than 14 billion light years wide. That, even if it is a flat and not a round universe, can result in quite a large area to heat up with remnant heat.
The simple explanation for background temperature that is probably longed for, is the stars. Trillions of huge, swirling and moving galaxies, each holding at least millions of mind-bogglingly enormous, superheated balls of fire burning for even a few thousand years (as according to the Creation timeline) could easily create the temperature that we see today.
Not true, you say, because of the size of the universe, it would take longer for even one degree to be formed. We, however, live in a tiny galaxy, with more than 20,000,000,000 stars all packed together in a peaceful-looking, albiet extremely beautiful, organization of stars slowly rotating around a central point. With all these stars packed together, each one turning millions of tons of itself into enormous amounts of heat every second, could result in the temperature we see today.
However, you may create a rebuttal, saying that we sense the temperature of the universe, not our galaxy alone. That is not true; we assume that the temperature we gather from our satellites is the same teperature of the whole universe, but, in reality, we are guarded from the temperature of the universe by the garunteed much hotter temperature of our own galaxy which holds its heat of all those billions of stars like a thermos full of hot soup.]
This is from a quantum mechanics book?

I somehow doubt this, very much.

For one thing, what the hell kind of crappy QM book invokes a deity and literal biblical timelines. For another, it shows a lack of understanding of what CMB radiation is in the first place. It also appears to be ignorant of the method of measurements of CMB radiation.

Humans *whistles*

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Man… could it not be said that each ‘version’ of man is a bench mark in the creation of the ultimate form of Man? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?[/QUOTE]

perhaps it is that man uses chance as a blueprint of which to coppy

...Summary: Extremely long, but entertaining post... I think it had to do with robots...

"And so man made robots in his own image, in his likeness he created them, computers and robots he made them."

oh, and, by the by, your second paragraph of the 2nd part:

God made the universe mature, (I love explaining this to people, because it's so simple, but so ingenious) as in, he made the universe so that objects would appear to be old: light would have already reached us, trees would already have been grown, animals were already aged, and so on and so forth. I mean, it would be quite a boring sky for His beloved Creation if it was all black, and we had to wait thousands, even billions of years to see the beauty of the sky.
This is only marginally better than "Satan is tricking us to lead us away from god." and really, if this is the best you can come up with, then wow. I don't think it's worth it to argue with you. If I want to deal with this crap, I'll go to christianity.com.

Yes, mankind builds robots to do our dirtier work. We build them off of our own physiology because our work is best done by those like us. Because our bodies are the most adaptable and best suited for any jobs.

And yet the human brain is complex and indeterminate. It's beautiful. No computer can write forty symphonies in a 29-year lifetime, no computer can write hundreds of plays, no computer even has the capacity to question it own existence. Never have we been able to make one that can, either.

The computer that says, "I think, therefore I am." Would be the best designed, the most intelligent computer, and an awwesoome revolution in the field of robotics and computer sciences.

"And so man made robots in his own image, in his likeness he created them, computers and robots he made them."
Ahhh... but the Robotic Evolutionists will deny the exsistance of a "higher" being! Saying that the Modern Robot evolved from the X Box. :D

This is from a quantum mechanics book?

I somehow doubt this, very much.

For one thing, what the hell kind of crappy QM book invokes a deity and literal biblical timelines. For another, it shows a lack of understanding of what CMB radiation is in the first place. It also appears to be ignorant of the method of measurements of CMB radiation.

Actually, the book made no mention of God, I am taking the SCIENCE from the book and fitting it into God, like I said I would. it was a very informative book, maybe you should point the finger of ignorance at me, a I still have quite a bit to learn about what I have a passion for. I mean, I'm only 14!

Yes, mankind builds robots to do our dirtier work. We build them off of our own physiology because our work is best done by those like us. Because our bodies are the most adaptable and best suited for any jobs.

And yet the human brain is complex and indeterminate. It's beautiful. No computer can write forty symphonies in a 29-year lifetime, no computer can write hundreds of plays, no computer even has the capacity to question it own existence. Never have we been able to make one that can, either.

The computer that says, "I think, therefore I am." Would be the best designed, the most intelligent computer, and an awwesoome revolution in the field of robotics and computer sciences.But what would happen if you give computers and Robotics the same number of years man had to 'evolve?' keeping (of course) to the pace that Computers and Robotics are evolving today.

Ahhh... but the Robotic Evolutionists will deny the exsistance of a "higher" being! Saying that the Modern Robot evolved from the X Box. :D
Nay, it evolved from the Super Nintendo!

But what would happen if you give computers and Robotics the same number of years man had to 'evolve?' keeping (of course) to the pace that Computers and Robotics are evolving today.

It is us that causes the "evolution," if you will, of computer and robotic sciences, without us, they would not even be alble to flick their own power switch on.

perhaps it is that man uses chance as a blueprint of which to coppyor reverse-engineer's a previous and more advance design?

Ahhh... but the Robotic Evolutionists will deny the exsistance of a "higher" being! Saying that the Modern Robot evolved from the X Box. :D

Although I am assuming that this is meant to be a joke, it is much like what we say today, but we use a bunch of long words and complicated sentances to 'back it up.' Or at least they say they are 'backing it up.'

Actually, the book made no mention of God, I am taking the SCIENCE from the book and fitting it into God, like I said I would. it was a very informative book, maybe you should point the finger of ignorance at me, a I still have quite a bit to learn about what I have a passion for. I mean, I'm only 14!
Well, I don't think you understood the book. What level was the book intended for? Was it a book for the layman or for a student of science or perhaps well, a scientist in general..?

I guarantee that if you go on to study physics... even a second year course in university then you would gain some understanding of what's wrong with your interpretation.

Sooooooo... I see where this is going..........., so I am going to ask you your opinion, you have one of four choices:

A) Milk Chocolate

B) Dark Chocolate

C) White Chocolate

D) No Chocolate

Sooooooo... I see where this is going..........., so I am going to ask you your opinion, you have one of four choices:

A) Milk Chocolate

B) Dark Chocolate

C) White Chocolate

D) No Chocolate


milk :)

Off topic: I just had to say that i find the tittle very amusing because of the words "read my lengthy rant and please reply".

It is us that causes the "evolution," if you will, of computer and robotic sciences, without us, they would not even be alble to flick their own power switch on.Just because we haven't created a computer/robot that can build another computer/robot that can be self programming doesn't mean it God couldn't.

Although I am assuming that this is meant to be a joke, it is much like what we say today, but we use a bunch of long words and complicated sentances to 'back it up.' Or at least they say they are 'backing it up.'well... yeah it was a joke... but think about it...

we are close to robot cars being on the road... wouldn't that in the minds of advance Robots seem like Dinosaurs? Big, Lumbering, not fuel efficent... and small computational capacity.

hehehe... Thinking about a comic I once saw... two archologists are leaving Disney Land and one turns to the other and says...
"realize that thousands of years from now, they'll assume we worshipped giant Mice"

Sooooooo... I see where this is going..........., so I am going to ask you your opinion, you have one of four choices:

A) Milk Chocolate

B) Dark Chocolate

C) White Chocolate

D) No Chocolate*Points finger at Vespucii* Raceist! :eek:

depends on my mood... but I kinda favor the Dark Chocolate myself... :D

Well, I don't think you understood the book. What level was the book intended for? Was it a book for the layman or for a student of science or perhaps well, a scientist in general..?

I guarantee that if you go on to study physics... even a second year course in university then you would gain some understanding of what's wrong with your interpretation.

Not so much the layman, nor the scientist, more the knowledgable in science, and those who want to learn more... Like me!

But I think that I wrote my post down wrong, and, since I returned the book to the library yesterday, I guess I don't have that source anymore. Just recalling from memory.

Yes, the book claimed that the background radiation was predicted to be 5 degrees Kelvin, it also supported the Big Bang. I, like I said before, push science back to the boundries set for it by God, and then fit it into Scripture, the results are marvelous. An intelligent creator could use four possible nucleotides and create trillions, even more, possible combinations, making every species on the planet. An intelligent creator could make a beautiful universe, full of brightness, full of power, full of majestic movement and grace.
An intelligent creator could make atoms, what was assumed to be the smallest matter, out of even smaller particles, made out of even smaller particles, which, are, in the end, over a dozen dimensions, made merely out of energy. An intelligent Creator could make thousands of species of animals, and choose one, only one, not the strongest, nor the fastest, nor even the most balanced on its feet, to have the thought capacity akin to His own. An intelligent Creator could cause perfect order in everything, down from the electrons orbiting their atoms at their steady rate, to the complex and yet amazing replication of DNA strands, to the awesome, steady, an doubtlessly complex creation of life in the enclosed space of a women's womb, to the minds of mankind themselves, each striving to reach some sense of peace, to the orbits of the planets, steadily and consistently moving around their one sun, held in place by a single, amazing force. Only an intelligent creator could make such order, from the atoms to the planets, to the huge stars, each burning for a possibly billions of years, creating the eat needed to give life to our little planet, to the grand, majesic, slow movements of galaxies, held in place by some invisible force, to the breathtaking structures of the grand universe itself, mind-bogglingly huge, with billions, and billions of galaxies, each an infinity away, but so bright that we can see them from our tiny planet, and they are beautiful.
Only an intelligent Creator could make such an awesome universe that we all live in and love.

Off topic: I just had to say that i find the tittle very amusing because of the words "read my lengthy rant and please reply".
Don't worry, you be not as off topic as my chocolate poll.

*Points finger at Vespucii* Raceist! :eek:

depends on my mood... but I kinda favor the Dark Chocolate myself... :D
I like dark chocolate, but every once in a while, I think that you need a break from the caffine and take some milk chocolate, maybe a Hershey's bar? White chocolate is disgusting.

well... yeah it was a joke... but think about it...

we are close to robot cars being on the road... wouldn't that in the minds of advance Robots seem like Dinosaurs? Big, Lumbering, not fuel efficent... and small computational capacity.

hehehe... Thinking about a comic I once saw... two archologists are leaving Disney Land and one turns to the other and says...
"realize that thousands of years from now, they'll assume we worshipped giant Mice"
HA HA HA!!! THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!
Giant mice... ha... *sniff.* Sorry. Ha.

I think that dinosaurs are a cool notion. I'm writing a short story involving dragons for my CW assignment.

HA HA HA!!! THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!
Giant mice... ha... *sniff.* Sorry. Ha.

I think that dinosaurs are a cool notion. I'm writing a short story involving dragons for my CW assignment.

dragons?..cool..i am doing fantasy type story things for my CW

Not so much the layman, nor the scientist, more the knowledgable in science, and those who want to learn more... Like me!

But I think that I wrote my post down wrong, and, since I returned the book to the library yesterday, I guess I don't have that source anymore. Just recalling from memory.


I say the layman!

If it isn't for the scientist, it's for the layman ...

dragons?..cool..i am doing fantasy type story things for my CW

It's a reality fiction thing. Two guys, one works at a parachuting class and the other is a taxi cab driver. They get caught up in an evil plot (here's the cliche) to take over the world, headed by a guy named Lucius... I forgot his last name, lemme get the paper. However, when they are accidentally taken to the bad guys' island, they are attacked, and a huge dragon comes to save them, then the first guy, Rick, becomes friends with the dragon.

Then the planned plot is that they save the world.

I would attatch it, but apparently its an invalid file type.

Its a .doc file, can you solve my problem please?

Never mind, I'll just paste it here
=Story
Creative Writing: Short Story

Cars sped by as I made a quick run across the crossway, carrying a small bag with some Cokes and chips in it that I got from the store. I was taking the long way back home; I knew that the other way took a beeline through the territory of a gang I probably didn’t want to get mixed up with.
I would have never known that, in just a day, I would have found myself involved in some of the craziest things I had ever experienced in my life, probably anyone else’s. Crazy adventures and insane circumstances that most people have only read about in fiction.
Maybe, before I start my story, I should tell you my name, huh? I am Richard McCarter; my friends just call me Rick. I work a small job in a parachuting class. Not a teaching job there, but I have jumped off several planes in my career. Actually, quite a few: I’m usually the guy who records the crazy stunts that people do while parachuting. Often the videos are sold back to them, for memories… or something like that.
I enjoy what I do, of course, and I just love to do the more extreme things like that: mountain climbing, bungee jumping, and the like. The thing is, parachuting was one of the few that paid, so I took that.
I live in an apartment with my friend, Drew, Andrew O’Brien. He’s a taxi cab driver, so we usually split the price of the apartment. He, when he’s not working, is usually practicing hacking into something, from door locks to computers. It’s weird: no matter what I do to my computer, he breaks into it.
It doesn’t quite matter, it’s not like he actually does anything to it but break in. He likes that sort of stuff. I, myself, am into dragons. Yes, weird, I know, considering so few are left in the world, and I’ve never actually seen one, but I just like to learn about them for some reason, I don’t really know why.
I opened the apartment door, and found, again, Drew breaking into his safe on the table. Earlier this morning he asked me to change the code on it, and this was obviously why.
By the time I closed the door, he had the safe wide open, revealing some money, a book, and keys.
“How long you been at that?” I asked him, putting the food down on the kitchen counter.
He checked his stopwatch, smiled, and said, “Thirty-eight seconds, new record for me.” Then he shut the safe and heaved it back onto the top of the shelves. They creaked under the new weight, but kept standing, as they always have.
He switched on his computer. It was a lot faster and more powerful than my piece of junk, but it cost him quite a bit of money, and he still hasn’t paid me back for what he had to borrow.
I took a can of Coke from the bag, jumped onto the couch and, after an amount of fishing around for the remote, and switched the TV, which was showing the news on mute, to Comedy Central. Trigger Happy TV. I laughed at what the guy on the show was doing and took a gulp of soda.
I planned to get comfortable, after all, I was on my break, and so was Drew. So, I figured, why not be lazy for a week?
Then Drew spoke up, “Hey, check this out, there’s a theme park, just thirty miles away, that’s got a good deal on tickets for the week,” he turned to me and continued, “why don’t we go?”
If I had known what would have followed from me going to the theme park, I’m not sure what my decision would have been. Yes, maybe, for the adventure? Or a solid, NO! Simply because it was, well, what it was. It was different, insane. But, of course, I knew nothing of my coming journey, so, like any other bored guy would do, I said yes.
* * * * *
A couple hours later, we were eating some pizza and drinking more Coke. We had just finished up something like a dozen roller coasters, and were still soaked from five water rides.
The sun was beginning to get a bit low. In three hours, the park would close. But that didn’t matter; we still had plenty of time for all the rides… again.
There was a stunt show about to start right outside the restaurant, and I managed to argue Drew into going, so, after finishing up my Coke, I pulled Drew out the doors and towards the stadium.
The park was confusingly set out, and I had needed to check my map every five minutes just to figure out where the next roller coaster was. Equally confusing was the layout of the stadium, so I just guessed which one was the right walkway, and took a promising ramp down slightly below ground level to an unlocked door.
We went down a winding hallway that slowly made its way up and up and up, until we found ourselves outside, next to a huge plane, and a cement walkway that continued from our hallway, out the door, and around the airplane till it finally reached another door.
I didn’t see or hear the stadium anymore, but my mind didn’t care about that. I just appreciated how real the plane looked, despite the fact that it was obviously an attraction for those waiting in line.
Seeing that there was nobody around, I was stupid enough to leave the cement walkway and get inside the back of the plane, which was open.
“Come on Drew, let’s check this thing out; it looks almost real,” I called, waving him in my direction.
But he still stood on the sidewalk, a look of suspicion on his face.
“Come on, man!” I yelled again.
“I don’t think it’s right,” he hollered back.
So, as understanding as I was, I instantly knew what he was talking about, jumped out of the plane, went to his side, and pushed him in, saying, “Come on, who’s gonna catch us?”
Looking back, I think that I didn’t know what he was talking about.
He still stood there, except that now he was in the plane, and looking around with a concerned look.
Then the hatch closed, we reacted too slow to get out before it was all the way shut, and we were bathed in total darkness for a second, until overhead lights switched on.
Now, of course, seeing as we were in a theme park, I was totally unconcerned, “Maybe it’s just some sort of special effect, it’ll open back up soon,” I said, still with that stupid happiness in my voice that you could only get from being in a theme park.
Drew, however, was very worried by now, and began to freak out, “Why did the door close? How are we gonna get out of here? What’s gonna happen now?” His voice became increasingly frantic as he spoke.
I was still calm, unbelievably, and said, “Dude, calm down: nothing is going to happen.”
That was when the plane whirred into life, jerked as it began to move, and we tripped, slammed into the steel floor, and were immediately knocked unconscious.
* * * * *
I flew over the cliffs, surrounded by other members of my clan. We were about ready to go hunting for the largest animals we could find, elephants, cows, and so on.
There were very few dragons like me left, and, as far as I know, the clan I’m in, a mere dozen or so, is one of the only ones left in the world; I’ve checked most of it.
We get along reasonably well with humans, but most of us usually don’t associate with them. Often, however, I do. I somehow know that what is going on, and which side is the ‘good’ side of it. So I frequently find myself involved in human affairs.
Oh yes, my name is Aerakai, I am a dragon, part of the clan in the southern part of the Sierra Mountains.
My hunting grounds would be west. I planned to travel across the short stretch of land and towards the Pacific, maybe even over it if necessary, to find some animals to bring back to the storage cave.
Screeches echoed across the mountains as all of us simultaneously let out a loud cry and headed in our separate directions. The hunt began.
* * * * *
When I woke up, a few minutes before Drew, the first thing I noticed was that the airplane was no longer humming, and I could no longer feel the throbbing of the steel floor beneath me.
I groaned and got to my feet. There was a huge pain in the back of my head, I felt the area where the pain was and my hand came away with blood on the fingertips.
Suddenly, I heard voices outside the plane, muffled by the steel fuselage. I dragged Drew behind a box and crouched behind it myself, then the door opened and two men, in dark blue uniforms with a golden symbol on the shoulder, walked in and continued some sort of conversation about their jobs.
“…no, really, I mean, I know we have low-ranking jobs here, but it doesn’t make sense to me that, if we are such an important piece of the overall plan, we deserve a bit more than minimum wage.”
The one who was speaking stopped by the box I was behind, picked a briefcase off the top of it, and followed the other one out the plane as he began talking.
“Well, this isn’t exactly an operation under the United States government. So we’re actually lucky that we get any money doing this at all.”
Finally, as they walked out of earshot with the briefcase, Drew started to wake up.
“But our skills are required here, this ain’t no McDonald’s: they need our…” their voices faded until they were inaudible.
“What happened?”
“I’m not sure,” I answered, “I think that the plane flew us to a foreign place where some sort of secret group is plotting something.”
“Well, how do we get out of here?”
“I don’t even know where we are, so I wouldn’t know.”
“Maybe we could figure this out by leaving the plane first.”
And so, we left the back of the airplane, and found ourselves inside a hangar, a large, plain metal dome with nothing in it except the plane we just left.
Carefully, we walked out the main entrance and small plain surrounded by small cliffs and littered with palm trees. There were some small warehouse-like buildings and one, huge tower that seemed to defy the laws of physics. Three quarters of the way up, the glass building twisted like some piece of rubber and then bended downwards, as if in direct defiance to the laws of gravity.
We started across the airstrip that we were on and began walking toward the glass tower, which would have looked in place back in New York, but didn’t seem right in this desert-like place, and the unnaturally blue sky.
Then, out of one of the warehouses, a column of people in the same uniforms we saw earlier began marching straight to the tower as well. Then, one of them spotted us, and yelled something.
It was the last thing I wanted to see at the moment, as the whole group, at least twenty or thirty people, turned around to meet us, drew weapons, and began running.
Yeah, that would otherwise have been the end of us, and I would not be writing this story to you right now, if a huge, red dragon with a long, scaly tail and huge wings landed ten feet in front of the approaching soldiers.
The whole troop of them were shocked, a number collapsed. I, myself, was in awe. It was a dragon, the creatures I had read about. And one of them was actually here! In front of me! Defending me from my attackers! It was amazing.
The huge creature did not breathe fire, like they would in many stories, but roared at the people in the uniforms, charged at them, and swapped a few away like flies with its huge tail.
Bullets from their guns made a metallic noise as they hit the dragon, but they merely embedded themselves in its scales and they fell off as soon as they were hit. Soon, all of the people were knocked unconscious, sprawled across the sandy ground.
Then the dragon turned to face us and, to my greatest surprise, said in a deep, sepulchral voice, “Quick, get on my back!”
I was rooted to the spot in astonishment, but Drew tugged at me and ran towards the dragon, who had kneeled down so we could get on.
“Come on, let’s go!”
We clambered onto the awesome creature, it said “Stay in front of my wings,” ran a few steps in the opposite direction of the recovering soldiers, and took off.
The jerk of the dragon jumping off the ground and into the air pushed me back, and Drew almost fell off, but we managed to stay on, and the huge wings, which must have been at least twenty feet long each, beat at the air as we gained altitude.
The people on the ground, and even the huge tower, shrank rapidly as we gained the safety of the skies. Then we entered a cloud for a few seconds; it was wet and cold, and then we were above the cloud tops, safe, for now.
* * * * *
After flying over California, I came upon a small island, which I checked to watch for animals. However, I felt that something was wrong there.
I checked it out, and, after carefully evading a cargo plane going down, I eventually saw two humans, with confused looks on them, walk out of the hangar. They were clearly lost and confused. However, the next party, a troop of people with dark uniforms definitely had bad intentions toward the first two I had seen.
I guess I had to interfere, again. This was probably going to get me in trouble with the clan, but to save lives, I would do it.
* * * * *
“So,” I said, feeling like a total idiot, “um… you’re a dragon.”
He laughed a deep laugh, which shook his whole body and made me rock back and forth.
“Yes, I guess I am.”
We were flying in circles around the island, hundreds of feet above it.
“Um,” I muttered sheepishly, “my name’s Rick, Rick McCarter.”
“Drew,” waved Drew from behind me.
“I am Aerakai,” responded the dragon.
“What were you doing down there?” it… he, continued.
“I don’t know,” Drew responded, “we got here on accident.”
“The people who attacked you are planning something,” stated Aerakai, “something bad, which would probably result in death.”
“What? How do you know?” I asked.
“It is a feeling, a sixth sense, if you will.”
I felt a need to do something about this, whatever they were doing; it wouldn’t be good, if the dragon’s feelings were right, but I was at a loss as to what we would do.
“What would we do?” Drew asked, peering over my shoulder at the dragon’s horned head.
“I suggest you go down there and figure it out,” Aerakai responded, “I’ll drop you off behind the building, and I will stay and watch out for you, when you are in trouble, come out of the building and call for me, I will find you and help you.”
We were turning back towards the island, we were on the other side of the cliffs as the building was, and, when Aerakai finally landed, it was on the cliff behind the building. As he settled and let us off his back, his huge wings folded neatly to his side.
“There is a gentle slope down to the valley floor about twenty feet to your right, I will remain here until you need me,” Aerakai gestured with his claw towards the back of the building, which was much less impressive than the front, “there is a back door, it has no lock. Find and steal a uniform, so you’ll blend in. Look for documents or hints telling of an overall plan.”
So, we took the slope downward, a bit of slipping and sliding, and landed almost right behind the building. As Aerakai said, the back door was unlocked, and we made our way in.
There was a locker room here, astoundingly. We could not have been so lucky. Of course, Drew took a grand total of ten seconds to break into one. Hanging off a hook inside it was a single uniform, which I took. It was a bit oversized, but with the right looks, I could appear just like one of those people who work here.
Drew had to break into three more lockers until he found one with a uniform inside it. But I don’t quite think he minded, actually, he seemed to enjoy it.
Anyway, we left the locker room fully dressed in those strange dark blue uniforms. Even for appearance, we had guns off the gun rack, which was also in the locker room, in holsters on our belts.
For the next hour or so, we wandered up and down the tower and searched practically every room and floor for something, anything that would tell us of their plans.
Eventually, we found something. A locked working space on the fourth floor (Drew picked the lock so we could get in), held computers, each in its own little cubicle. You know, like the ones that pencil-pushers work in? According to Drew, they were all “hardwired to the same system,” or something like that. Basically, all the computers could have told us the exact same stuff.
So, we picked a random computer, and turned it on. It took Drew about ten seconds to hack in past the opening password and another twenty to find the “database with the documents we’ve been looking for.”
There was another password here. According to Drew, it was almost impossible to get past. Then, just as I thought that we should have given up and tried somewhere else, he pulled a tiny wiry electronic thing out of his pocket and plugged it into the front of the computer, then tried again.
This time, something weird happened: numbers flashed by the screen really fast as the computer itself seemed to be breaking into the “database.”
Then it opened, there were about ten files inside the “database,” Things like ‘finances,’ ‘worker list,’ ‘camera view,’ ‘mission,’ ‘inventory,’ and the like.
“There,” I said, pointing at the screen, “Try the ‘mission’ one.”
“I never would have thought of that,” responded Drew, rolling his eyes.
I didn’t like it when Drew was sarcastic like that, because he wasn’t good at his sarcastic tone, and it sounded like he was being honest.
He opened the file and words appeared on the screen.
“Can you print it?” I asked Drew.
“Yup,” he pressed a few buttons, and a printer at the far side of the room hummed into life and papers began to spew out of it.
When I reached it, it was done with its job, so I grabbed the papers and said to Drew, “Let’s get out of here.”
So we hurried out of the computer room, locking the door behind us. But, just my luck, somebody, probably with a higher rank than the guy whose uniform I stole, was walking past as we rushed out into the hallway, and we collided into him.
He got up, rubbed at the back of his head, and then noticed us, more specifically, me; “Hey! That’s my uniform! Where’d you get that?!”
Okay, maybe not a higher rank after all.
“Um… I, uh… sir, we… um………” I stammered, looking for some sort of lie that I could come up with. There was none.
“RUN!” I shouted at Drew, so we ran for our lives.
The man was knocked down again, and, as he tried again to get up, I looked back and saw him getting out a walkie-talkie. That was not good.
We burst open the stair door and started heading down. When we reached the second floor, we heard the door open on the first floor and a large group of men began coming up the stairs after us, so we left the staircase in hope of finding refuge on the second floor.
Of course, more people were coming down the hallway to my left, and down the hallway straight in front of me. It didn’t make sense, why would they send so many people after us?
I managed to get the papers folded and in my pocket before they saw them, but we were captured nonetheless, and dragged downstairs. Then they took us outside and began to take us toward one of the warehouses I saw earlier.
Then I realized something. I began to struggle, tore my arms free of the people holding them, put both fingers to my mouth, and let out the loudest and longest whistle I could muster.
One of the people grabbed my arms again and roughly shoved and held them behind me. “What do you think you’re…”
A loud screech rent the air, one that I had not heard from any earthly animal, except the dragon. Then, Aerakai soared over the cliffs, and flew straight for us.
Most of the soldiers escorting us became scared and ran for the safety of the tower, including those who had held us immobile. A few brave ones dropped to their knees and drew assault rifles; it was going to be the last mistake they ever made.
As we ran way from the group, just before the soldiers opened fire, a huge ball of flame exploded from Aerakai’s mouth, streaming in a bright torrent towards the terrified soldiers.
A few more seconds of flame and smoke, and, once it cleared, we saw that only almost nothing remained of the attacking soldiers, and the ones who had ran away were already in the building. The guns had melted from their hands and all of the flesh was burned away. The only thing left were bones and armor, which was partially melted anyway.
This time, Drew was rooted to the spot, with a look of appalled horror on his face. I, however, was not so petrified, but rather surprised that Aerakai could actually breathe fire. I knew that dragons could do it, but I had never, ever seen it, either in pictures or in real life.
As if ignoring our shocked looks, Aerakai ambled over to us, with alarms going off and the ground still flaming, but nobody around, for the moment, he knelt down again, so we could get on.
I got over my surprise quickly, and climbed onto Aerakai’s back, but Drew still couldn’t move, I yelled to him and he slowly began to walk toward us and climbed up on behind me, as if moving through water.

it sounds interesting an i would one day like to read it..unfortunatly i am computer illiterate and cant help..sorry :(
although it does sound really good :)

Sorry if its foolish, but I had to write about something, and my dream three nights ago would have to do.

Yes, the book claimed that the background radiation was predicted to be 5 degrees Kelvin, it also supported the Big Bang.
Yes, and then the theory is changed to fit the new discovery. It may not be disgarded entirely, but it can be changed.

I, like I said before, push science back to the boundries set for it by God, and then fit it into Scripture, the results are marvelous.
Except that you misunderstood the origin of CMB radiation and thus, the experimental evidence does not fit the scriptural idea.

An intelligent creator could use four possible nucleotides and create trillions, even more, possible combinations, making every species on the planet. An intelligent creator could make a beautiful universe, full of brightness, full of power, full of majestic movement and grace.
So could time.

An intelligent creator could make atoms, what was assumed to be the smallest matter, out of even smaller particles, made out of even smaller particles, which, are, in the end, over a dozen dimensions, made merely out of energy.
So can pair creation and then nuclear forces. (i.e. Strong and weak forces)

An intelligent Creator could make thousands of species of animals, and choose one, only one, not the strongest, nor the fastest, nor even the most balanced on its feet, to have the thought capacity akin to His own.
So could time and the right environment. Nevermind that we don't know whether we're the only ones who can think on our own...

An intelligent Creator could cause perfect order in everything, down from the electrons orbiting their atoms at their steady rate, to the complex and yet amazing replication of DNA strands, to the awesome, steady, an doubtlessly complex creation of life in the enclosed space of a women's womb, to the minds of mankind themselves, each striving to reach some sense of peace, to the orbits of the planets, steadily and consistently moving around their one sun, held in place by a single, amazing force.
And from the standpoint of looking purely at evidence, it appears nature can do all those things too.

Only an intelligent creator could make such order, from the atoms to the planets, to the huge stars, each burning for a possibly billions of years, creating the eat needed to give life to our little planet, to the grand, majesic, slow movements of galaxies, held in place by some invisible force, to the breathtaking structures of the grand universe itself, mind-bogglingly huge, with billions, and billions of galaxies, each an infinity away, but so bright that we can see them from our tiny planet, and they are beautiful.
Only an intelligent Creator could make such an awesome universe that we all live in and love.
Why would an intelligent creator be needed? You haven't justified your leap at all here.

And the invisble force that holds galaxies together (they don't stay in one place though) is called gravity...

Read it here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8593670&postcount=594

Sorry if its foolish, but I had to write about something, and my dream three nights ago would have to do.


woah!!...well the first paras good and the last paras good..not time for the rest :(

Yes, and then the theory is changed to fit the new discovery. It may not be disgarded entirely, but it can be changed.


Except that you misunderstood the origin of CMB radiation and thus, the experimental evidence does not fit the scriptural idea.


So could time.

A
So can pair creation and then nuclear forces. (i.e. Strong and weak forces)


So could time and the right environment. Nevermind that we don't know whether we're the only ones who can think on our own...


And from the standpoint of looking purely at evidence, it appears nature can do all those things too.


Why would an intelligent creator be needed? You haven't justified your leap at all here.

And the invisble force that holds galaxies together (they don't stay in one place though) is called gravity...

Clearly you are not one to by swayed by the beauty of the universe. But that post was earlier, so can you read my story? For the next 10 or so minutes, I'm going to be improving on it.

Just off topic from the original thread, can you tell me what you think of my story? I would appreciate some proofreading!

Clearly you are not one to by swayed by the beauty of the universe. But that post was earlier, so can you read my story? For the next 10 or so minutes, I'm going to be improving on it.
No, the universe is beautiful.

It's even more beautiful when you think of the forces behind the formation of these beautiful structures... and not that it was just put there... for instance, my current computer background is of the fox fur nebula. I do appreciate the aestetic value of it...

Just off topic from the original thread, can you tell me what you think of my story? I would appreciate some proofreading!will proof read later... but good story...

Unfortunatly.. I have a hate thing for first person... So I will take my time on the critism thing...

will proof read later... but good story...

Unfortunatly.. I have a hate thing for first person... So I will take my time on the critism thing...

Okay, sorry. But I can't change it now that I'm so far into it.

No, the universe is beautiful.

It's even more beautiful when you think of the forces behind the formation of these beautiful structures... and not that it was just put there... for instance, my current computer background is of the fox fur nebula. I do appreciate the aestetic value of it...

The universe itself is practically as consistent as the Bible. If (by the way, this will be my last debating post on this thread for a little while, now I'm just chillin') it was a huge cosmic coincidence, then it would not be as consistent, atoms would not have the same overall base, life on earth would not be made of the same 4 nucleotides, not all stars would be using hydrogen to make energy, and so on.

My background is a galaxy collision in Canis Major, it's very beautiful as well, it's also one of the only pictures of the universe I have that fit onto my screen, but that's apart from the point.

Okay, sorry. But I can't change it now that I'm so far into it.
Don't change it.. it's just my personal Preference... as I said tho... from what I read, it's good.

Thank you very much.

The universe itself is practically as consistent as the Bible.
*rolls about in peals of mirth*

oh, oh dear me...

*falls to the floor laughing again*




whew. okay. all better. wait, maybe not...

*disolves into helpless giggles*

atoms would not have the same overall base,
Why not? They were formed in the same process.

life on earth would not be made of the same 4 nucleotides,
Why not?

not all stars would be using hydrogen to make energy, and so on.
Not all stars are using hydrogen to make energy. Betelegeuse is a red giant, fusing helium now. Furthermore, you haven't come up with an explanation of why it should be any different. Hydrogen is the most abundant element and it is also the most easily fused. You have provided no reason why things should work out any other way and I don't think you have the background knowledge to say how things should be or for that matter, even understand why things are the way they are. This isn't meant for offense, I'm in third year of my undergrad and we're scratching the surface...

*rolls about in peals of mirth*
oh, oh dear me...
*falls to the floor laughing again*
whew. okay. all better. wait, maybe not...
*disolves into helpless giggles**throws water on Bottle.* you ok? looked like you couldn't stop.

*rolls about in peals of mirth*

oh, oh dear me...

*falls to the floor laughing again*




whew. okay. all better. wait, maybe not...

*disolves into helpless giggles*

What is up with you dude?

Why not? They were formed in the same process.


Why not?


Not all stars are using hydrogen to make energy. Betelegeuse is a red giant, fusing helium now. Furthermore, you haven't come up with an explanation of why it should be any different. Hydrogen is the most abundant element and it is also the most easily fused. You have provided no reason why things should work out any other way and I don't think you have the background knowledge to say how things should be or for that matter, even understand why things are the way they are. This isn't meant for offense, I'm in third year of my undergrad and we're scratching the surface...

Those topics are not for now. As I said, I'm just chillin'

What is up with you dude?
you are simply delightful, that's what's up.

you are simply delightful, that's what's up.

Thank you very much. Did you see my story on the last page?

Let us start: the Big Bang theory states that the universe was made out of an explosion of energy. If matter can turn into energy, then energy can into matter. That makes sense. The universe continues to expand, and the temperatures finally get cold enough for small atoms to form, like hydrogen and helium. However, by the time it was cold enough for larger atoms, like carbon, or even iron, to form, all the matter had already been used up.
Here lies one problem: if all that existed at that time was hydrogen and helium, where do we get more complicated atoms, like uranium from? Or even, if that's all that existed, where is all the carbon and oxygen, the stuff that some evolutionists claim we were made out of piles of, from?
Apparently, all that matter is from the subsequent stars being formed, and then going supernova (as supernovae create heaver matter, like gold and stuff), however, the current estimated age of the universe (according to the big bang theory) would only be enough for about two star lives, and all the stars in the universe going supernovae would not result in enough heavy matter to make a single solar system of earth-like planets, let alone the universe of them that astronomers are in fervent search for. There lies one problem.

First, it isn't a matter of the universe expanding enough, its the bottle neck between He-4 and the carbons, because no element that is stable (eg, Be-8 isn't stable), you have to have three of them hitting each other to form Carbon-12, which takes a long time to do (ie can only be done in stars). The higher elements (up to iron) form during the various processes in stars, and most of the hydrogen in stars is converted into those higher elements (answering your question about how after two stellar cycles this happens), and the higher elements came about as other, but far more rare, reactions in the stars. There is a huge amount of material put out by one supernova, to the point where it would be rational to say that planets could form. (You really don't think we just ignore stuff like this?)


Another problem: according to the laws of science following E=MC^2, when matter is made out of energy, then both antimatter, normal matter with an opposite charge, and normal matter are made. However, since they are created together, and antimatter reactions are a result of antimatter coming in close contact with normal matter, then, by rights, there should be no matter in the unverse, only energy, because the universe would have continued to expand until the energy was too spread out to be in large enough amounts in one place so as to make matter, and if, in some freak accident places, it was, then it would be a cycle of antimatter-normal matter creation and antimatter-normal matter reactions, that only ended until the energy in that place was spread out enough to stop making matter.

There are two theories. First: Matter is slightly preferred in the creation of matter out of energy, and second: The creation of matter and anti-matter was equal, but something changed it. Google up Baryogenesis for a bit more of that, particle physics is a bit over my head, I'm much more of a biology person.

Politely ignoring those two huge problems, cosmologists assert that, because they predicted that the universe would have a background temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, and they discovered a temperature of 2.7 degrees, they are absolutely right. One cosmologist compared this as being akin to "Predicting a 50 foot flying saucer would land on the White House lawn, and a 27 foot one actually does." However, this, as we should all know, is not the case, and there is a simple explanation for this piece of evidence, apart from the Big Bang, anyway.
They missed the mark by 2 times as much temperature, although we are talking in terms of almost no temperature, even .00001 degree diferrence (maybe a bit of hyperbole), all around the universe, can make a revolutionary difference in the scientific community. As the universe is more than 14 billion light years wide. That, even if it is a flat and not a round universe, can result in quite a large area to heat up with remnant heat.

Um...The sources I read say that astronomers have prodicted roughly a 2 degree kelvin CMB since the 40's.

The simple explanation for background temperature that is probably longed for, is the stars. Trillions of huge, swirling and moving galaxies, each holding at least millions of mind-bogglingly enormous, superheated balls of fire burning for even a few thousand years (as according to the Creation timeline) could easily create the temperature that we see today.
Not true, you say, because of the size of the universe, it would take longer for even one degree to be formed. We, however, live in a tiny galaxy, with more than 20,000,000,000 stars all packed together in a peaceful-looking, albiet extremely beautiful, organization of stars slowly rotating around a central point. With all these stars packed together, each one turning millions of tons of itself into enormous amounts of heat every second, could result in the temperature we see today.
However, you may create a rebuttal, saying that we sense the temperature of the universe, not our galaxy alone. That is not true; we assume that the temperature we gather from our satellites is the same teperature of the whole universe, but, in reality, we are guarded from the temperature of the universe by the garunteed much hotter temperature of our own galaxy which holds its heat of all those billions of stars like a thermos full of hot soup.]

Except the small fact that vacuum does not transmit heat well (at all), and you're confusing microwave radation (what the big bang theory is talking about) and heat. Stars don't produce that sort of coherant light.

How are you getting these numbers? If there is about 1 mutation every 10^7 generations (which is an absurdly high figure, I think, but I'll play along) then there will be 2 mutations every 2*10^7 generations, 4 every 4*10^7 generations, etc. The only way I see to get the exponential growth you're talking about is if you want 4 genes to mutate in exactly the same individual; but you don't need that.
Absurdly high indeed, you're looking at a raw mutation every...10,000 base pairs. After correction, every 1,000,000,000 base pairs. Every time you make a copy.

Hey, did you guys see my story?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8593670&postcount=594

It's supposed to be a short story for my Creative Writing assignment. I'm proud of it, despite the fact that it is a bit childish.

The universe itself is practically as consistent as the Bible.
Actually, the Universe is consistant... it's the scientific explinations that change... ;)

I think everyone here is missing the point.

First and foremost, I know people well enough that for the most part, this isn't a debate over evolution or creationism, this is really over the existance of God, versus Scientific truths.

The problem is not "God made it." or "It evolved." The problem is much more complex than that. The real question is, what gives us the capability, understanding, and logic to question these ideas, or even invent them. You suddenly have to take a step back from your mental patterns, and examine exactly why you believe it.

The most important question is not how man and animals came to be as they are. As it is, knowing how doesn't change the fact that a huge bear is still going to kill you. The most important question is not over the existance of a supreme God, you'll figure that out when you die.

The most important question is down inside. What seperates us from animals? If that is in fact thought or supposed consciousness, why is your consciousness you, and not someone else? Consciousness is intangible, you can't see it, feel it, measure it, understand it at all (unless you happen to be the next Buddha), but you know when it's not there. Isn't the fact that you are aware of other minds, yourself, your past, and can predict your future not supernatrual in and of itself? The fact that you can imagine, and interact with the imagined world, without it really existing, is that not also supernatrual?

What force could possibly have created such an astounding thing as the human mind? Natrual Selection doesn't seem to make sence, because all that's really needed is eat, breed, die. If that wasn't all that was needed, why haven't animals who have the necessities of life evolved cerebral cortexes? That is assuming of course that the cerebral cortex houses the 'mind'. Scientists have looked inside the brain, done every possible test, and they have yet to find 'mind' there. No one's home...

As for the whole beatle thing in the first few pages, if mankind can make rocket fuel, why can't a beatle?

Um... yah. He's right.
It was something I hoped I could bring up in the debate: consciousness. Why is it we are the only sentient race in the universe. Why are we the only living beings capable of thinkind past our own primordial instincts? How could any creature that arose from primordial ooze actually have the capacity to think. To wonder who we are. To wonder why we are here. To have the ability to even converse on such topics as the one we are doing so on. How could we have the ability to question God if God did not exist?

Um... yah. He's right.
It was something I hoped I could bring up in the debate: consciousness. Why is it we are the only sentient race in the universe. Why are we the only living beings capable of thinkind past our own primordial instincts? How could any creature that arose from primordial ooze actually have the capacity to think. To wonder who we are. To wonder why we are here. To have the ability to even converse on such topics as the one we are doing so on. How could we have the ability to question God if God did not exist?

We're the only sentient race in the universe that we know of.

We're the only sentient race in the universe that we know of.

What? Aliens?
I believe in aliens, but not exactly any other species. When God scattered mankind during the Tower of Babel thing, He may well have scattered us across the universe. So, aliens could exist, but as other human beings, simply on another planet.

It would be impossible for evolution to have made any sentient beings at all, as all evolution can do is make mutations of a current species. If we are evolved from monkeys, why don't they have the capacity to act outside their instincts, and we do? So, our existence, along with our ability to question it (Cogito, ergo sum.), effectively proves evolution wrong to the understanding, sensible mind. However, what's left? Nothing as sensible as religion, which would bring up the question: which one is the right one? But that's an argument for later.

What? Aliens?
I believe in aliens, but not exactly any other species. When God scattered mankind during the Tower of Babel thing, He may well have scattered us across the universe. So, aliens could exist, but as other human beings, simply on another planet.

It would be impossible for evolution to have made any sentient beings at all, as all evolution can do is make mutations of a current species. If we are evolved from monkeys, why don't they have the capacity to act outside their instincts, and we do? So, our existence, along with our ability to question it (Cogito, ergo sum.), effectively proves evolution wrong to the understanding, sensible mind. However, what's left? Nothing as sensible as religion, which would bring up the question: which one is the right one? But that's an argument for later.

Well, considering the number of stars, the laws of probability point to aliens. I wouldn't rule it out.

Why impossible? Intelligence is, as we have shown, better than strength or speed. Sentience may simply be a side-effect, as it were.

And I know I'm stupid, but I'll ask anyway; how is religion SENSIBLE? I'm not trying to be offensive, but really...

At least Vespucii knew I was right. But he totally missed the point, once again.

I was not trying to say that this God person exists. What I'm trying to say is that we know a lot less than we really do, and both religion and science follow trains unprogressive thought, neither are willing to accept ideas outside of their preset absolutes, even for the same reasons. They believe in their absolutes. For example, anyone care to give the definition of an atom in the most specific way you can?

For example, anyone care to give the definition of an atom in the most specific way you can?

Really, really small things, consisting of positvely-charged "protons" and sometimes neutrally-charged "neutrons" (which are made up of further particles, called "quarks") in a "nucleus", and also negatively-charged "electrons" (again, made up of a different set of "quarks"). And they do stuff.

[You have to realise that I'm just piecing together bits and pieces of things I've read and been taught. Is almost certainly wrong.]

Um... yah. He's right.
It was something I hoped I could bring up in the debate: consciousness. Why is it we are the only sentient race in the universe. Why are we the only living beings capable of thinkind past our own primordial instincts? How could any creature that arose from primordial ooze actually have the capacity to think. To wonder who we are. To wonder why we are here. To have the ability to even converse on such topics as the one we are doing so on. How could we have the ability to question God if God did not exist?

Arbitrarily labeling something "impossible" so you can assume some supernatural did it does not make a very good arguement.

At least Vespucii knew I was right. But he totally missed the point, once again.

I was not trying to say that this God person exists. What I'm trying to say is that we know a lot less than we really do, and both religion and science follow trains unprogressive thought, neither are willing to accept ideas outside of their preset absolutes, even for the same reasons. They believe in their absolutes. For example, anyone care to give the definition of an atom in the most specific way you can?

Gladly:
Atom - the small particle of which all objects are made of. Atoms are made of three parts, the proton (positive charge) and the neutron (No charge), found in the nucleus, and the electron (negative charge), which often obits the nucleus. The Periodic Table of the Elements states the difference 'twixt larger or smaller atoms. Each element is one atom that has a different number of protons, neutrons, and electrons as another (e.g.: Hydrogen has one proton, one electron, and no neutrons, while helium has two protons and two neutrons.) Isotopes are elements with different numbers of neutrons. The nucleus, because it is made of protons, must be held together by another force, otherwise it would split apart. That force is called nuclear force. Atoms can also bond, the two most common types of atomic bonding are known as covalent and ionic bonds. Covalent (an oxygen molecule) is when two atoms share a proton, and ionic (Sodium Chloride, or salt) is when two atoms are held together by magnetic forces, when one has a positive charge, from a lack of electrons, and one has a negative charge, from too many electrons. Bonding of atoms creates something known as a reaction. Reactions often release energy, like the bonding of two Hydrogen atoms to one atom of Oxygen, making water (H20). Sometimes, other, much more rare reactions, called nuclear reactions, can also occur. There are also two types of nuclear reactions: Fission, which breaks the nuclear force, known as the fundamental Strong Nuclear Force, to split an atom's nucleus with an atomic number higher than 72, and Fusion, which combines the two nuclei to make one, heavier atom. Nuclear fusion involving atoms with the atomic weight of iron or heavier require more energy to do then the reaction gives out. Otherwise, nuclear fusion creates 800 times the energy of nuclear fission. Also, antimatter has the exact same weight of a subatomic particle (proton, neutron, and electron), except that it has the opposite charge. So an antielectron, or positron, will weigh as much as an electron, but have a negative charge. When antimatter comes in contact with normal matter, the two anihilate themselves, which, in concordance to Einstien's theory, E=MC^2, creates enormous amounts of energy. An antimatter reaction can create 200 times the energy of a fusion reaction.

Also, it is believed that the subatomic particles are made of even tinier particles (say, an electron is made out of thousands and thousands of quarks). And other parts of atoms are inexplicable without the addition of an extra seven dimensions to our current four (up/down, forward/backward, left/right, and time). The physics of the whole realm of smaller-than-subatomic-particles is called quantum mechanics.

That is the MOST SPECIFIC definition I have for an atom. Using everything I have learned about them and putting it in a reasonably small nutshell.

Now, time for some Halo 2. See ya guys later.

I have nay limited God, but I am prepared to limit science, the thing that steps beyond the boundries given to it by God HIMSELF, and claims to have made the universe all on its own.

I will still argue your point of views, but I will show you what's wrong with them past that border that marks atheism and God, and show you where that infernalized border is.

Science doesn't 'claim' to have made the universe all on it's own.

Science doesn't claim to have 'made' the universe, at all.

Science attempts to explain the observable universe, it doesn't claim to have 'made it'.

It's not about being the cause, it's about explaining the cause.

1) Chapter 2 doesn't change any order of events. God makes mankind, revolutionary, but not too changing there.


If you find the two 'Genesis accounts' to have no conflicts of timing, I would have to say you need to read them more carefully.

Hardly a good start for a 'scriptural' argument, you have there.

Please, I beg of you, please, please, please, pleeeeeeease read that whole post that I made earlier, it is a real good argument and took me forever to type.

Sorry, friend... your arguments just are not that good... and a re a combination of Strawman fallacies, and your own assumptions.

The galaxy 'protects' us from the heat of the universe (or lack of it)?

What do you base that assumption on?

You seem to be thinking of the Universe as though it contained some solid (or even gaseous) medium with heat retention properties, such tht it can form oases of temperature?

The single thing that separates Christianity (and, while we're at it, Judaism) from the rest, is that the holy book, the Bible (and, yes, the Torah, almost exactly like the Old Testament) has divine influence. Although it was (they both were) written by men (women, people, whatever. just for you, preebles), the men who wrote it were divinely influenced. Their works came from God.

They SAY they were divinely influenced, that is no evidence that it is so.

If I say I am divinely influenced, would you believe me?

And, of course, Second Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Note - it says ALL scripture... not just Hebrew scripture, or Christian scripture. Thus, ALL holy books are 'inspired' by 'god', not just the 'bible'.

There is evidence to support the Bible's divine influence, things that separate it from any other holy book. No other holy book (except the Torah, I mean, it is just half of the Bible) has the same things going for it. And I would appreciate it if you kept the other forums in different windows, so it doesn't seem like you're leaving all the time, do you want me to post the argument here? I will.

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.
Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Trust me, people have tried to argue against that, and most of them failed miserably.

The Bible hasn't been even CLOSE to unaltered... unless, of course, you are reading your manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

Which you aren't, are you?

Even a translation is an alteration, my friend.

You are also confused about what support scripture has had from archeology... which has proved certain things to be 'true', perhaps... for example, that there has been a city called Jerusalem, or that Egypt was ruled by a Pharaoh.

What archeology HAS NOT supported, is the 'miraculous' element of the bible. No archeological evidence has been found to support Moses' ascension of the mountain, to support Jesus walking on water, to support the Resurrection.

Actually, don't have to run YET.

Not only the predictions in Daniel were made: untold numbers of predictions, made thousands of years BEFORE the fact, were made about Jesus. Then the New Testament was written. However, you could say that the New Tetament was written by the same guy who made the predictions. However, aspects of Jesus's life, including his miracles, were accurately documented by Roman historians, atheists and agnostics, as well as those who followed Iupiter. Here's the amazing part, the part that the historians documented, the Roman historians we all know and trust, documented exactly what was predicted. And the predictions of Jesus were quite specific: "He will be betrayed... He will rise on the third day," et cetera, et cetera.

Bad start, mon ami.

There is NO independant evidence of the life of Jesus, at all.

The first non-biblical (if you will) evidence of Jesus existence, is in Josephus' text, written nearly one hundred years later, and based on stories and hearsay.

There is even dispute as to whether Josephus wrote the passages attributed to him... and, in fact, even THOSE passages are often considered to be pseudepigraphical... just added into Josephus' texts.

And that is the EARLIEST 'independent' verification - m a hundred years after the alleged events, and not the testimony of a witness... even if it IS actually the work of Josephus.

Regardless, I will argue directly against you: no, the predictions cannot apply to anyone, nor are they too open for interpretation. Saying "He will be born in Bethlehem," can mean one thing, the Savior will be born in Bethlehem.
Saying he is of the house (lineage) of David, can only mean that the Savior will be directly descended from David.
Saying the Christ will triumphantly enter Jerusalem can only mean one thing: the Promised Savior will, at one point in his life, enter Jerusalem in a triumphal celebration.
Saying he will be tortured can only mean that the Messiah will be tortured.
When the predictions state the the Christ will be betrayed by a close friend (it goes so far as to say 'for thirty pieces of silver'), it means that he shall be betrayed by a close friend 'for thirty pieces of silver'. AKA Judas Iscariot.
When it says, and Jesus himself is recorded as saying: He/I shall rise again on the third day. It can only mean two things, he, after a three-day exile, will rise to become ruler of something again, or he, after being betrayed, tortured (see earlier predictions), and killed, shall come back to life on the third day.
Now, think of people you know, think of people even you know exist. Have any one of them even fulfilled two of these prophecies. And, trust me, there are quite a few more than that: "He shall be pierced without breaking a bone" (Jesus was stabbed while hanging on the cross), or "He shall be born of a virgin" (come on, we all know the tale). The only prediction that was open to interpreation is "He shall free God's chosen people." Today, we know that means the burden of sin and the required Levitical laws, but, to those without the savior among them yet, it could have just as easily meant that the Emmanuel shall free Israel from her oppressors (AKA: the Romans).

And yet, no independent witnesses can attest to any of these things coming to pass.

There is no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, EXCEPT what is in scripture.

So - if someone wanted to PRETEND their chosen prophet was 'messiah', all they would have to do is write about him/her, all the things that were EXPECTED to happen, according to one set of prophecy.

Without an OUTSIDE source, you cannot verify the birthplace of Jesus, or ANY of the supposed 'matches' between Jesus' life, and the Messianic prophecies.

See you later then.
Not quite circular logic. Rather point A to point B logic: the Bible is divinely originated, thus it is true. See, why would a divine being lie to its/his/their creation.
The Bible is unique in comparison to all historical documents: it is 100% accurate, down to the last detail. No historical documents, even our news today, can quite match up with the detailed accuracy of the Bible itself. I don't get why you people don't see this. Yes, books were excluded, but I've read them and only few are inconsistent with the Bible: they were excluded, the pseudopigripha and the apocrypha, because they were falsely accredited writings or, in the case of apocrypha, writings that were written by authors far away from the actual information. The only major difference from the original Hebrew and English are a few translation differences.

No, friend the logic IS circular:

The Bible is inspired and true.... how do we know? Because it says it is.

And why do we trust that assertion? Because the bible is inspired and true.

But, how do we know it is inspired and true?

See? Circular Logic.

Call it bull, but weather or not you think it is, it is true. Garunteed 100% accurate.

You can guarantee no such thing.

How many legs does a grasshopper have?

Leviticus 11:21-22 "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth... even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind".

Scripture clearly asserts that grasshoppers are four-legged beasts.

I would argue that was less than 100% accurate, no?

Really, really small things, consisting of positvely-charged "protons" and sometimes neutrally-charged "neutrons" (which are made up of further particles, called "quarks") in a "nucleus", and also negatively-charged "electrons" (again, made up of a different set of "quarks"). And they do stuff.

[You have to realise that I'm just piecing together bits and pieces of things I've read and been taught. Is almost certainly wrong.]
Not to nit-pick too much, but electrons are not made up of quarks. They are leptons - a completely different family of elemental particles. Electrons belong to the family which also includes muons and tau particles, as well as those darned neutrino's that are all the rage. Quarks belong to the baryon family, and cannot exist alone (or in pairs for too long). They form sub-atomic particles that are not elemental. Electrons exist alone as elemental particles.

You can guarantee no such thing.

How many legs does a grasshopper have?

Leviticus 11:21-22 "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth... even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind".

Scripture clearly asserts that grasshoppers are four-legged beasts.

I would argue that was less than 100% accurate, no?
I was going to bring that one up. That might be to do with some Greek ideas being put in. Aristotle was the man who said that insects have 4 legs, and it was not disputed until over 1500 years later.

It's beautiful. No computer can write forty symphonies in a 29-year lifetime, no computer can write hundreds of plays...

Can you?

All of those descriptions of atoms are only mostly correct. You failed to state that electrons exist in probability clouds, places where they might be, and that you can never accurately predict exactly where one will be, or the fact that the electrons only exist in certian engery levels, quanta, and never anywhere in between.

Everyone also missed the fact that at random occasions, electrons suddenly disappear from our universe, and reappear later, but the atom remains stable. Also, the dense neucleus itself also has a strange habbit of vanishing from our universe.

Thus, what keeps the electons from buzzing out while the neucleus is gone? What keeps neutrons from blasting all over the place? The only outside variable is that we believe that everything is solid, even though every atom is mostly empty space, and sometimes, parts of it aren't always there.

It is because of our observation that a photon can be either a particle or a wave. Observation is the key. I think that the inherent truth is not that there is a single almighty diety. I think, as is stated in the bible, we are all many parts of the living God.

The universe itself is practically as consistent as the Bible. If (by the way, this will be my last debating post on this thread for a little while, now I'm just chillin') it was a huge cosmic coincidence, then it would not be as consistent, atoms would not have the same overall base, life on earth would not be made of the same 4 nucleotides, not all stars would be using hydrogen to make energy, and so on.

My background is a galaxy collision in Canis Major, it's very beautiful as well, it's also one of the only pictures of the universe I have that fit onto my screen, but that's apart from the point.

Efficiency works.

If the same four nucleotides are the most 'efficient' tools for the job, then they will be the most common.... that IS evolution in a nutshell... but, also, just good logic.

If one 'form' of atom is the most 'efficient', it will be more prevalent than any other 'form'. If it is the ONLY efficient model, it will be the ONLY succesful model, and thus the ONLY observable model.

Ok I’ve seen a lot of crap about the bible being unaltered, so if you want your bible to be unaltered, rip out the birth and childhood stories in mark, because that was added, also rip out every thing from John 16:8 on wards because that’s an addition.
That’s just two examples there are tons more ask someone more schooled than me in source criticism and they'll point them out by the bucket load.

We know these are additions for two reasons

1. they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have
2. The langue and theology of the addition is out of sync with the rest of the gospels, look at John 16:8+ the entire of John is about believing without seeing, so that the man who would never meet Christ can believe, its the resounding message of John gospel, and then he goes and sticks on a bit about the 'proof' Jesus has risen,

Er... No.

If you deny this, there’s really not much point debating this anymore because you will prove your self unreasonable


What’s all this crap about nucleotides and atoms,

Er what nucleotides are the skeletal structure Dna, you mean bases, and there are 5 bases, Adenine thymine, guanine cytosine and Uralic, if you know of any others I’m sure the medical community would love to know.

As for atoms, what’s the crap about them being base I assume you mean similar, what the hell is the logic behind that, yes atoms are general made of the same 3 subatomic particles, but that’s like saying every car is the same because it has wheels chassis and an engine. Atom's are basically progressively advanced versions of Helium perhaps (cant really extrapolate that its hydrogen as it has no neutron), but they come in all shapes and sizes, free radicals, ions, isotopes crazy states of plasma. hell ill bet you’ll be saying its god that keeps protons together in the nucleus next.

You seem to have some romantic idea the universe is perfect, where the hell did you get that from? Certainly was not modern astrophysics

When you get right down to things, the only thing that you can be sure of is that you have no idea what's really going on.

All of those descriptions of atoms are only mostly correct. You failed to state that electrons exist in probability clouds, places where they might be, and that you can never accurately predict exactly where one will be, or the fact that the electrons only exist in certian engery levels, quanta, and never anywhere in between.

Everyone also missed the fact that at random occasions, electrons suddenly disappear from our universe, and reappear later, but the atom remains stable. Also, the dense neucleus itself also has a strange habbit of vanishing from our universe.

Thus, what keeps the electons from buzzing out while the neucleus is gone? What keeps neutrons from blasting all over the place? The only outside variable is that we believe that everything is solid, even though every atom is mostly empty space, and sometimes, parts of it aren't always there.

It is because of our observation that a photon can be either a particle or a wave. Observation is the key. I think that the inherent truth is not that there is a single almighty diety. I think, as is stated in the bible, we are all many parts of the living God.
I know all of that (except for the virtual particles bit, I was always a bit fuzzy on that) I was just keeping it simplistic for the person who said electrons were made of quarks. :)

Damn 'Sniks Law'!

(Whereby the total number of pages left to review in a nationstates is always equal to two, and once the thread is unobserved that number drops to zero with exponentially increasing probability as time increases)

This thread has been tiring to say the least. I did not realise the 'complexity' IDists talked about was linked to the 2LTD, i thought it was merely a subjective viewpoint (and i dont even know what the law entails). Its good to see nice debating, and i regret that the thread has become so technical i can no-longer post anything valid, so good luck guys.

Yes, yes, but the sad part really is that all this finally boiled down to the obligatory bible fight. It always happens. No avoiding it.

Yes, yes, but the sad part really is that all this finally boiled down to the obligatory bible fight. It always happens. No avoiding it.

I think it's because the last real 'voice against science' has finally admitted that he/she is unequal to the task, and has tried to steer the discussion into a theological alternate reality, where scriptural 'evidence' counts as scientific evidence.

I have nay limited God, but I am prepared to limit science, the thing that steps beyond the boundries given to it by God HIMSELF, and claims to have made the universe all on its own.

Actually, you have limited God, by saying "This is what I believe that God did, and how I believe God did it, therefore that is the *ONLY* possible way God could have done it."

1) Chapter 2 doesn't change any order of events. God makes mankind, revolutionary, but not too changing there.

You mean how plants and animals are made *after* Adam but *before* Eve in the second story, but all humankind is made *after* both of them in the first?

v2) Because you have yet to provide me with any arguments except over how long the goshdarn universe was Created by GOD over. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: THAT IS NOT THE DARN DEBATE HERE! Fine, if you want me to start, I will start. If you want to read the argument now, just skip over the numbered list.[/quote]

Actually, that is the debate. You have stated that the only possible way God could have made the universe is by *your* stated method of a short period of time. Putting that kind of limit on God is ludicrous.

3) It would be conformist for me to look upon your arguments, and say 'okay, he's right.' It would be conformist to think of the "scientific evidence" as 100% real. IT WOULD BE CONFORMIST, FOR ME TO TURN MY LIFE INTO A HELLSCAPE, AND TURN AWAY FROM GOD, AND BEGIN A FREAKIN' PARTY LIFESTYLE. IT WOULD BE CONFORMIST FOR ME TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOUGHT BUT DUST ON THE WIND, AND OUR LIVES HERE HAVE NO IMPACT OF OUR NONEXISTENT LIVES AFTER OUR DEATH!!!

You really need to look up the word conformist.

4) Moving on, I will tell you that science has its flaws, its contradictions, I point them out, and back them up with other scientific laws.

You point out a contradiction in one theory with another theory. Fine, no biggie. Science is well aware that there are flaws, that is why we are working to fill in the holes.

Scientific theories DO, in fact, blatantly, almost with glee, say that the universe wasn't created. Or wait, yes it was. But not by a divine being, but by an enormous cosmic coincidence that resulted in the perfect utopia of a planet surrounded by hellscapes, and the only sentient race in the universe.

Again, scientific theories do nothing of the sort. You shouldn't confuse a lack of an assumption that there is a God with an assumption that there is no God - they are not the same thing.

*snip* There lies one problem.

I am not a physicist, but I am quite sure that this "problem" either has or is in the process of being addressed by the community.

Another problem: according to the laws of science following E=MC^2, when matter is made out of energy, then both antimatter, normal matter with an opposite charge, and normal matter are made. However, since they are created together, and antimatter reactions are a result of antimatter coming in close contact with normal matter, then, by rights, there should be no matter in the unverse, only energy, because the universe would have continued to expand until the energy was too spread out to be in large enough amounts in one place so as to make matter, and if, in some freak accident places, it was, then it would be a cycle of antimatter-normal matter creation and antimatter-normal matter reactions, that only ended until the energy in that place was spread out enough to stop making matter.

When something explodes, are all the pieces still close?

Politely ignoring those two huge problems, cosmologists assert that, because they predicted that the universe would have a background temperature of 5 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero, and they discovered a temperature of 2.7 degrees, they are absolutely right.

I'm pretty sure you are full of shit here, but it doesn't really matter. The way science works is that, when you find a contradiction to the current theory, the theory is changed to meet the new evidence. As such, they *are* right, because the theory has been changed to be 2.7 degrees.

Those are just some of the arguments I have against the leading scientific theory, so, if that one is wrong, what is the other option, steady-state theory? I don't think so. The Great Green Arklesiezure (have you read Douglas Adams?)? Probably not. It seems like Creation is one of the few left.

Creation is not a *scientific* theory, so no, it is not the one left. However, you fail to realize how science works. The kinds of questions you raise are raised by others. They are then worked on until the evidence at hand actually fits into the theory - making the theory more correct.

*Of course* there are problems with the current theory - that is why it is still being worked on.

You have a point. I am sorry. I knew it would be expected of me to do what you don't have to. Ah well. I've done it before, so I guess you can start defending the Big Bang theory. You seem to have the capacity to attack my opinion, so defend the other side, especially against my earlier arguments.

Why are you so stuck on the Big Bang theory? This discussion is about evolution vs. ID - the big bang theory doesn't even come into the picture.

Exactly, other religions contradict each other, however, Christianity does nothing to contradict itself. Try.

Neither do the other religions.

And I really hate it when you insist: 'you're not proving anything.' Of course I'm not, not to you anyway. The Bible is only impossible to prove because of close-mind people like you keep on refusing to take any of the arguments for it as real. You will come up with anything and everything to try to disprove it. And don't say that it's not true, that's why I quoted you.

I'm sorry if you have a probelm with scientific thinking - but you are claiming to be able to scientifically prove that the Bible is absolutely literal. As such, it must hold up to all reasonable questions.

Like I said, the only differences 'twixt the old Hebrew and modern manuscripts are MINOR, TINY translation differences. Like in Psalms, the words "A thousand years..." is actually the Hebrew for a long, undertermined period of time. But that is obvious even to the man who knows nothing of Hebrew.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, there are huge translation differences just between one version of the Bible and another. There are rather large differences between one ancient manuscript and another.

I'm sorry if you have a probelm with scientific thinking - but you are claiming to be able to scientifically prove that the Bible is absolutely literal. As such, it must hold up to all reasonable questions.
indeed. he seems to be forgetting one of the cardinal rules of science: what can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

indeed. he seems to be forgetting one of the cardinal rules of science: what can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.

I don't think he's 'forgotten', he has 'asserted the right' to debate theologically, on a topic of science... this is the fellow who feels that discussions of the scientific nature of ID shouldn't be limited by the rules of science...

Wow... I turn my back for one second...

You people have honestly missed the point I was making originally. This isn't about how the universe may or may not have been created. This is about evolution.

My point was that to say "people are so complex someone must have created us" you have to be able to say that evolution doesn't work. Since obviously evolution does work, you can severely lower the probability of God being invoplved AT LEAST until you get to the very, very beginning. Theres no point arguing ABOUT the very, very beginning because, you weren't there. For all we know it WAS the great green arkleseizure. All we have are theories, and all you people are starting from COMPLETELY different assumptions, so you can't even argue about theories.

There have been way too many pages in this thing. Did anyone ACTUALLY manage to prove logically that natural selection does not exist?

Wow... I turn my back for one second...

You people have honestly missed the point I was making originally. This isn't about how the universe may or may not have been created. This is about evolution.

My point was that to say "people are so complex someone must have created us" you have to be able to say that evolution doesn't work. Since obviously evolution does work, you can severely lower the probability of God being invoplved AT LEAST until you get to the very, very beginning. Theres no point arguing ABOUT the very, very beginning because, you weren't there. For all we know it WAS the great green arkleseizure. All we have are theories, and all you people are starting from COMPLETELY different assumptions, so you can't even argue about theories.

There have been way too many pages in this thing. Did anyone ACTUALLY manage to prove logically that natural selection does not exist?

Unfortunately, people can't seem to figure out that big bang and evolution are two different theories.

Meanwhile, no, no one argued against natural selection at all.

I know all of that (except for the virtual particles bit, I was always a bit fuzzy on that) I was just keeping it simplistic for the person who said electrons were made of quarks. :)

That would be me. And yes, I am a very simple person. :)

Wrong. There is no assumption that there is no God or that there is, simply a lack of an assumption that there is. We are dealing with the rules of the Universe. If a God set those up (as many of us believe), great - but the rules themselves are still there for us to discover.

Science cannot assume *anything* about God, as God is, by definition, outside its realm.



I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing evolution here.

It's a comparable theory. It makes unprovable assumptions as well and it's fairly well-accepted. Let's face it, as scientists we are permitted to make unprovable assumptions about supernatural substances (primeval atom) so long as that supernatural substance isn't given a name that implies sentience.

...

Yes, and quantum and relativity don't mesh together either, what's your point?

Because classical mechanics do not apply to an electron does not mean that they have been "disproven" for a roller coaster car. If that were so, then well, we'd have some problems.

You see, there are 4 fundamental forces in nature. The weakest force is gravity... when something gets big enough, gravity is the dominant force... instead of say, on the quantum scale in which electrostatic forces are the big ones...

So your neutally charged baseball with a fair sized mass will not really have much in the way of a wave function (lambda=h/mv, afterall) nor will it be attracted by an electric field. Instead, it will fall in the gravitational field.

Furthermore, I highly suggest that you learn some physics before you attempt to spout off about theories... of course it won't work in your view if you don't even have the foggiest idea of what is actually going on.

I'm an engineer. I'd bet I've learned more physics than you have and we can dispute this if you'd like to act like school children. You didn't even dispute what I pointed out. I was pointing out that theories have to be adjusted all the time. Adjusting a theory is not the same as disproving it. And I gave an example. Read all the other posts before you say things that are ignorant.

It's a comparable theory. It makes unprovable assumptions as well and it's fairly well-accepted. Let's face it, as scientists we are permitted to make unprovable assumptions about supernatural substances (primeval atom) so long as that supernatural substance isn't given a name that implies sentience.
You mean, it is comparable as theory. But that both methods utilize a process of assumption is not really a meaningful basis for comparison.

there are numerous testable predictions generated by the Big Bang theory, and countless means of testing (and potentially disproving) the theory. name ONE way that science could disprove the "theory" that all existence was created by an omnipotent supernatural force; if you can't, it's not a scientific theory.

Science could disprove the basis of the theory. The theory is based on that a closed system (the universe) does not appear to be decreasing in entropy to satisfaction of ID supporters. If scientists could show a model that is closed where life is created and evolves to multicellular organisms without some supernatural force then that would eliminate the need for the supernatural force in the explanation. All we know right now is that life was created and evolution occurred, but we have never shown how this can actually be done with a full explanation of all the energy and forces involved without speculating.

You mean, it is comparable as theory. But that both methods utilize a process of assumption is not really a meaningful basis for comparison.

That both methods assume a supernatural substance would be meaningful to most people, methinks, as natural usually refers to the observable objects/forces of the universe.

You cannot take a scientific theory and attempt to apply it to a non-scientific subject. If entropy does not increase throughout the universe, then the 2nd Law is wrong. It doesn't mean that there is an outside force - it means that we were wrong about the rules of the universe to begin with. (At least from a scientific point of view).



If your idea depends upon the non-falsifiable assumption that there is a God, it is an unscientific idea. That doesn't mean you are a lunatic - it simply means that you have ceased to talk about science.

So is a primeval atom a scientific subject? Is a non-falsifiable assumption? If a primeval atom is an non-falsifiable assumption then bye-bye Big Bang.

I believe that, using the evolutionary theory, it is impossible to explain these two cases.
1) The bombardier beetle thing: how did the separate sacks of chemicals evolve without having any chemicals in them? And how did the protective tissue evolve when there were no chemicals reacting? If a beetle did not have the protective tissue, it would have died, so how would the next generation be born, or if it was born from a dead beetle, how did it evolve? The only way this would be possible is if it all was CREATED in the same generation of beetles.

2) When a giraffe bends to get water, blood rushes to its head, and, normally, it would die. However, it has some pump sort of thing that pumps the blood back to the heart. How did the giraffe get water, much less survive, much less reproduce with getting the water that it needed. And without being able to reproduce, how did the next generations of giraffes exist, and how did they themselves reproduce and evolve? The only possible way is if it was CREATED.

Science could disprove the basis of the theory. The theory is based on that a closed system (the universe) does not appear to be decreasing in entropy to satisfaction of ID supporters. If scientists could show a model that is closed where life is created and evolves to multicellular organisms without some supernatural force then that would eliminate the need for the supernatural force in the explanation. All we know right now is that life was created and evolution occurred, but we have never shown how this can actually be done with a full explanation of all the energy and forces involved without speculating.
The universe is not a closed system. Even if it is finite in size, it is "everything that is" and hence is as open as open can be.

That both methods assume a supernatural substance would be meaningful to most people, methinks, as natural usually refers to the observable objects/forces of the universe.
"Super"-natural means above nature, in other words spiritual or idealistic. Are you suggesting that this primeval atom is not a physical particle? (Sorry, I know nothing more about it than the NASA link you pointed to.)

The big problem people are having here, is the fundamental nature of entropy.

Entropy increases or remains constant... it cannot decrease, within a closed system... right?

The problem is.... that is true OVERALL... and yet people are trying to assert it for every instant, in every case.

Water molecules are disorded... this is true... but, occasionally, as the currents in water move the molecules... they will temporarily become 'more ordered', in small areas, for short periods of time... the they will become disordered again.

Human life is denial of entropy... but it is only temporary, we become more ordered (because our ordered form is 'efficient'), but we still tend towards increased entropy EVENTUALLY.

I give up. I don't believe ID and never have. I believe in determinism which does not require a supernatural being, though I happen to believe in one. I was only saying that I don't think ID is crackpot or unsupported. I think it should be scientifically considered and disproven like any other theory rather than simply dismissed because it includes the concept of an intelligent supernatural being. I don't think the theory should be taught in schools (assume public when I say schools) just as I think no theory requiring the non-existence of a deity should be taught in schools. Schools (and governments) should be agnostic.

Strawman... where did you get the idea that the 'Big Bang' theory must have some sort of pre-universe atom?

You construct your own versions of your opposition, just so you can disprove them...

Maybe NASA got it wrong. Their explanation of the theory and every explanation I've ever heard is that the space/time continuum existed (sort of) inside of some "thing" that exploded and created the universe.

Why do you keep calling me Strawman?

No, no, no, nonononononono. I say that I can defend the idea of Intelligent Design, Creationism, with the science you want, and the defense needed depends on the argument brought up. I can defend it's validity, but I cannot prove it is true. If the defense suffices, then, by all means, let us continue on to the debate.

I never said it was a debate on theology. I just said that I can defend the Bible. When did I say ANYTHING about theology.

And, one final thing I can say, I hope that this debate doesn't descend into a flame war, and I pray fervently that more with the viewpoints I have will come here, and argue intelligently.

ID is not creationism and making statements like the ones you've made are precisely why no self-respecting scientist wants to admit that they hold the theory that God had a hand in the creation of the universe and/or specific life forms.

Why do you keep calling me Strawman?
I learned this one on these boards, too. A "Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)" argument is one that the person who is arguing against constructs (usually through misunderstanding or misinformation) that doesn't actually resemble the opponent's real argument or stance. It's like building a man of straw, because such a man is easier to burn down.

Maybe NASA got it wrong. Their explanation of the theory and every explanation I've ever heard is that the space/time continuum existed (sort of) inside of some "thing" that exploded and created the universe.

Why do you keep calling me Strawman?
Some source? just because you heard it does not make it correct ... and if it is a new theory I have not learned yet I would LOVE to get some information on it
(as for strawman that has been covered)

Well, I had loads of other messages I wanted to reply to, but there's been a lot of them since Friday, when I last checekd in, and it would be bad form of me to put dozens of sequential messages from myself...

However, you're fairly recently posting, so...

I believe that, using the evolutionary theory, it is impossible to explain these two cases.
1) The bombardier beetle thing: how did the separate sacks of chemicals evolve without having any chemicals in them? And how did the protective tissue evolve when there were no chemicals reacting? If a beetle did not have the protective tissue, it would have died, so how would the next generation be born, or if it was born from a dead beetle, how did it evolve? The only way this would be possible is if it all was CREATED in the same generation of beetles.I've previously talked about this. I may be wrong, but I doubt I'm 'incorrect' (as in describing an impossible process).

Essentially, proto-Bombardier is a beetle that produces produces something, perhaps an irritant, in glands. These glands would have developed from any old liquid secretion mechanism and it already developed a 'separation' mechanism to protect itself from its own miniature chemical factories as the original secretions got 'nasty' to it and to others. (Or, conversly, they aren't nasty to it, just pesky mammals, birds, other things that try to eat it.)

Mutations in the production glands produce minute amounts of related chemicals that, in the lineage of beetles leading to the present-day Bombardier, actually react with the related-but-different chemicals in the other (differently mutatated) gland with slightly different variation.

If any beetles developed too much of both novel chemicals, they had a bad time, but simultaneous (undirected, just happenstance) body-plan changes that produced a beetle less susceptible to stronger mixtures produced descendants that could 'safely' and slowly switch production over (by the random walk of mutation allowing each generation to generate more and more novel mix, less and less original secretion) and... well, develop the system you see today. Any beetle whose genes made it over-produce the chemicals (based on its current body-plan) did not survive, but beetles whose genes gave it more resistant body-plans might use the chemicals it possessed more frequently both allowing it mroe chance of having offspring and allowints its offspring (at least those retaining the stronger reserves) more chance of having offspring of their own.

Eventually, we get the current Bombardier Beetle. Perhaps in the future they might have even more power. Who is to say they've stopped improving themselves? (I'm sure, in fact, that they haven't, though improvement will slow as you get more precariousness to their abilities.)

2) When a giraffe bends to get water, blood rushes to its head, and, normally, it would die. However, it has some pump sort of thing that pumps the blood back to the heart. How did the giraffe get water, much less survive, much less reproduce with getting the water that it needed. And without being able to reproduce, how did the next generations of giraffes exist, and how did they themselves reproduce and evolve? The only possible way is if it was CREATED.You're making the mistake (as you did above) that giraffes suddenly had long necks and then had to try to breed the coping mechanism into the next generation before they died of thirst.

They started off 'normal'-looking (for whatever value of 'normal' applies, given no ancestor beasts looked very much like their modern-day descendants). There was a selection for longer legs, to reach the trees, and the longer neck was (ironically) so they could reach the ground to drink. At first, though, they were marginally longer limbs and neck, and their existing circulatory system could handle that without much problem. But those that grew a stronger circulatory system could out-compete those that got dizzy when performing such actions with only slightly longer elements of body-plan...

Those who survived better were the ones not dizzy when surprised by predators at water-hole, and those that could get leaves that the others could not reach. Their ofsspring had longer and shorter elements of body-plan, but those that didn't have the reach (up or down for leaves or water) and corresponding improved circulatory system tended to die off. The ones with the advantages lived and bred. Repeat for many generations, you get a giraffe as we see it. Repeat longer (unless we accidentally kill the species off or give an advantage towards shorter neo-giraffes), and you might get something even more ponderous with even more specialisation.

Some source? just because you heard it does not make it correct ... and if it is a new theory I have not learned yet I would LOVE to get some information on it
(as for strawman that has been covered)

I posted the source already actually, but here it is again since you couldn't be bothered - http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

It's a very basic explanation but apparently NASA heard the same thing I did.

Some source? just because you heard it does not make it correct ... and if it is a new theory I have not learned yet I would LOVE to get some information on it
(as for strawman that has been covered)
Here is where it is referenced.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8588894&postcount=405

"Super"-natural means above nature, in other words spiritual or idealistic. Are you suggesting that this primeval atom is not a physical particle? (Sorry, I know nothing more about it than the NASA link you pointed to.)

I described my use of the word as most people take it to mean the same as you did. In this case, supernatural simply means existing outside of what can be observed (the universe).

The universe is not a closed system. Even if it is finite in size, it is "everything that is" and hence is as open as open can be.

Do not confuse the infinite idea of the universe with including everything. The universe is all the energy and matter that exists and has existed. The primeval atom by it's very nature (from it came the universe) must exist or have existed outside the universe.

Well, I had loads of other messages I wanted to reply to, but there's been a lot of them since Friday, when I last checekd in, and it would be bad form of me to put dozens of sequential messages from myself...

However, you're fairly recently posting, so...

I've previously talked about this. I may be wrong, but I doubt I'm 'incorrect' (as in describing an impossible process).

Essentially, proto-Bombardier is a beetle that produces produces something, perhaps an irritant, in glands. These glands would have developed from any old liquid secretion mechanism and it already developed a 'separation' mechanism to protect itself from its own miniature chemical factories as the original secretions got 'nasty' to it and to others. (Or, conversly, they aren't nasty to it, just pesky mammals, birds, other things that try to eat it.)

Mutations in the production glands produce minute amounts of related chemicals that, in the lineage of beetles leading to the present-day Bombardier, actually react with the related-but-different chemicals in the other (differently mutatated) gland with slightly different variation.

If any beetles developed too much of both novel chemicals, they had a bad time, but simultaneous (undirected, just happenstance) body-plan changes that produced a beetle less susceptible to stronger mixtures produced descendants that could 'safely' and slowly switch production over (by the random walk of mutation allowing each generation to generate more and more novel mix, less and less original secretion) and... well, develop the system you see today. Any beetle whose genes made it over-produce the chemicals (based on its current body-plan) did not survive, but beetles whose genes gave it more resistant body-plans might use the chemicals it possessed more frequently both allowing it mroe chance of having offspring and allowints its offspring (at least those retaining the stronger reserves) more chance of having offspring of their own.

Eventually, we get the current Bombardier Beetle. Perhaps in the future they might have even more power. Who is to say they've stopped improving themselves? (I'm sure, in fact, that they haven't, though improvement will slow as you get more precariousness to their abilities.)

You're making the mistake (as you did above) that giraffes suddenly had long necks and then had to try to breed the coping mechanism into the next generation before they died of thirst.

They started off 'normal'-looking (for whatever value of 'normal' applies, given no ancestor beasts looked very much like their modern-day descendants). There was a selection for longer legs, to reach the trees, and the longer neck was (ironically) so they could reach the ground to drink. At first, though, they were marginally longer limbs and neck, and their existing circulatory system could handle that without much problem. But those that grew a stronger circulatory system could out-compete those that got dizzy when performing such actions with only slightly longer elements of body-plan...

Those who survived better were the ones not dizzy when surprised by predators at water-hole, and those that could get leaves that the others could not reach. Their ofsspring had longer and shorter elements of body-plan, but those that didn't have the reach (up or down for leaves or water) and corresponding improved circulatory system tended to die off. The ones with the advantages lived and bred. Repeat for many generations, you get a giraffe as we see it. Repeat longer (unless we accidentally kill the species off or give an advantage towards shorter neo-giraffes), and you might get something even more ponderous with even more specialisation.

I, too, have been gone since Friday and missed (too much to reply to) so much good stuff. I should have thought not to post multiple posts.

Excellent response. I was going to offer a similar response when I read the message.

Here is where it is referenced.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8588894&postcount=405
but that link states the ORIGIONATING theory not what the current theory is (unless they have not made any updates sence 1927)

I, too, have been gone since Friday and missed (too much to reply to) so much good stuff. I should have thought not to post multiple posts.

Excellent response. I was going to offer a similar response when I read the message.Cheers, but, ouch..! What a lot of speeling mostakes I made.. ;)

[edit: Not to mention that I didn't clarify that there was just as little/much link between longer neck and longer legs as there was between circulation system changes and the neck...]

but that link states the ORIGIONATING theory not what the current theory is (unless they have not made any updates sence 1927)
Updates to their webpage? *grin* Sorry, joking...

Perhaps so, but it is the theory that Jocabia was making reference to.

but that link states the ORIGIONATING theory not what the current theory is (unless they have not made any updates sence 1927)

Here - http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Better? Here it's called a singularity, a new name, but the same idea. They state it came from nothing, but they actually mean nothing (no matter, energy, etc.) except for the singularity, which no one really can define specifically.

EDIT: How about you google Big Bang Theory? You can't find anywhere that people suggest there was some "thing" from which the universe came, yet the first two links on google both suggest exactly that. Man, I must have done a lot of linking to get my made-up theory up at the top of that list.

<snipped stuff I agree with>

This strange heretical fervour, which seems almost exclusive to a very small number of American religious fanatics brow-beating ordinary Christians into the position that unless you are against evolution you are not a Christian, continues to baffle me.

I know the Catholic church accepts evolution, and counts the Big bang (whatever the current thinking is on that, hot or cold) as the act of Creation.

I know a senior Jewish theologian (Whose religion has a much greater attachment to the Old Testament than Christianity) has studied the science and found the timescale of the creation of the Universe fits very nicely with a "6 days" period, given that when the Universe was so much denser experiential time would mean millions of years could be quite validly be expressed as a single day. The order in which things evolved also fits well with the order described in Genesis.

I had no idea what the Anglican church of America thought on the matter, so I e-mailed a senior Bishop, I believe he was the primate of Ohio (I got his e-mail address from the Anglican Church of America website; I e-mailed the General Synod here in the UK too, but got no reply) to ask if there was an official position on Creationism. He was good enough to reply.

He said there was no official position, but things were now moving towards "Intelligent Design" (probably because even the most ardent Creationist couldn't continue to support to the stupid and spurious distinction between so-called Micro and Macro-Evolution) because, and I quote...

"This does not reject evolution at all, but does criticize Darwin's idea of 'natural selection' (for which there is no good evidence anyway)"

Hrm.

Again, like any day, I can look at out of my window right now and see in my garden a little critter called a grey squirrel. I used to see red squirrels, now I don't, because the grey squirrels were more successful. I am looking at proof of 'natural selection' at this exact moment, eating peanuts, way to go little feller.

As always, the arguments of the proponents of the phoney science Creationism and its cherry picking, straw clutching evolution, (Oh the irony) Intelligent Design, break down to the fact that they don't want to be related to monkeys.

When it comes to intelligence, I'd pick the brains of a monkey over the brains of someone arguing for Creationism or Intelligent design any day of the week.

Unfortunately, people can't seem to figure out that big bang and evolution are two different theories.

Meanwhile, no, no one argued against natural selection at all.

I added the Big Bang theory into the thread because it shows an accepted theory that relies on an equally unprovable assumption related to supernatural things(existing outside the universe). The Big Bang and ID are not even related theories and I, at least, am fully aware of this.

The problem here is that the argument is that selection occurs, but it's not entirely natural. Arguing natural v. supernatural (other than natural) is a difficult task when dealing with a process that is so difficult to isolate in any way that doesn't introduce the intelligence of the observers into the argument.

I would like to point out that ID is not about creationism as described in the bible even though a certain individual hijacked the thread.

I'm an engineer. I'd bet I've learned more physics than you have and we can dispute this if you'd like to act like school children. You didn't even dispute what I pointed out. I was pointing out that theories have to be adjusted all the time. Adjusting a theory is not the same as disproving it. And I gave an example. Read all the other posts before you say things that are ignorant.
I am studying physics right now. Most engineers don't even have to take more than 2nd year physics, unless they're in engineering physics, which is an easier programme than physics to begin with.

I also can't find the post I was replying to... You came off as though finding one flaw in a theory amounted to disproving it entirely though.

I hear a few arguments that evolution is part of intelligent design, only that it is guided by a divine hand (do I understand that correctly?) If such is the case, there would be no reason to state that evolution is just a theory, or encourage ID to be taught as an alternate theory.

If evolution is part of ID, then teaching evolution is acceptable. Since science has no evidence of a Designer, there is no reason to include that. Just because it is not included does not mean it does not exist. Of course, this leaves it open for the parents to add in the Designer if that is what they believe.

So why the fuss to have stickers put on science text books?

Here - http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Better? Here it's called a singularity, a new name, but the same idea. They state it came from nothing, but they actually mean nothing (no matter, energy, etc.) except for the singularity, which no one really can define specifically.

EDIT: How about you google Big Bang Theory? You can't find anywhere that people suggest there was some "thing" from which the universe came, yet the first two links on google both suggest exactly that. Man, I must have done a lot of linking to get my made-up theory up at the top of that list.Out of interest, do you know how I resolve the 'nothing before the big bang' query?

[edit: Yes, it's off-topic, but I just thought I'd give you the bare details. I'm not saying "this is true" or "this is my philosophy" (though it is the way I most easily perceive the situation, even if I don't go so far as to 'believe' it) just suggesting food for thought...]

Now envision a globe of the earth. Lines of latitude and longitude. You've got lines of latitude going around the Earth, continuously, and those are the direction of 'space' (for my purposes I'm imagining finite but boundless space). You have also lines of longitude, that's the direction that time flows. Say the North Pole is the direction of the past, the South Pole is in the direction of the future. (You can imagine things 'dribbing' down the surface of the Sphere.) The Universe is the surface of this sphere, and 'inside' or 'outside' this surface is meaningless in this particular imagery. This is essentially a 1D-of-space and 1D-of-time representation. Expand it to a hypersphere if you want more space dimensions to play with... :)

Look at a drip (particle/quanta/information-packet) at the equator. Its past was north of the equator, it's future is south of the equator. It was affected by causes upwards of its position, it causes things to happen downwards of its opinion.

What about a drip at the pole. It can flow and effect, but it has no 'cause', within the context of the Universe. A drip at the South Pole can have come from somehwere, be caused, and yet cannot 'effect. Cannot go anywhere.

The Poles are respective analogies to Big Bang and Big Crunch, as well, if you think about it. If you don't like Big Crunches in your model of the universe, you can imagine it as an infinitely deep flaring 'coneoid' contruction... ;)

Anyway, the Universe exists as an entity. Everything that has/will/does happen in it is represented on the surface of the model I describe and (in the context of time, which is represented purely by lattitude) there is a Creation and a Destruction, but the Universe from the POV of totality (where you are standing to look at this 'Universe') is a static construct.

Well, that's a simplified way of looking at it. Wait till I try to merge my "tapestry" explanation of the robustness of time (even where time-travel is possible) and you'll understand why I'm a Fatalist at heart... :)

It's a comparable theory. It makes unprovable assumptions as well and it's fairly well-accepted. Let's face it, as scientists we are permitted to make unprovable assumptions about supernatural substances (primeval atom) so long as that supernatural substance isn't given a name that implies sentience.

*EVERYTHING* in science is unprovable. It is only disprovable.

So is a primeval atom a scientific subject? Is a non-falsifiable assumption? If a primeval atom is an non-falsifiable assumption then bye-bye Big Bang.

You are incredibly confused. No one has "assumed" a primeval atom or "assumed" the Big Bang. They have come to the conclusion that there was one due to looking at the evidence. If the evidence suggests that the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the theory will be changed or discarded. Thus is science.

I am studying physics right now. Most engineers don't even have to take more than 2nd year physics, unless they're in engineering physics, which is an easier programme than physics to begin with.

I also can't find the post I was replying to... You came off as though finding one flaw in a theory amounted to disproving it entirely though.

Actually, I was arguing against someone who said exactly that. I was trying to say that theories get modified all the time as our knowledge grows.

You are incredibly confused. No one has "assumed" a primeval atom or "assumed" the Big Bang. They have come to the conclusion that there was one due to looking at the evidence. If the evidence suggests that the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the theory will be changed or discarded. Thus is science.
Exactly ... that is the very power that the scientific method holds ... the changing your idea to fit reality (or your discription of your idea) rather then trying to change reality (which is enevitably pointless)

I believe that, using the evolutionary theory, it is impossible to explain these two cases.
1) The bombardier beetle thing: how did the separate sacks of chemicals evolve without having any chemicals in them? And how did the protective tissue evolve when there were no chemicals reacting? If a beetle did not have the protective tissue, it would have died, so how would the next generation be born, or if it was born from a dead beetle, how did it evolve? The only way this would be possible is if it all was CREATED in the same generation of beetles.

You seem to think that it all appeared in one generation, which is silly. The chemical reaction would have changed over time, probably getting more caustic as time went on. The protective tissue would *not* have had to evolve at the same time. In fact, such mutations could have happened well before and just been a part of the population (since they would not be selected for or against). Then, when the chemical mix became more caustic, those with protective tissue were selected for.

2) When a giraffe bends to get water, blood rushes to its head, and, normally, it would die. However, it has some pump sort of thing that pumps the blood back to the heart. How did the giraffe get water, much less survive, much less reproduce with getting the water that it needed. And without being able to reproduce, how did the next generations of giraffes exist, and how did they themselves reproduce and evolve? The only possible way is if it was CREATED.

You are assuming that the long neck occurred before the pump - again, an unfounded assumption and a demonstration of your clear lack of understanding of the theory.

The universe is not a closed system. Even if it is finite in size, it is "everything that is" and hence is as open as open can be.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the universe is everything that is, then there can be nothing outside of it for it to interact with. As such, it would be a closed system.

Your statement is like me saying, I have everything I own in this box. There is nothing I own outside of it. Therefore I have stuff outside the box.

Here - http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Better? Here it's called a singularity, a new name, but the same idea. They state it came from nothing, but they actually mean nothing (no matter, energy, etc.) except for the singularity, which no one really can define specifically.

EDIT: How about you google Big Bang Theory? You can't find anywhere that people suggest there was some "thing" from which the universe came, yet the first two links on google both suggest exactly that. Man, I must have done a lot of linking to get my made-up theory up at the top of that list.
Atom is significantly different from singularity there is a reason the two are not synonyms

I give up. I don't believe ID and never have. I believe in determinism which does not require a supernatural being, though I happen to believe in one. I was only saying that I don't think ID is crackpot or unsupported. I think it should be scientifically considered and disproven like any other theory rather than simply dismissed because it includes the concept of an intelligent supernatural being. I don't think the theory should be taught in schools (assume public when I say schools) just as I think no theory requiring the non-existence of a deity should be taught in schools. Schools (and governments) should be agnostic.

(a) ID is not a scientific theory, since it discarded the scientific method to come to its conclusions. Anything which does not use the scientific method *SHOULD NOT* even be considered by serious science.

(b) There are no scientific theories requiring the non-existence of a deity.

(a) ID is not a scientific theory, since it discarded the scientific method to come to its conclusions. Anything which does not use the scientific method *SHOULD NOT* even be considered by serious science.

(b) There are no scientific theories requiring the non-existence of a deity.
But there can by definition be no scientific theory that addresses a deity :) its crazy stuff

Though not sure we can observe intervention of a deity directly otherwise its effect would be within the physical realm and would be able to explained by natural laws

But yes there is no scientific theory that discounts the ability of a deity to be “behind” an event as long as the event is explainable and observable (eventually)

Atom is significantly different from singularity there is a reason the two are not synonyms

That's why I usually just called it a "thing". Primeval atom was just a name given by some theorist meaning a foundational substance (though change substance to fit into the absence of space/time/matter/energy). I think the theorist was using a different definition of atom than than a unit of matter, for obvious reasons. Atom - A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system.

But there can by definition be no scientific theory that addresses a deity :) its crazy stuff

Though not sure we can observe intervention of a deity directly otherwise its effect would be within the physical realm and would be able to explained by natural laws

But yes there is no scientific theory that discounts the ability of a deity to be “behind” an event as long as the event is explainable and observable (eventually)

The point is that science can assume nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity, as neither are falsifiable. As such, science ignores the question. We concern ourselves with that which occurs inside the universe and by the rules of the universe (many of which we have yet to discover). We do not assume that there is a God or that there is not. Any theory which relies on either assumption immediately falls apart at the seams.

The point is that science can assume nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity, as neither are falsifiable. As such, science ignores the question. We concern ourselves with that which occurs inside the universe and by the rules of the universe (many of which we have yet to discover). We do not assume that there is a God or that there is not. Any theory which relies on either assumption immediately falls apart at the seams.

What Question is that?
Or have i just missed it.

What Question is that?
Or have i just missed it.

The question of whether or not there is a God. The question itself is outside the realm of science, so science is not concerned with it.

That's why I usually just called it a "thing". Primeval atom was just a name given by some theorist meaning a foundational substance (though change substance to fit into the absence of space/time/matter/energy). I think the theorist was using a different definition of atom than than a unit of matter, for obvious reasons. Atom - A part or particle considered to be an irreducible constituent of a specified system.
Fair enough :p :fluffle:

You are incredibly confused. No one has "assumed" a primeval atom or "assumed" the Big Bang. They have come to the conclusion that there was one due to looking at the evidence. If the evidence suggests that the Big Bang theory is wrong, then the theory will be changed or discarded. Thus is science.


see my sig for clarification

(a) ID is not a scientific theory, since it discarded the scientific method to come to its conclusions. Anything which does not use the scientific method *SHOULD NOT* even be considered by serious science.

(b) There are no scientific theories requiring the non-existence of a deity.

Oh, I'm certain there are, they are just likely not as famous as ID. My point is neither has a place in agnostic school system.

Let's say that you believe the world is flat. It's a widely-held belief. The evidence for such is that I can look out and see the horizon, the edge of the world, when I look out over water. At the time, visual evidence was held in pretty high regard. Now let's say that I believe the world is round. You say, fine, show me evidence the world is round. I say, no problem I will sail west until I come to the other side of this continent. Now let's say the Americas didn't exist in this theoretical world. Columbus (me) and his crew would not have survived sailing all the way to asia with no land in between. If the world had been even bigger it might have been a century before the world being round would be accepted belief or any evidence was shown to exist. Because their equipment at the time didn't allow them to show evidence (prove) that the world was round doesn't make the world is round theory a bunch of unscientific hogwash.

Now, in ID, the part that would be testable is observing evolution (the creation of new species) in a closed system, something we can't yet do, but will likely be able to do at some point in the future (though the idea of what a fully closed system is, is somewhat philosophical). The fact that we can't test it now doesn't make it hogwash and, in my opinion, the fact that they apply intelligence (thus the I in ID) to the non-natural component of the theory doesn't make it hogwash either. Now, how exactly did they discard the scientific method?

see my sig for clarification
Your signature needs clarification.

Rather, the author is incorrect. It should be:
"In science, when the theories do not fit the facts, the theories are discarded.
In creation science, when the theories do not fit the facts, the facts are discarded."

Religion does not concern itself with facts so much as inner truths.

Scientific Method:

1. The observation of phenomena - the universe does not appear to be increasing in entropy.

2. Formulation of hypothesis - a supernatural being is forcing entropy to decrease (thus the universe, the system, is not closed).

3. Testing - Not yet possible.

Doesn't seem like they've discarded the scientific process, they just haven't completed it.

Scientific Method:

1. The observation of phenomena - the universe does not appear to be increasing in entropy.

2. Formulation of hypothesis - a supernatural being is forcing entropy to decrease (thus the universe, the system, is not closed).

3. Testing - Not yet possible.

Doesn't seem like they've discarded the scientific process, they just haven't completed it.
And if it is not completed or possible to complete it , it is not a scientfic theory

Oh, I'm certain there are, they are just likely not as famous as ID. My point is neither has a place in agnostic school system.

No, there aren't. Any theory dependent on the lack of a God is just as unscientific as one dependent on the existence of a God.

Let's say that you believe the world is flat. It's a widely-held belief. The evidence for such is that I can look out and see the horizon, the edge of the world, when I look out over water. At the time, visual evidence was held in pretty high regard. Now let's say that I believe the world is round. You say, fine, show me evidence the world is round. I say, no problem I will sail west until I come to the other side of this continent. Now let's say the Americas didn't exist in this theoretical world. Columbus (me) and his crew would not have survived sailing all the way to asia with no land in between. If the world had been even bigger it might have been a century before the world being round would be accepted belief or any evidence was shown to exist. Because their equipment at the time didn't allow them to show evidence (prove) that the world was round doesn't make the world is round theory a bunch of unscientific hogwash.

No, because the theory is still falsifiable and was *BASED ON EVIDENCE*. The fact that it couldn't be disproven *right then* does not mean it is not falsifiable.

Now, in ID, the part that would be testable is observing evolution (the creation of new species) in a closed system, something we can't yet do, but will likely be able to do at some point in the future (though the idea of what a fully closed system is, is somewhat philosophical). The fact that we can't test it now doesn't make it hogwash and, in my opinion, the fact that they apply intelligence (thus the I in ID) to the non-natural component of the theory doesn't make it hogwash either. Now, how exactly did they discard the scientific method?

No, to have ID as a scientific theory, you would have to be able to *disprove* the idea of an *intelligent* creator - which cannot be disproven. If ID simply stated, "the universe is not a closed system and X is our evidence for that", it might be a scientific theory. Instead, they say "An all-powerful intelligent creator able to break the rules of the universe created everything" - an non-falsifiable assertion.

Scientific Method:

1. The observation of phenomena - the universe does not appear to be increasing in entropy.

2. Formulation of hypothesis - a supernatural being is forcing entropy to decrease (thus the universe, the system, is not closed).

3. Testing - Not yet possible.

Doesn't seem like they've discarded the scientific process, they just haven't completed it.

It is impossible to disprove a supernatural being. As such, the hypothesis is inherently unscientific.

Let's say that you believe the world is flat. It's a widely-held belief. The evidence for such is that I can look out and see the horizon, the edge of the world, when I look out over water. At the time, visual evidence was held in pretty high regard. Now let's say that I believe the world is round. You say, fine, show me evidence the world is round. I say, no problem I will sail west until I come to the other side of this continent. Now let's say the Americas didn't exist in this theoretical world. Columbus (me) and his crew would not have survived sailing all the way to asia with no land in between. If the world had been even bigger it might have been a century before the world being round would be accepted belief or any evidence was shown to exist. Because their equipment at the time didn't allow them to show evidence (prove) that the world was round doesn't make the world is round theory a bunch of unscientific hogwash.

Good points, in their way. Minor issue, though... Sailors often 'knew' (if they even thought about it) that the world was round, because they saw ships hove over the horizon. People who worked at height could have realised there was more world to see than the ground-level horizon would reveal (even accounting for terrain), ancient astronomers had excellent opportunity for deriving the spheroidness of the Earth*, and there was that experiment with wells in Ancienct Egypt that (allegedly**) established the radius of the Earth to within a narrow margin of the correct value, just by observing the shadow of a stick in one place and well in another...

I think a lot of people never ever thought about the roundness/flatness of the Earth, though those indoctrinated into the belief of its flatness would probably have gone with peer pressure and that philosophy...

I think Columbus, rather than being strange in thinking the world was round (though undoubtedly the Establishment of the time encouraged belief in this for various of their own reasons/misconceptions) believed the world was much smaller than it was (I'm not sure what other sailors thought), and thus expected to find the Eastern continents around the time he hit land at the Western ones... But who knows what was really in his mind...

Not relevant to ID, though, so sorry for blurbing.
Good night! :p


(* -Though a proportion may well have explained away these things, much as later 'western' astronomers tried to replicate the Heliocentric elipse-based movements of planets into a Geocentric circle-upon-circle-upon-circle-based movements system. The "so called "music of the spheres", and later they even tried fitting the orbits of the planets into shells of regular' polyhedrons to explain the proportions of the orbits... Sometimes people stick with strange ideas, but then they move on... :))
(** - Given the margin of error we these days have establishing the units of length used, some people have established the assumed measurement standard used based on what it measured, but that's just one POV.

And if it is not completed or possible to complete it , it is not a scientfic theory

There are two requirements for a scientific theory, it must explain observations and it must be falsifiable. ID fits both of those requirements in that one can test and show that no "external" interference is necessary in evolution. It actually hasn't been shown because we haven't tested it in a closed system.

There are two requirements for a scientific theory, it must explain observations and it must be falsifiable. ID fits both of those requirements in that one can test and show that no "external" interference is necessary in evolution. It actually hasn't been shown because we haven't tested it in a closed system.

Wrong. ID specifically assumes an *intelligent* creator outside the unvierse. As such, it is *not* falsifiable.

Wrong. ID specifically assumes an *intelligent* creator outside the unvierse. As such, it is *not* falsifiable.

It does assume a supernatural intelligence that encouraged the universe and life to move in a direction counter to the natural movement towards increased entropy. It is falsifiable by showing that the universe and life do move towards increased entropy, thus no need for any supernatural coersion(sp? I'm lazy.).

Good points, in their way. Minor issue, though... Sailors often 'knew' (if they even thought about it) that the world was round, because they saw ships hove over the horizon. People who worked at height could have realised there was more world to see than the ground-level horizon would reveal (even accounting for terrain), ancient astronomers had excellent opportunity for deriving the spheroidness of the Earth*, and there was that experiment with wells in Ancienct Egypt that (allegedly**) established the radius of the Earth to within a narrow margin of the correct value, just by observing the shadow of a stick in one place and well in another...

I think a lot of people never ever thought about the roundness/flatness of the Earth, though those indoctrinated into the belief of its flatness would probably have gone with peer pressure and that philosophy...

I think Columbus, rather than being strange in thinking the world was round (though undoubtedly the Establishment of the time encouraged belief in this for various of their own reasons/misconceptions) believed the world was much smaller than it was (I'm not sure what other sailors thought), and thus expected to find the Eastern continents around the time he hit land at the Western ones... But who knows what was really in his mind...

Not relevant to ID, though, so sorry for blurbing.
Good night! :p


(* -Though a proportion may well have explained away these things, much as later 'western' astronomers tried to replicate the Heliocentric elipse-based movements of planets into a Geocentric circle-upon-circle-upon-circle-based movements system. The "so called "music of the spheres", and later they even tried fitting the orbits of the planets into shells of regular' polyhedrons to explain the proportions of the orbits... Sometimes people stick with strange ideas, but then they move on... :))
(** - Given the margin of error we these days have establishing the units of length used, some people have established the assumed measurement standard used based on what it measured, but that's just one POV.

I was stretching a bit. I thought of the comparison over lunch. The curvature of the earth was eventually observable when glass production became advanced enough and there was evidence for Earth being a rotating curved object in measurements that could be made from the stars, the same type of measurements that evidence a heliocentric galaxy. I think it still generally makes the point.

It does assume a supernatural intelligence that encouraged the universe and life to move in a direction counter to the natural movement towards increased entropy. It is falsifiable by showing that the universe and life do move towards increased entropy, thus no need for any supernatural coersion(sp? I'm lazy.).

Wrong again, as showing that the universe and life do move towards increased entropy would not falsify the idea of an intelligent creator. The problem here is that such an idea *cannot* be disproven. Anyone could always say "Well, *that's* the way the intelligent creator did it then."

Wrong again, as showing that the universe and life do move towards increased entropy would not falsify the idea of an intelligent creator. The problem here is that such an idea *cannot* be disproven. Anyone could always say "Well, *that's* the way the intelligent creator did it then."

The theory is not that there is an intelligent creator. The theory is that life represents too much order to have occurred from solely natural processes so an intelligent hand must have been present. You don't have to disprove the creator, and understandably, you can't, but you simply have to falsify the reason an intelligent hand must have been present.

The theory is not that there is an intelligent creator. The theory is that life represents too much order to have occurred from solely natural processes so an intelligent hand must have been present. You don't have to disprove the creator, and understandably, you can't, but you simply have to falsify the reason an intelligent hand must have been present.

You demonstrate your absolute ignorance of science right here.

You demonstrate your absolute ignorance of science right here.

Like you demonstrated your ignorance of the theory? How about you try saying something more meaningful.

Like you demonstrated your ignorance of the theory? How about you try saying something more meaningful.

man i probably shouldnt be pedantic but here i go anyway. ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.

You are absolutely right. Despite the fact that the evolutionary chain is incomplete, it is completely impossible to prove that the evolution of species couldn't have happened. But, by the very same token, it is impossible to prove that intelligent design couldn't have happen. We may call one or the other very unlikely, but by the very nature of the science or origins, we cannot really prove anything. The scientific method is based off observability and repeatability, and origins - no matter which theory you ascribe to - has neither of these. No one saw the process of evolution (or creation) take place, and we cannot perform an experiment to repeat the process on any kind of significant scale. So we must find some other way to come to a conclusion of how the world, and the diversity of species we find in it, came to be.
It makes sense that if we cannot prove or disprove evolution, or a creator, or for that matter aliens who put us here, all we're left with is the evidence we see in the world, and which theory that evidence seems to fit. In what we can see from the world today and the fragmented record we have of the world past, which theory seems the most plausible? I ascribe to the intelligent design theory for a huge variety of reasons which I can go into if you want, but that's not the purpose of this response.
The point is that you can't come from either side and say that the other's "couldn't" have happened, or that yours must be the right view because it "cannot be disproven." Instead, you have to look at all the evidence you can find and decide what is the most plausible theory. This is not an easy decision, and for me and many others it is an ongoing process. A prime example of this is Dr. Anthony Flew, a longtime champion of evolution who, at age 81, decided that the continually growing base of evidence we have supports intelligent design. I hope you, and anyone who reads this, will not continue trying to argue origins as though it were some ordinary branch of science, because that will only be futile and lead to a lot of unfounded and unnecessary contention.
Hope this was a worthwhile read and contributes to your discussion, if anyone wants to talk more or tell me why I am wrong, I'd love to get an IM. sn: stoveboy86
-Zach

If you'd care to read up on evolution, you'll see that it has been observed rather a lot, most obviously in bacteria and other single celled organisms.

I'm not sure what your version of ID is like, but you seem to think the fragmented fossil record is eveidence of ID. I thought basically ID and normal evolution were the same but one was controlled by something. I don't see how the fossil record changes anything.

And evolution can be falsified, it just hasnt been my the evidence available.

Who is Anthony flew and what was his doctorate in?

Like you demonstrated your ignorance of the theory? How about you try saying something more meaningful.

The "ID" you are arguing is your own made-up version. In truth, ID does not state that there isn't enough entropy in the universe to explain biology, but that it is impossible for evolution to have happened by random mutation and natural selection, as it is "too complex to have happened that way." Since they believe it is too complex to have occurred by natural processes, they posit a God. So, I don't htink it is me who is "ignorant of the 'theory'."

Meanwhile, even your made-up version of ID is unscientific, specifically because it makes the assumption that the "outside source of energy" which you posit is an intelligent creator. You say that ID could be disproved if we somehow created a huge closed system and showed evolution within it (which is like saying we could end the debate if we built a time machine, by the way), but by doing so, you demonstrate *your* lack of knowledge of logic. Once a supreme creator has been introduced, it stays there. If this was accomplished, an IDer could just say "Our God must have introduced extra energy there too."

The "ID" you are arguing is your own made-up version. In truth, ID does not state that there isn't enough entropy in the universe to explain biology, but that it is impossible for evolution to have happened by random mutation and natural selection, as it is "too complex to have happened that way." Since they believe it is too complex to have occurred by natural processes, they posit a God. So, I don't htink it is me who is "ignorant of the 'theory'."

Clearly the inventers of that ID theory either, did not understand evolution/ or were just scared of it.

So we must find some other way to come to a conclusion of how the world, and the diversity of species we find in it, came to be.

And if you intend to say that your way is scientific, you must follow certain rules.

It makes sense that if we cannot prove or disprove evolution, or a creator, or for that matter aliens who put us here, all we're left with is the evidence we see in the world, and which theory that evidence seems to fit. In what we can see from the world today and the fragmented record we have of the world past, which theory seems the most plausible? I ascribe to the intelligent design theory for a huge variety of reasons which I can go into if you want, but that's not the purpose of this response.

Go back and read the thread Re: the difference between *scientific* theory and lay-theory. Evolution is scientific theory - having been formulated from the evidence at hand. ID is a lay-theory, a simple hypothesis based on non-falsifiable assumptions.

The point is that you can't come from either side and say that the other's "couldn't" have happened, or that yours must be the right view because it "cannot be disproven."

No one has said that ID couldn't have happened, although the very basis of ID is that evolution "couldn't have happened."

Instead, you have to look at all the evidence you can find and decide what is the most plausible theory.

If the theory does not come from the evidence, it is not a scientific theory.

Clearly the inventers of that ID theory either, did not understand evolution/ or were just scared of it.

Pretty much.

The "ID" you are arguing is your own made-up version. In truth, ID does not state that there isn't enough entropy in the universe to explain biology, but that it is impossible for evolution to have happened by random mutation and natural selection, as it is "too complex to have happened that way." Since they believe it is too complex to have occurred by natural processes, they posit a God. So, I don't htink it is me who is "ignorant of the 'theory'."

Meanwhile, even your made-up version of ID is unscientific, specifically because it makes the assumption that the "outside source of energy" which you posit is an intelligent creator. You say that ID could be disproved if we somehow created a huge closed system and showed evolution within it (which is like saying we could end the debate if we built a time machine, by the way), but by doing so, you demonstrate *your* lack of knowledge of logic. Once a supreme creator has been introduced, it stays there. If this was accomplished, an IDer could just say "Our God must have introduced extra energy there too."

Really? I introduced the second law of thermodynamics to the theory? Huh? Weird that it was mentioned before I brought it up. Everyone must have read my book, "Ways to make people arguing against ID look like idiots"

The basis of the theory is that the movement of the universe and particularly life represents a move towards order. If one could show that in a closed system that life could appear and that evolution of a new species could occur while the entire system increased in entropy it would destroy the need to introduce the intelligent hand as current theories would not be inadequate as is postulated by ID. They say life represents a move towards order even when considered in the entire system (the universe) to prove them wrong is just to show that even with life being created and evolving in a system you can have increasing entropy.

Really? I introduced the second law of thermodynamics to the theory? Huh? Weird that it was mentioned before I brought it up. Everyone must have read my book, "Ways to make people arguing against ID look like idiots"

I didn't say you introduced it, only that it is not the entire basis of theory, which is what you have been arguing.

The *basis* of the theory is the idea that order cannot be created from a random process (which natural selection isn't, but they don't seem to realize that). Thus, we get the arguments like "What about the bombadier beetle?" and "What about the eye?"

The basis of the theory is that the movement of the universe and particularly life represents a move towards order. If one could show that in a closed system that life could appear and that evolution of a new species could occur while the entire system increased in entropy it would destroy the need to introduce the intelligent hand as current theories would not be inadequate as is postulated by ID. They say life represents a move towards order even when considered in the entire system (the universe) to prove them wrong is just to show that even with life being created and evolving in a system you can have increasing entropy.

WHat you fail to see is that, even in your idea where there is apparently *decreasing* entropy, there is no logical reason to introduce an *intelligent* hand. A scientific thinker would say "Entropy seems to be decreasing here, therefore there must be some source of energy we do not yet have evidence of," not, "Obviously this source of energy is an intelligent creator that I can never disprove."

Really? I introduced the second law of thermodynamics to the theory? Huh? Weird that it was mentioned before I brought it up. Everyone must have read my book, "Ways to make people arguing against ID look like idiots"

The basis of the theory is that the movement of the universe and particularly life represents a move towards order. If one could show that in a closed system that life could appear and that evolution of a new species could occur while the entire system increased in entropy it would destroy the need to introduce the intelligent hand as current theories would not be inadequate as is postulated by ID. They say life represents a move towards order even when considered in the entire system (the universe) to prove them wrong is just to show that even with life being created and evolving in a system you can have increasing entropy.

why not just calculate approximately how much the sun has increased in entropy over the last 5 billion years or so and compare it to the difference between the earth with life and without?

I didn't say you introduced it, only that it is not the entire basis of theory, which is what you have been arguing.

The *basis* of the theory is the idea that order cannot be created from a random process (which natural selection isn't, but they don't seem to realize that). Thus, we get the arguments like "What about the bombadier beetle?" and "What about the eye?"



WHat you fail to see is that, even in your idea where there is apparently *decreasing* entropy, there is no logical reason to introduce an *intelligent* hand. A scientific thinker would say "Entropy seems to be decreasing here, therefore there must be some source of energy we do not yet have evidence of," not, "Obviously this source of energy is an intelligent creator that I can never disprove."

Again, all you have to do is find the actual source and there again there is no need for the intelligent creator argument so you can disprove the statement.

I think what decisions you make depend on where you're coming from. It's not that unusual to mix philosophies into scientific theory. However, much more skepticism is placed on injected philosophies that include an intelligent supernatural being, rightfully so.

why not just calculate approximately how much the sun has increased in entropy over the last 5 billion years or so and compare it to the difference between the earth with life and without?

Not a closed system. Not all usable energy the sun puts out is used by the Earth or by life on Earth.

Again, all you have to do is find the actual source and there again there is no need for the intelligent creator argument so you can disprove the statement.

However, if the source is, as ID posits, outside the universe, it can never be found!

I think what decisions you make depend on where you're coming from. It's not that unusual to mix philosophies into scientific theory. However, much more skepticism is placed on injected philosophies that include an intelligent supernatural being, rightfully so.

Again, such a profound misunderstanding of science. If your theory is based upon a particular subjective philosophy, it is *NOT SCIENTIFIC*.

Not a closed system. Not all usable energy the sun puts out is used by the Earth or by life on Earth.

Of course, if the entropy of the sun did counteract that needed to create life on earth, it wouldn't matter if it was a closed system, the need for an outside source would already be disproven.

Not a closed system. Not all usable energy the sun puts out is used by the Earth or by life on Earth.

You can never get a truly closed system without considering the entire universe. The descrepancies would easily be small enough, whats a better insulator compared millions of miles of empty space. Calculate the energy the earth takes in from the sun then.

Of course, if the entropy of the sun did counteract that needed to create life on earth, it wouldn't matter if it was a closed system, the need for an outside source would already be disproven.

Good point. If you could show that the earth, with the energy it brings in from the sun, is maximizing entropy then you would have destroyed the basis of ID. Actually, I don't think that's all that unlikely, either.

Good point. If you could show that the earth, with the energy it brings in from the sun, is maximizing entropy then you would have destroyed the basis of ID. Actually, I don't think that's all that unlikely, either.

...except that the "basis" of ID is that certain parts of biology could not have evolved, regardless of how much energy was put into them - so entropy wouldn't prove a thing.

and there was that experiment with wells in Ancienct Egypt that (allegedly**) established the radius of the Earth to within a narrow margin of the correct value, just by observing the shadow of a stick in one place and well in another...
Actually, it was a tower in Alexandria and a well in Syene. It wasn't really an experiment though, it was measurement and geometry. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to be 40,200km, which is pretty close to the actual measurement of 40,030 km.

Actually, it was a tower in Alexandria and a well in Syene. It wasn't really an experiment though, it was measurement and geometry. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference to be 40,200km, which is pretty close to the actual measurement of 40,030 km.

thouse anciet egyptians they could count pretty well, pity they never really got the hang of the wheel.

However, if the source is, as ID posits, outside the universe, it can never be found!

If you can prove the source is outside the universe I think a lot of people would be willing to accept the intelligent creator theory particularly if no better theory comes along. I suspect there is no source outside the universe, but that's me injecting my philosophies into which theories I choose to believe.

Again, such a profound misunderstanding of science. If your theory is based upon a particular subjective philosophy, it is *NOT SCIENTIFIC*.

If you believe subjective philosophy is never a part of accepted theory then it is not I who does not understand science. I think it is, and should be, avoided where possible, but where we have not or can not test we often substitute philosophy until something more supported by evidence, more useful or clearly observable comes along.

If you can prove the source is outside the universe I think a lot of people would be willing to accept the intelligent creator theory particularly if no better theory comes along. I suspect there is no source outside the universe, but that's me injecting my philosophies into which theories I choose to believe.

Please choose your terms carefully. If you are speaking theory in the scientific sense, then assuming *anything* about an intelligent creator is not theory.

If you are speaking in the layman's sense, then yes, you are.

If you believe subjective philosophy is never a part of accepted theory then it is not I who does not understand science. I think it is, and should be, avoided where possible, but where we have not or can not test we often substitute philosophy until something more supported by evidence, more useful or clearly observable comes along.

Name a scientific theory with a subjective theory as its basis.

Meanwhile, I *am* a scientist, so chance are that I have a pretty good understanding of what is involved. Otherwise, they would've kicked me out already.

...except that the "basis" of ID is that certain parts of biology could not have evolved, regardless of how much energy was put into them - so entropy wouldn't prove a thing.

I think that's just one of the arguments associated with ID and attempting to support ID, but I would classify it as one of the more easily debunked and, obviously, less scientific arguments. It isn't a required part. Everyone that has tried to post on that here and everyone that I've read from other sources that tried to make that argument had to make just silly statements to try and make it sound like the Bombadier (or something similarly complicated) Beetle popped into existence in a single mutation or something. No one with any scientific background actually thinks that argument makes any sense whatsoever and is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and evolution.

Name a scientific theory with a subjective theory as its basis.

Meanwhile, I *am* a scientist, so chance are that I have a pretty good understanding of what is involved. Otherwise, they would've kicked me out already.

Well, actually, it's not a subject theory as basic, but a subjective conclusion that we're talking about.

Einstein believed in the "Hidden variable" theory that was largely based on philosophy but was certainly supported by his work. It was later disproven by Bell, but it was believe rather widely (some physicists, but not most physicists). Bell thought is was scientific, enough so as to be worth disproving.

Hawkings often admittedly incorporates philosophy into his theory and even at times refers to the emerging field of philosophers of science.

I think that's just one of the arguments associated with ID and attempting to support ID, but I would classify it as one of the more easily debunked and, obviously, less scientific arguments. It isn't a required part. Everyone that has tried to post on that here and everyone that I've read from other sources that tried to make that argument had to make just silly statements to try and make it sound like the Bombadier (or something similarly complicated) Beetle popped into existence in a single mutation or something. No one with any scientific background actually thinks that argument makes any sense whatsoever and is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and evolution.

...exactly my point - and yet it is the argument they get *directly* from the proponents of ID - especially those who wish to teach it in our schools.

Believe me, I've seen some of what the "experts" on ID write. It is interesting to note that none of them (at least that I have seen) are biologists. Generally, they are (a) in unrelated fields or (b) do not subscribe to actual ID, but have stated that they believe in a God, so they get thrown into the mix.

Well, actually, it's not a subject theory as basic, but a subjective conclusion that we're talking about.

No, you stated that subjective philosophy is injected into theories. Where is it?

Einstein believed in the "Hidden variable" theory that was largely based on philosophy but was certainly supported by his work. It was later disproven by Bell, but it was believe rather widely (some physicists, but not most physicists). Bell thought is was scientific, enough so as to be worth disproving.

He posited a "hidden variable", but did not attribute unmeasurable characteristics to that variable. As such, it was able to be disproven. It was not subjective.

Hawkings often admittedly incorporates philosophy into his theory and even at times refers to the emerging field of philosophers of science.

(a) There is a difference between subjective and objective, even in philosophy.

(b) Cite an example, so that we may see if there is actually a subjective philosophy upon with a theory is based - as you have stated before.

thouse anciet egyptians they could count pretty well, pity they never really got the hang of the wheel.
Actually it was a greek visiting egypt.

And the egyptians had wheels...

So is a primeval atom a scientific subject? Is a non-falsifiable assumption? If a primeval atom is an non-falsifiable assumption then bye-bye Big Bang.

Strawman, again.

Whatever precedes the 'Big Bang' in the theory, is aside from the 'theory' of the 'Big Bang' itself.

To set up an argument against a 'primeval atom' that isn't even required for most 'Big Bang' type theories, just to knock down your own creation, is a logical fallacy.

I give up. I don't believe ID and never have. I believe in determinism which does not require a supernatural being, though I happen to believe in one. I was only saying that I don't think ID is crackpot or unsupported. I think it should be scientifically considered and disproven like any other theory rather than simply dismissed because it includes the concept of an intelligent supernatural being. I don't think the theory should be taught in schools (assume public when I say schools) just as I think no theory requiring the non-existence of a deity should be taught in schools. Schools (and governments) should be agnostic.


The theory isn't being simply 'dismissed'. It never contends... since it is unscientific by it's very premise.

If you start with an assumption, that you are then shaping the observations to fit - you are NOT following scientific methods.

Thus - ID and Creationism are NOT scientific 'theories'.

'Science' will accept ANY theory that doesn't build an assumption into it's basis.

Example: Aliens must have built the universe. Not-Scientific - because it presupposes aliens, when there is no evidence to base THAT assumption on.

The same applies for the argument that 'God' created the universe. If you cannot substatiate your assumption, then you cannot (scientifically) assume it.

I posted the source already actually, but here it is again since you couldn't be bothered - http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

It's a very basic explanation but apparently NASA heard the same thing I did.

First: As it clearly says in your source, the 'theory' was devised around a 'primeval atom' in 1927. Don't mistake that for being the same as it being current thought.

Second: The 'theory' as defined by Lemaitre began with the 'primeval atom'... which was the first event, if you will. It doesn't say the 'primeval atom' preceded the universe.

Third: As has been pointed out in this thread - there are many other ways that a 'Big Bang' type event can take place, without the necessary assumption of a 'god'. Thus - to keep attacking the premise of a 'Primeval atom' is a "Straw Man" logical fallacy... constructing a weaker argument to try to discredit a stronger.

Straw Man: http://datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

'Big Bang' does not stand or fall on what came BEFORE the 'bang'.

Let me give you an example of a Straw Man argument:

God is an octopus... the Bible says we are made in God's image... we are NOT octopi... therefore - there is no god.

See? The logic is good, but is based on a fallacy - a weaker 'constructed' element or 'Straw Man'.

Do not confuse the infinite idea of the universe with including everything. The universe is all the energy and matter that exists and has existed. The primeval atom by it's very nature (from it came the universe) must exist or have existed outside the universe.

Even when you research a source, you seem to fail to actually read it.

The link you provided to "Big-Bang.com" clearly says that the 'singularity' (which replaces the 'primeval atom' in the theory) is the FIRST component of the nascent universe - not a precedent. The source also specifically states that they are in no fashion discussing what preceded the origin of the universe... they are purely discussing from the 'start' onwards.

"Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know...

...The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know...

...Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment".

The theory is not that there is an intelligent creator. The theory is that life represents too much order to have occurred from solely natural processes so an intelligent hand must have been present. You don't have to disprove the creator, and understandably, you can't, but you simply have to falsify the reason an intelligent hand must have been present.

Observation doesn't present evidence of life being 'too ordered'.

Therefore, any 'theory' you construct to explain 'too much order' is based on a false assumption - so the 'theory' would be unscientific.

How do you justify 'too much order' statement? The ONLY real way to justify such a statement, is in comparison to ANOTHER mechanism that seems more 'probable'.

The 'more probable' system that ID requires is the interference of 'god'.

Thus - your 'theory' is unscientific on two separate levels... long before we come to whether or not you can falsify it.

First: As it clearly says in your source, the 'theory' was devised around a 'primeval atom' in 1927. Don't mistake that for being the same as it being current thought.

Second: The 'theory' as defined by Lemaitre began with the 'primeval atom'... which was the first event, if you will. It doesn't say the 'primeval atom' preceded the universe.

Third: As has been pointed out in this thread - there are many other ways that a 'Big Bang' type event can take place, without the necessary assumption of a 'god'. Thus - to keep attacking the premise of a 'Primeval atom' is a "Straw Man" logical fallacy... constructing a weaker argument to try to discredit a stronger.


The 'primeval atom' or singularity preceded the universe because the universe came from it. It was the first event and from it came the universe. Unless you posit the universe came from itself. Do you? I'd also like to point out that singularity here is just another word for 'thing' because it has no real definable characteristics other than the universe came from it.

As to your third argument, who mentioned God being involved in the Big Bang? I didn't. I'm not attacking the premise of the primeval atom or singularity. I'm suggesting that it's accepted only because no intelligence is assigned to the sigularity. In fact, to be fair, it does not in any way dispute the idea of intelligence either. However, there is no law in science that intelligence can't be assigned to explanation of some sort of supernatural (outside the universe) interference.

Again, since no seems to see what I'm suggesting and since people keeping mixing creation in with ID, I'll point out that I think creation is wholly unscientific. However, I do believe that ID follows scientific method, however tenuous that the connection to scientific method might be. A bunch of scientist made an observation and then posited a theory that explained that observation. The observation and the theory is yet to be falsified. Bam! Scientific theory.

Then, a bunch of creationist idiots clung to this theory, bastardized it and tried to get it into schools. Schools should only accept agnostic scientific theories by the seperation of church and state and, thus, should not allow ID to be taught.

As far as what I believe, I believe in a supreme being and that this supreme being intended for us to have faith. If that supreme being would or could ever be proven then it would be knowledge and not faith. Therefore, I think that supreme being intended for there to be no clear footprints establishing his/her/its existence. Following that, I think ID is absolutely going to be disproven, but I'm willing to wait for that to occur.