has this not been brought up before? vote in the poll, back up your opinion!
:spot: :spot: :spot: :spot: :spot: ;)
Printable View
has this not been brought up before? vote in the poll, back up your opinion!
:spot: :spot: :spot: :spot: :spot: ;)
evolved how else would all animals have the same BASIC structure (mammals and organs) sure some have different functions and some use organs differently but its all the same basic layout
^^^^^^^^^
agreed, also, how does carbon dating show bacteria fossils billions of years ago?
I feel a bit of both. I dont want to get into arguments about it. And may i reccomend people dont go picking holes in peoples religions. It can only end badly.
i agree with pyro, discutions about relegeon hardly ever end well. relegeon is the worst thing to talk about, except maybe politics (hmm, maybe ill make a poll about capitalim, communism and fascism)
anyway, i voted the first option. iv read all the evidence about fossils, cardon dating, and stuff
also, mutation is what makes the HIV virus so hard to kill. mutation causes cancer. mutation in the long term is evolution. we can SEE mutation going on. just lock a fly in a smoke detector and see what happens (smoke detectors have a radioactive metal called americanim in them)
Hehhe, who voted about god... http://godisimaginary.com/
ROFLMFAO THANKS PENTTI... lolololol
LMAO that was so funny and so TRUE... lol.
As you can see and read. This has already started to get sour.
hey, this is in the discussion section, people can ignore it if they want to, you are just supposed to discuss it here. if there were no differing opinions, then we would be in a chineese (country) utopia (jk lol). i think people should be able to discuss it civilly
Ok fair call. Personally i think people need to have faith. There are plenty of scientists that are still religious. The world used to be all religious. Then when priests got the plague they turned all technology. But now we realise there has to be a middle ground. Where the two mix.
omg, that guy is horribleQuote:
Originally Posted by Pentti
im kinda pro-tolerance about this kinda stuff, and i'll respect what other people have to say
you shouldnt be an asshole and belittle other people who believe other things than you
i admit that i dont really believe in a religion, but i do think that there is value in reading religious texts for the metaphors they contain and lessons and morals about how to better live your life
i kinda think its also human nature to want to believe that theres something more to life than just being born, having babies, and dying, which is probably why religion started
anybody who thinks that the bible is made up of lies or anybody that thinks everything in the bible is true is kinda silly
its all about reading between the lines
(that was just to hopefully prevent any future god/evolution bashing)
play nice
i think anyone who doesnt want to talk about thier opionion should be left alone. bashing? niegh! intellegent discussion is what i seek!
Adam and Eve, but yes, it is based on your religion.
i dont really care but...
Lard master??? wtf is up with your sig?
they are lard?
wtf
^^^
if you scroll down, you can see the entire message, or you can go to www.lard.net
ps
i like the way the poll is in a little curve
alright....these things just piss me off. I have a few things to say.
Pyro - THANK YOU! Finally someone who understands that messing in something someone deeply belives in wil only end in tears...and maybe blood :p
Masq - Interesting outlook. I've never met a athiest who reads religious holy books for the knowledge they contain.
- Personal Respect for Pyro and Masq goes Up -
now we get to the fun bits....
Soupy - Alright....I thought i already told you this when you had that link in your sig....WHY MUST YOU PUSH THIS? I already know that you are a athiest. Fine. That dosent mean you have the right to just deny other peoples beliefs. It is hurtful. How would you feel if I started telling everyeryone that people without any feeling for others beliefs where uncaring bastards (*hint**hint*) I already asked you nicely. I'm asking again. STOP IT.
Pentti - Read alot of what i said in Soupys. Besides that. Your a idiot. Stop posting hurtful links and learn to be tactful.
- Respect for Soupy and Pentti = -126736233
I only just told what's my opinion. You can believe to "god", but I don't.
fine. I respect you decisions. I dont agree with you but you dont see me posting links. I think you should follow my example and try to be more tactful next time. Or do it where no on can be hurt by it.
Listen to wiser people than yourself Pentti (from what ive read in your posts you could listen to a monkey) but pyro and masq have the right idea(i'm in no way comparing pyro and asq to monkeys....). So listen to them stop poking fun at other peoples beliefs. I dont. Niether should you. It will make SRL a better community.
Wow.. -126736233 that no longer an Integer but an LongInt; :spot: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruroken
Anyway, If this topic is going to the wrong side.. spamming and flaming etc..
I will remove it, no I will not lock it, but remove it.
Furthermore if it will go really badly,
I will most likely think or alternatives to punish the ones that mis-behaved.
Now, this may sound really angry.. well I am not.. I am just warning, I personally don't mind this kind of topics..
But the problem is that they most of the time turn out to become really offensive to religous people (no offence, I respect you, I just don't beleive in god), think of the link posted..
Therefore, no more stupid joke's about regilions....(Not that I like any of those though...)
Now.. back on topic.
Thank you Wizzy!!!
Respect For Wizzy = + 1903763877233334333524545663524 :p
hmm...i see a tendancy for people to think that flaming is going on. some people can't take other people insulting thier core beliefs...if you are one of those people, this is not the thread for you. not a thread for fascists and others who cant accept, but those who are open to all ideas *claps in the background for corny speech*
When you write a new script, do you go back to 101011100100100 assembly code? Do you assemble your own unique microprocessor on which to run it? Or do you use a language and hardware technology that has already been developed and proven to work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant Squirrle
Of course you do. You are intelligent, you know what works, so you don't start from scratch every time you decide to make something new. "Re-inventing the wheel" seems awfully wasteful, don't you think?
In my personal opinion, the basic creation story from the Bible provides a plausible framework for how the world and its many inhabitants came to be. It certainly isn't "World Creation for Dummies" by any means. It doesn't provide any detail whatsoever, or any mechanism for how it all may have taken place. If you want to 'test' this hypothesis, the only way to do so is either through personal religious exploration or by taking the word of others that are better at such religious exploration (the experts so to speak). Scientists would dismiss such exploration as lacking a "testable hypothesis", since the outcome couldn't prove anything enough to convince a skeptic.
Now, if you take 'science' on the other hand, it also provides a plausible framework for how life came to be. Again, there are countless details that are not provided, and whatever the latest newest explanation happens to be, it is rife with the problems associated with trying to understand the state of the earth, the sun, the atmosphere, etc, 4 billion years ago. And since most here have some understanding of information technology, there is an entire added dimension of complexity where even if all the building blocks for forming a self-replicating, evolution-capable entity exist at the same time at the same place, there is nothing available to provide the information needed to assemble them. It's kind of like taking the unabridged dictionary, dumping all the letters in the entire book into a big bucket, shaking it around, and then pouring out Shakespeare. Not to suggest that you need Shakespeare on the first try, but there IS a component of information that is often ignored in the whole topic.
If you really, really want to find out, you have two choices again. You can go get a PhD in evolution/microbiology/geology/information technology, etc, and spend a lifetime trying to wrestle with the science and trying to piece together the puzzle. Or you can take the word of those who are doing just that (the experts so to speak).
Ultimately, whether you lend more credence to scientists, many of whom often disagree on the same subject, or to religious experts, who again often disagree, the vast majority of people on this planet are not they themselves capable of understanding the subject on a level that would enable them to form a thoroughly educated opinion on the subject. Thus, even if they believe the framework presented by scientists, ultimately it's a decision based on 'faith'.
There are two key points in our existence that science currently has no explanation whatsoever for, and currently has no prospects whatsoever for making any headway on in the forseeable future. The first is, of course, the big bang. All the physics used to understand the universe completely break down at a singularity. There is no conceivable way to explain why it happened, or how it happened, or why it happened SO precisely as to allow our universe to exist, or why it has not happened 100 kajillion times since then. For all we know, a big bang could erupt at your mom's house tomorrow and we'd all be obliterated. I once read that if you just look at the velocity of expansion during the big bang, it had to be exactly as it was. If it was either faster or slower by as little as 1 / 10^15, the universe would have already collapsed 14.6 billion years ago, or would have flown apart without the possibility of matter coalescing into suns and planets under the force of gravity.
The second key point is the generation of life from non-life, or abiogenesis as it is known. This has to do with piecing together a life form from soup. Again, the current conceptual difficulties have stymied all current research paths, and there is no clear way forward in addressing them. There is no "testable hypothesis" so to speak. Yes there is ongoing research, but it's all dancing around the most difficult questions, one of which has to do with information, in favor of greener pastures.
I think in either case, there is plenty of room for a Creator. Whether such a being acted at the point of causing the big bang, or of creating the first ancestral life form from which all life on this planet came to be, or everything popped into being at once is a subjective belief, usually based on which experts you have the most faith in.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimentQuote:
Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date.
now im not saying this proves 100% that bacteria could have formed on thier own, but it shows that at least the building blocks can be created
The Urey-Miller experiment is well known, but they were looking in the wrong place. Literally no self-respecting scientist working on abiogenesis believes that proteins were the first functioning macromolecule. That was abandoned long ago. Some retreated to the idea that it all began with an RNA world, since DNA/RNA is used to encode information for ALL known life forms, and since RNA is much simpler to assemble de-novo than DNA, and since RNA is known to have actual biological function on its own in some cases. Of course this creates its own set of problems. For one, RNA is very unstable, so even if a self-replicating catalytically active RNA molecule sprang forth into existence, it would most likely simply degrade before accomplishing anything. Secondly, you have to deal with size issues. Most experiments on RNA are forced to restrict themselves to sequences less than 100 units long for various scientific and technical reasons. Again the problem here is how do you put enough information into 100 units to accomplish anything other than self-replication?
Another perplexing problem is that if you look at the very simplest known organism today, and do an experiment to figure out how many unique 'functions' are absolutely required for that organism to survive and propagate in optimal conditions, it's on the order of 250 unique functions/genes. Even if we were to assume that something even simpler could exist, on the order of 100 genes, where we completely ignore more than half of the things we know to be critical in life as we know it, you still need to generate those 100 functions that are left. If you try to do it in a single macromolecule, it would have to be IMMENSE, creating all sort of problems. IF you try to do it in 50 or 100 different molecules then you run into the problem of localization. There would have to be a mechanism in place to aggregate all 50 of your unique functional elements into one place, and ALSO to exclude every other possible element that may interfere with the operation of those 50.
As you conceptually allow the probability of any given macromolecule to spring forth into being to go up, you also must be intellectually honest enough to realize that the same theoretical mechanisms would allow conflicting and interfering molecules to be generated as well. There are fundamental problems with generating enough building blocks, assembling them into large enough multimer complexes, encoding information into those complexes, allowing association with other beneficial complexes, and preventing association with harmful ones. It's a very complex field, and as I said before some scientists in this field have openly admitted that they see the problems clearly but see no current or future strategy for attempting to addess them.
i think perhaps putting this into a time-frame perspective might be usefull. a billion years is such a rediculously large amount of time, that i think no-one truly grasps its enourmosity. if you give quadrillions of mokeys typewriters to bash on, one of them will probably reproduce the works of shakesbeare. also, you may not believe in paralell universes, but if you do, think about it, the ONE universe in which life is created, is the only one where people are there to ponder it. (or perhaps there are multiple universes with life)
Yes, time is important, but let's put it into the CORRECT perspective. Current theories are based on cosmological events that are believed to have taken place. The most important for this discussion is the bombardment of the earth with meteors. The earth was so thoroughly pummeled with so many devastating meteors for such a long period of time that most scientists believe that even if the precursors to life HAD begun, it would have been wiped out repeatedly. So, for that reason, most scientists believe that life began AFTER this bombardment stopped. This ended roughly 3.8 billion years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardmaster
If you look at the fossil record, the earliest evidence of bacterial fossils is found at roughly 3.5 billion years ago. This limits the time frame available for the leap from soup to bacteria to roughly 200-300 million years. Not billions and billions. This alone does not preclude the possibility that life may have still arisen in this fashion, but it DOES require scientists to look for mechanisms that can develop rapidly over shortish geologic time frames rather than over eons.
although it makes sense that life could not survive during the bombardment by meteors, that does not rule out the possibility of the building blocks (i.e. amino acids) surviving. thus when the bombardment was finshed everything was in place for life to develop rapidly. the part where the billions of years comes in is from the start of the earth to the end of the bombardment. i have also read some pretty interesting theories on reproducing chains of silicon. hardly what you can call life, but they do form pretty easily.
p.s. i am just curious, but what exactly do you believe? most people who dont believe in evolution do not belive in a large geological time scale.
i also realised how out of context my idea about paralell universes is. there is much less to back that theory up than the theory of evolution.
Voted the 3rd one down. Read in Hebrew, the story of the creation of the world can be interpreted many different ways... :D Anyhow, no further comments on that:
Religion = WARS
MMh.. What if we're all just simulated by a gigantic computer in a sidepocket of the universe??? What if reality was simulated, huh... :confused: We could like all just be the imagination of some person, built up of some artificial matter or a network of neurons.
What if life just suddenly "popped" into existance because some person thought of it? What if we live in a sort of MATRIX, where life, time, and space are merely very extreme and persistent illusions? Hypothetically seen, the truth of this statement can only be verified if glitches in the so called "simulation" are found.
cool, i am a program!
^^^^^^^^
compromise... you could say that god created the atoms/molecules... which led to big bang and planets.. and bacteria developed... and thus evolution goes on....
see evolution is most likely true... but it still doesn't address the problem of what created us... it just explains the process of creation, not the very very beginning.
btw... tarajunky i must compliment you on your eloquent verbosity (lawl)...did you do a philosophy/science course or something... i didn't realise the many intricate flaws within the macromolecule theory :S...
basically it boils down to a few views (or at least my views which tend to fluctuate:
life's a fluke
life is guided by god
or... god touched a few things here and there.. but everything else is a fluke...
This should clear it all up for you..
EDIT:
Darwinism- If you check his book "The Origin Of The Species" he says that if organs were too complexe to be evoulved then there was no ways his " theory" would could be right.
In Darwin's time we did not have the knowledge that we have today. There is not way one cell developed into a complexe organ and made things such as blood vesels, membranes, nervous systems, hearts, the distribution of blood etc. In short of this edit, If Darwin were alive today he would renounce his theory(That is only my guess).
I go to a private School and i am sort of trained in the aspect of this.
Ok now i do not remeber the mathamaticians names but here is a situation calculated by a NON-GODBELIEVING NON-CHRISTIAN ETC.
He since turned to Christainity..
The Odds of the universe being created exactly perfect, everything in order where everything happened etc is the POSSIBILITY OF A TORNADO GOING THROUGH A JUNKYARD AND ASSEMBLING A 747 AIRPLANE IN FULL WORKING ORDER READY TO FLY!!
Also nothing can't come from nothing..
If you assume for a moment that there is intelegent design(EG A god)
then couldn't he make everything how it is today?
If there really was a flood that god sent, couldn't it have added carbonition, etc. (watever) to the minerals?
If you think about it you dont just look at the computer you're staring into and say hey, this came from nothing. You know something created it. It didnt just come to exist.
If there was a god, and he was all powerful, couldn't he have been there for all eternity?
If you think of Jesus(scientists have infact clarified that he was real not saying that he was God's son though), and you may not know the story but he was cruxified for his people and rose again 3 days later from the grave, then there are a few points i would like you to consider.
1. If the roman officials wanted to prove Jesus wasn't alive to the Jews, why didn't they show the people? They lost the body is the only logical reason.And Lmfao at that there is no way they "lost the body" Unless they were horrible at keeping things in the first place therefore they're sorce wouldn't be reliable in the first place.
2. Second of all if you examine the story of Jesus in say John, He goes into what is called " excessive detail" that means he says things that aren't neccesary to the story such as "The linen was rolled neatly and too the right side of the tomb". No person that was lying would do that..That is one techinique people use today in criminal court cases to see if some1 is lying.
3. Speaking of today's court cases, the last is of the witness's. Usually today you only need one witness to decide a court case. There were 500 witnesses. If you had a surevey of 500 people and they all said they saw him with their eyes wouldn't that be proof enough..
And i only have minimal knowledge of these arguments. I learned them two yearsd ago and those are the only one i rememebr if you're more interested please check another site or i may update this later :).
Eh I just feel like it
Organs evolve from slightly less complex organs, and so and so on, back to single cell organisms. It's hard to grasp just how long and slow it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnaz0r
Also, babies start off as 1 cell.
If it's a religious private school, then you are biased, and perhaps brainwashed rather than trained.Quote:
I go to a private School and i am sort of trained in the aspect of this.
Again, people underestimate how big the universe is. If you had enough junkyards and tornadoes, it would happen eventually. But this is a really big number. People win the lottery, with a really small possibility of winning, but the thing is a lot of people play it that don't win. Just as there are a lot of stars without planets, a lot of planets not suitable for life etc etc.Quote:
The Odds of the universe being created exactly perfect, everything in order where everything happened etc is the POSSIBILITY OF A TORNADO GOING THROUGH A JUNKYARD AND ASSEMBLING A 747 AIRPLANE IN FULL WORKING ORDER READY TO FLY!!
Also, god twitching his nose like jeanie and poof, theres the earth seems very unlikely too.
Yes it is amazing that we are here, either way. Just accept it. There's no special reason for it.
Where did god come from?Quote:
Also nothing can't come from nothing..
BigBang theory explains where the universe came from, except not where the highly dense mass of all the matter came from in the first place.
Either way, we're stuck with, 'it was just there' or 'there was no existence/time before'. You have a choice, a chunk of mass was just there, or an all powerful being was just there. And if you go by complex things being harder to just be happen/be there/evolve.....
You can just assume anything.Quote:
If you assume for a moment that there is intelegent design(EG A god)
That's a flaw in the whole god thing, god can do anything, so its a cop out. This is why I think a superman video game would be lame, and why I am kinda glad the Hiro couldn't just time travel and save Charlie in Heroes, because the writers could use it as an excuse. This is believing what you are told with faith, rather than thinking about it.Quote:
then couldn't he make everything how it is today?
Don't know what you mean there.Quote:
If there really was a flood that god sent, couldn't it have added carbonition, etc. (watever) to the minerals?
Again, where did god come from, see above.Quote:
If you think about it you dont just look at the computer you're staring into and say hey, this came from nothing. You know something created it. It didnt just come to exist.
Again, the ingredients for bigbang could have been there.Quote:
If there was a god, and he was all powerful, couldn't he have been there for all eternity?
Not going into that because I am not familiar with the whole story, nor know if its true.Quote:
If you think of Jesus(scientists have infact clarified that he was real not saying that he was God's son though), and you may not know the story but he was cruxified for his people and rose again 3 days later from the grave, then there are a few points i would like you to consider.
1. If the roman officials wanted to prove Jesus wasn't alive to the Jews, why didn't they show the people? They lost the body is the only logical reason.And Lmfao at that there is no way they "lost the body" Unless they were horrible at keeping things in the first place therefore they're sorce wouldn't be reliable in the first place.
I have read plenty of completely fictional novels with lots of detail. Secondly, maybe John wasn't lying, maybe he was a character made up by one of the many many writers of the bible. Or maybe he was misquoted.Quote:
2. Second of all if you examine the story of Jesus in say John, He goes into what is called " excessive detail" that means he says things that aren't neccesary to the story such as "The linen was rolled neatly and too the right side of the tomb". No person that was lying would do that..That is one techinique people use today in criminal court cases to see if some1 is lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnaz0r
I can say whatever I want, doesn't mean it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bush
Again, I can make 1000 names and forge 1000 signatures. (I have a life though lol). You are assuming the bible/john/witnesses is true, because the bible said so, it's a loop.Quote:
3. Speaking of today's court cases, the last is of the witness's. Usually today you only need one witness to decide a court case. There were 500 witnesses. If you had a surevey of 500 people and they all said they saw him with their eyes wouldn't that be proof enough..
Same here, I just like finding holes :pQuote:
And i only have minimal knowledge of these arguments. I learned them two yearsd ago and those are the only one i rememebr if you're more interested please check another site or i may update this later :).
Every theory has holes. That's why there is a debate. If there were no holes in the science, the debate wouldn't happen, or a least it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
One of the 'holes' on evolution that hasn't been brought up has to do with the inherent problems of dating fossils. The evolutionists point to the fossil record and say that there is clear evidence that species X came from species Y, etc. If evolution is true, then you expect to see a line of gradual changes going back through time that connect to a common ancestor. You don't expect to see 'ancestors' showing up before 'transition' fossils though, since the timing would be out of order.
So, how do you decide which fossils are older and which fossils are newer? The most common way is to date the fossil based on the rock strata that it is in. So, if the fossil is found in a stratum that is a million years old, then the fossil is a million years old. Easy, right? Yes, but the problem is that most rock strata are dated based on the fossils found in it. So, if you find fossils that are 1 million years old, then the layer is 1 million years old, and since the layer is 1 million years old the fossils in that layer are 1 million years old. It's circular logic.
So, when geologists dig down into the ground and find fossils "out of place", they just wave their hands and explain it away as a some sort of fault line that made the 100 million year old fossils show up on top of the 10 million year old fossils. This type of thing happens all the time.
And yes there are techniques available to date fossils, such as radiocarbon dating, but those techniques can only go back so far. The half-life of carbon 14 is something like 5000 years. So, if you have a fossil 1 million years old and a fossil 2 million years old, carbon dating can't tell any difference between them, since all the C14 has already long since decayed in both samples. So, you are left with guesses about the dating, which ASSUME evolution took place. And attempting to use such dating techniques to prove evolution has occurred throws you right back into that circular logic, since you assumed it did to set up the dating in the first place. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.
Not begin critical(purely my opinion don't want to start flaming) but it looks to me that these answers are ludicrisQuote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Do they make you sign anything in a court room?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his cranium, poked out his right eye, broke both achilles tendons, and took a huge gash in the head from the stainless steel bucket that he was using to get the water" ......doesn't sound quite right. If He was lying, what purpose would those statements serve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
The DNA is Already set up when the cell is formed. That is an incomplexible( not able to be " evolved " ) piece of the puzzle in which God has set in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Do you really want me to believe that our nervous system was just a mishap??? That brainwaves are a fluke? That the "order" in which we live just happened to be there? Think of a SCAR Script. If you switch around two procedures and you call a procedure before it is "declared" then you will get an UNKNOWN IDENTIFIER Error. Same thing here. Study the nervous system/look it up/ etc. It is far too complex to be " A Fluke" As well as the other functions in our body which were all just Flukes as well which go down a list of about o i dnt know 100 main organs or so... and that they all just seem to "Flukefully"(lol) work together to make us work in complete order, everything works exactly right?? Sounds very ludacris..
No it's not ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnaz0r
You're missing the point. John, or any 'witness' in the bible is unreliable. Ever notice how there are many different versions of the bible, written and copied and changed by many different monks.Quote:
Do they make you sign anything in a court room?
Ahh now you've hit the nail on the head. What purpose does the bible serve?Quote:
"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his cranium, poked out his right eye, broke both achilles tendons, and took a huge gash in the head from the stainless steel bucket that he was using to get the water" ......doesn't sound quite right. If He was lying, what purpose would those statements serve?
Is it an accurate historical document? No, even the vatican says stuff in the bible isn't true, due to irrefutable scientific evidence. The purpose of the bible is to keep little boys and girls (in sunday school, catholic school, and tucked in bed) following the rules of how to be a decent person. Most of the stories (thats what they are) in the bible have some sort of moral. God saying abracadabra and creating the earth and such is to 'demonstrate' his power, otherwise why would anyone listen. That's one of the reasons why monks have changed the bible over the years, changing/adding/removing stories to fit the morals they wanted to teach.
Do you look exactly like your family members? DNA can change, mutate. Green eyes are a mutation. DNA is a chain made of 4 building blocks, in different patterns (like binary code). It's a really long chain. Which can make really complex things with lots of characteristics. It's easy to change parts of the chain. Little by little, over a time period very few people can wrap their heads around. Isn't it weird how human DNA is 99.9% the same as chimp DNA?Quote:
The DNA is Already set up when the cell is formed. That is an incomplexible( not able to be " evolved " ) piece of the puzzle in which God has set in place.
Actually, the fact that things are so complicated, is even more reason to believe that it was formed little by little, rather than in a snap of the fingers and a twitch of the nose.
No it's not a fluke. Evolution isn't completely random, like a tornado forming a plane. Mutations are random, teeny mutations. When they increase the chance of something living longer, it gets passed down through the generations more than those without. Which is why tigers deliberately have sharp teeth, etc.Quote:
Do you really want me to believe that our nervous system was just a mishap??? That brainwaves are a fluke? That the "order" in which we live just happened to be there?
Just because it's too complex for you to understand how it was formed (neither do I, and neurologists don't know everything yet), it doesn't mean it can't be formed that way. As I said before, it's not a fluke, it evolved that way for a reason. Also, again, the fact that it is so complex suggests evolving rather than being made all at once (out of clay??).Quote:
Think of a SCAR Script. If you switch around two procedures and you call a procedure before it is "declared" then you will get an UNKNOWN IDENTIFIER Error. Same thing here. Study the nervous system/look it up/ etc. It is far too complex to be " A Fluke" As well as the other functions in our body which were all just Flukes as well which go down a list of about o i dnt know 100 main organs or so... and that they all just seem to "Flukefully"(lol) work together to make us work in complete order, everything works exactly right?? Sounds very ludacris..
Everything working exactly right is precisely why it ended up that way. And if god really did create it, he should have done a better job. The appendix?? Testicles on the outside?? Everything is quite messy.
Organs are pretty complex, but on their basic level, they are quite simple. A filter. A sac of acid. A pump. Micro-organisms have similar functions.
When the ancient Greeks (/Romans) didn't know that the earth revolving around the sun so that it appears as though the sun is moving across the sky, they made up the god Helios, who dragged the sun across the sky on his flaming horse driven chariot. Lightning bolts were Zeus getting angry/god bowling, rain is god pissing, etc etc. The human brain needs reasons for everything, which is why we have evolved to be smarter than animals, and are able to figure things out. If we don't know the reason, we make them up, to satisfy our brains without going crazy (where as other animals just accept that things happen). Plain and simple.
Religions are made up to fill the need that people have for order and reason. I prefer science.
Let me ask you something Boreas
Then what is Science doing in this situation if it's not doing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I ran this script
SCAR Code:program New;
{.include srl/srl.scar}
var H, Time1, Time2 : integer;
Value : boolean;
function AirPlane : integer;
var I : integer;
begin
MarkTime(Time1);
I := 0;
repeat
I := I + 1;
result := Random(2000) * Random(2000) * Random(2000);
until(i=100000)or(Result = 20000000)
If(result = 100000)then
begin
Writeln(' Number Found!!');
TerminateScript;
end;
if(i=100000)or(I<100000)then
begin
writeln(' Number not Found ');
Value := false;
end;
end;
function MilToSeconds : integer;
begin
result := Time1 /60000;
end;
function MilToSeconds2 : integer;
begin
result := Time2 /60000;
end;
function TryedTotal : integer;
begin
result := H * 100000;
end;
begin
MarkTime(Time2);
repeat
H := H + 1;
Airplane;
Writeln(' Value is Still = ' + BoolToStr(Value));
Writeln(' The Current Time is ' + (TheTime) + '');
Writeln(IntToStr(TryedTotal) + ' total times... ');
until(False);
end.
and got this report
^^^^ Thats over 20 million times it did that now i would bet my money that you can't say " Well yea that tornadoe put that airplane together " or " yea everything that ever existed that works perfectly together is like that because its randomly like that" and those aren't even near as big as the numbers would be. They would be much higher considering everything that ever existed put together in working order. Some astronimical number.SCAR Code:Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Successfully compiled
Number not Found
Tryed 1Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 2Times.
Number not Found
Tryed 3Times.
Successfully executed
Then Ran it 8.7 trillion times... guess what
Number not found
Now First of all, for your argument
What does this have to do with the possiblities of that example? Plus to add to that , that was factored inQuote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Isn't Evolution made up of mutations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
These are not "Holes" you are finding, they are simply " suggestions " Such asQuote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
andQuote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
See all the maybe's? Thats only two of your replies .Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I on the other hand have what you could at least " an argument " about the things we are made of being too complex. Basically everything you say is " Maybe " . Like i said I am basically trying to focus on my school life now(regualr subjects) so i havent had much time to look into it but when i find the time i'll get a website with people who have thoght this out and are better educated. Next time don't use any " maybe's " and see what you come up with :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Website
Sry For the double post but i am running a script overnight to see if the result is ever true. So far about 78 Million times, always false..
Trials Tryed Reports
Modified from script in above...
Some of these i hada go through the script and add up bc they integers in scar don't go that high
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tryed 10000000( 10 million ) Times
Number found = False
Successfully executed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tryed 10000000( 10 million ) Times
Number found = False
Successfully executed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number found = False
The Current Time is 03:10:59 am <<< ----------------------------
236700000 total times...(263.7 Million times)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <<< Ran These Two At Same Time
Number found = False
The Current Time is 03:11:26 am <<< ----------------------------
82600000 total times...(82.6 Million Times)
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Value is Still = False
The Current Time is 09:56:16 am
3.1 billion total times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Value is Still = False
The Current Time is 09:56:16 am
2.5 billion total times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Value is Still = False
The Current Time is 09:56:16 am
3.5 billion total times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Value is Still = False
The Current Time is 09:56:16 am
3.3 billion total times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Value is Still = False
The Current Time is 09:56:16 am
4.9 billion total times...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow this is my first time looking through this thread and I am really pissed that I did not look into it... I have gone through and read 95 % of the posts.. I thought Tara pointed out some very good points along with Boreas.
I personally was raised a Catholic and taught that God created everything and should thus be worshiped for everything (another topic, don't get me started) As soon as I was mature enough to start forming my own opinions based on my own reading and learning I realized that the possibility of a God creating this in a perfect sequence is unrealistic.. I do believe we are the result of evolution of bacteria. DNA is capable of mutation and that is how it has come to be as it is today that is the basis behind the idea of survival of the fittest. Forms of life evolve differently and those that are capable of living in the current environment live while others die off.
I am stuck when it comes to who created it all, and I think this forever will be a mystery. Which came first the chicken or the egg? I see no ulterior motive to human life but to live and die.... Religion is just used to give a false sense of security to those expecting life after physicall death.
Honestly if there is one thing you read out of my post I hope it is this, the most important thing to human life today. People believe in religion because it is a security for when they die.. They think since they believe in this there will be a heaven or hell or maybe 9 wives (joke or not..).. Ask a very religious person why they believe what they believe and tell me its not because there parents make them or they think they'll get eternal salvation.
RELIGION = SELFISHNESS
Too tired for now... I'm on this tomorrow though
Wow i normally have to go to eleven communities to have debates and read other thoughts on questions like this. It amazing how much these points help with a 8,000 word essay for the evolution theory and concept of beyond death
As for chicken or the egg, that can be answered (assuming you believe in evolution and species variance lol). They should really change that expression to something that really can't be answered. Like how do you slam a revolving door? At one point, something between a chicken and dinosaur, that was extremely close to a chicken, but not a chicken, popped out an egg containing something slightly different, with a mutation, called a chicken. It's parents were not chickens, it was a chicken. The question is, what about the egg it hatched from? I assume the question is referring to a chicken egg, not caviar. So what is a chicken egg? Is it an egg that comes from a chicken, or an egg that contains a chicken? Look in your fridge, do those eggs contain chickens? I hope not. Yet they are still chicken eggs, because they came from a chicken. So the egg in between the slightly-not-chicken and the first chicken was not a chicken egg. The egg laid by the first chicken was though, and it was the first chicken egg, coming after the first chicken.
It is doing the same, except with better reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnaz0r
Why do random(2)*random(2) instead of random(4)? And why in the loop?Quote:
I ran this script
You still aren't getting it. It's not completely random. Part of it is, which bothers people who need a story/explanation for everything, see the helios example. The rest comes down to survival of the fittest, and physics concepts such as gravity, magnetism, and valence electrons.Quote:
^^^^ Thats over 20 million times it did that now i would bet my money that you can't say " Well yea that tornadoe put that airplane together " or " yea everything that ever existed that works perfectly together is like that because its randomly like that" and those aren't even near as big as the numbers would be. They would be much higher considering everything that ever existed put together in working order. Some astronimical number.
It means that just because something has a small chance of happening by itself, it doesn't mean there has to be an all powerful being to get things done.Quote:
Now First of all, for your argument
What does this have to do with the possiblities of that example? Plus to add to that , that was factored in
Still not getting it. Maybe you should read Origin of Species as well as the stuff they feed you in private school. Mutations are random. Which mutations get passed on (ie EVOLVE) is not random. If it helps, it gets passed on to the next generation. Which is why the complex body works together. It's not like taking a bunch of lego bricks in a bucket and throwing them on the floor into a building all at once.Quote:
Isn't Evolution made up of mutations?
I am saying maybe to demonstrate the possibilities of things that could have happened besides the stuff that you accept to be true when told.Quote:
These are not "Holes" you are finding, they are simply " suggestions " Such as
and
See all the maybe's? Thats only two of your replies .
Think about it. Being complex is actually a point on my side lol. Ask fawki if he wrote Ratz all at once.Quote:
I on the other hand have what you could at least " an argument " about the things we are made of being too complex.
And if I had the time I could find just as many sites written by scientists.Quote:
Like i said I am basically trying to focus on my school life now(regualr subjects) so i havent had much time to look into it but when i find the time i'll get a website with people who have thoght this out and are better educated.
You under estimate the power of maybe. The power of thinking for yourself, outside the box. The power of not accepting what you are told as true just because you were raised/schooled that way. The power of looking into others reasoning, whether it supports your preconceived beliefs or not. Having strong beliefs is good, having blinders is not. I rest my case.Quote:
Basically everything you say is " Maybe " .
Next time don't use any " maybe's " and see what you come up with :P
offtopic: I just noticed that christian republicans like jesus but hate hippies....