Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Capt. Pork on July 10, 2004, 11:35:26 AM
-
Since we got into this with the USA thread, I took the advice of Chairperson and started this one.
I believe in some sort of unifying force. This is mainly because I've heard opinions from very credible, knowledgable sources saying that random interactions with the Universe alone could not have produced the plethora of complex reactions(amino acids, even, much less complex multi-cellular life)since the big bang.
Einstien once said that he believed there to be a great engineer. Whether or not this engineer was good, evil or even conscious is definitely a matter to be contested, but the fact that there is some sort of inherent organization seems plausible to me.
Thoughts, opinions?
-
Ok. Here's a repaste of what I put in the other thread with a little extra:
I don't believe that there is any god or supreme being that has created the universe by design. I've read the christian bible, studied other religious texts, and given it some serious thought and come to the conclusion that religion fills the psychological need many people have to have someone else be in control, like when they were children and their parents were ultimately responsible for their actions.
I don't think that's bad, and I'm not trying to 'diss' people who have strong religious convictions, I just think it's an explanation for why people feel so strongly about it. People having 'religious experiences' have been cat-scanned while it was happening and there's an area of the brain that's common in all those people that has a fit.
Pretty much all these religions are based on books written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I find it astonishing that people accept them without critical reasoning. Perhaps I'm just more analytical about things, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I think that the world we live in is absolutely amazing and incredible, and I'm constantly in awe of the beautiful majesty of the universe. As an engineer, I can appreciate how cause & effect (in a constant cycle) makes everything happen, and I find wonderment in every new discovery I make because I know that there are billions of other things that I can never comprehend, and I appreciate my place in this incredible machine called existance.
-
Right on.
Does my view fit yours at all, given that you accept that there are many things that niether you nor science at large can comprehend?
-
Sure, but right up to the point where people try to attach motivation to the force. If a unifying force exists behind the structure of the universe, I'm more likely to believe that it's in the form of a set of rigidly defined rules created as side effects at the big bang rather then an entity with a purpose.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Right on.
Does my view fit yours at all, given that you accept that there are many things that niether you nor science at large can comprehend?
would that make you an agnostic Capt?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sure, but right up to the point where people try to attach motivation to the force. If a unifying force exists behind the structure of the universe, I'm more likely to believe that it's in the form of a set of rigidly defined rules created as side effects at the big bang rather then an entity with a purpose.
I agree wholeheartedly. Purpose is irrelevant. One needs to look no further than our physical significance in respect to the rest of the Universe to see how we stack up as far as gravity and volume.
The fact that we have the ability to contemplate reason does not preclude the possibility of a total annihilation at the hands of a mindless object with nothing but density and great kinetic energy.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Sure, but right up to the point where people try to attach motivation to the force. If a unifying force exists behind the structure of the universe, I'm more likely to believe that it's in the form of a set of rigidly defined rules created as side effects at the big bang rather then an entity with a purpose.
That's what Einstein believed: the universe is an orderly system obeying rules that can be discovered. Einstein considered himself an agnostic (despite misunderstood, out of context quotes to the contrary).
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
would that make you an agnostic Capt?
Sure, I guess.
The one thing I don't like about the term agnostic is that some people view it as a position of laziness. People that don't care to give it too much though, or too much devotion, just say, 'yeah, there's something'. I've given it a good amount of thought. I can say that I lack faith--faith, as in trust and belief without proof. My mind just doesn't work that way. I can, however, accept my limitations as a mortal being and at the same time, take into account that which I've seen and learned.
-
who the hell knows?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
who the hell knows?
Who the hell knows what?
-
Religion and politics.
2 subjects that are guaranteed to degenerate until teh thread is Skuzzified.
LOL...no comment here.
So, how do you suppose David Blaine creates the illusion where he levitates?
I'm Stumpified.
RTR
-
Originally posted by RTR
So, how do you suppose David Blaine creates the illusion where he levitates?
I dunno, but I betcha it gets him laid:cool:
-
Originally posted by RTR
So, how do you suppose David Blaine creates the illusion where he levitates?RTR
Google it. It's out there.
-
If god is out there to create Big Bangs, why in the heck i should care whether he exists or not? Believing in supernatural omnipotent beings requires ignorance more than faith. If i start believing in "flat world" theory, am i ignorant or faithfull?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Since we got into this with the USA thread, I took the advice of Chairperson and started this one.
I believe in some sort of unifying force. This is mainly because I've heard opinions from very credible, knowledgable sources saying that random interactions with the Universe alone could not have produced the plethora of complex reactions(amino acids, even, much less complex multi-cellular life)since the big bang.
Einstien once said that he believed there to be a great engineer. Whether or not this engineer was good, evil or even conscious is definitely a matter to be contested, but the fact that there is some sort of inherent organization seems plausible to me.
Thoughts, opinions?
That would be Spinoza's god. I used to agree with that sentiment years ago when I was in my 20's. Prior to even reading Spinoza.
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/spin.htm
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
If god is out there to create Big Bangs, why in the heck i should care whether he exists or not?
Who says you need to care?
Personally, I'm not building any temples to worship the god of scientific probabality.
Storch... Does this mean you've grown more orthodox over the years?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok. Here's a repaste of what I put in the other thread with a little extra:
I don't believe that there is any god or supreme being that has created the universe by design. I've read the christian bible, studied other religious texts, and given it some serious thought and come to the conclusion that religion fills the psychological need many people have to have someone else be in control, like when they were children and their parents were ultimately responsible for their actions.
I don't think that's bad, and I'm not trying to 'diss' people who have strong religious convictions, I just think it's an explanation for why people feel so strongly about it. People having 'religious experiences' have been cat-scanned while it was happening and there's an area of the brain that's common in all those people that has a fit.
Pretty much all these religions are based on books written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I find it astonishing that people accept them without critical reasoning. Perhaps I'm just more analytical about things, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I think that the world we live in is absolutely amazing and incredible, and I'm constantly in awe of the beautiful majesty of the universe. As an engineer, I can appreciate how cause & effect (in a constant cycle) makes everything happen, and I find wonderment in every new discovery I make because I know that there are billions of other things that I can never comprehend, and I appreciate my place in this incredible machine called existance.
Well perhaps if we may engage in civil discussion perhaps you will answer a question.
the question is origins. how did life originate?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Who says you need to care?
Personally, I'm not building any temples to worship the god of scientific probabality.
Storch... Does this mean you've grown more orthodox over the years?
Actually I practice no religion at all whatsoever. That is to say I don't ever attend church. ever.
I am a Christian but as a Christian I am a mighty poor example of Christianity.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
who the hell knows?
actually that is a partly correct answer.
-
Originally posted by storch
Well perhaps if we may engage in civil discussion perhaps you will answer a question.
the question is origins. how did life originate?
I'm wary of taking you at face value because of some of your posts, but I'll do so despite my instinct.
I think that life was created initially as a super simple form. I think that over a billion years of chance chemical encounters produced sub cellular lifeforms that whithered and failed to reproduce until eventually the right combination occurred.
Then that form reproduced, and then reproduced again.
After that, a process hypothesized in the book 'Origin of the species' took hold. Strong traits were statistically more likely to survive generations then weak traits. Some unicellular organisms hooked up and nature favored them with better odds of survival until early creatures began to acquire the trait of having multiple cells as part of their structure. Over millions of years, various environmental challenges (from the UV of the sun to cold weather to availlability of nutrition) 'herded' the various creatures towards picking up strong traits and dropping weak ones as each generation passed.
Time passes, and a pre-hominid lifts a bone and visualizes using it as a weapon/tool for the first time.
Three million years later, we're in space and arguing theology on a flight sim BBS.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm wary of taking you at face value because of some of your posts, but I'll do so despite my instinct.
I think that life was created initially as a super simple form. I think that over a billion years of chance chemical encounters produced sub cellular lifeforms that whithered and failed to reproduce until eventually the right combination occurred.
Then that form reproduced, and then reproduced again.
After that, a process hypothesized in the book 'Origin of the species' took hold. Strong traits were statistically more likely to survive generations then weak traits. Some unicellular organisms hooked up and nature favored them with better odds of survival until early creatures began to acquire the trait of having multiple cells as part of their structure. Over millions of years, various environmental challenges (from the UV of the sun to cold weather to availlability of nutrition) 'herded' the various creatures towards picking up strong traits and dropping weak ones as each generation passed.
Time passes, and a pre-hominid lifts a bone and visualizes using it as a weapon/tool for the first time.
Three million years later, we're in space and arguing theology on a flight sim BBS.
Regards,
Please allow me to press further. HOW did life originate.
-
As far as 'god' goes, i believe we must all find our own inner 'god' or 'faith' and only then can we benifit from any other form of god or belief system.
It is only by faith in ourselves that religion matters anyway.
As far as religion throughout history though, in my honest opinion, most of it is just bullchit made up to keep the masses in check.
If we all fear God, and the sovriegn of our land is put there by god, then surely we better pay our damn taxes, no?
lets face it, Jesus probably did exist, but he was no different from you or I. he was the equivilent of a 'David Blane' or street magician that could convince a cow it was a cat if he had the will to do it.
Jesus was just a really smart guy who got fed up with carpentry and decided to start his own gang.
just my 2p
batfink
-
Originally posted by RTR
So, how do you suppose David Blaine creates the illusion where he levitates?
I'm Stumpified.
RTR
he does that by clever camera angles.
try this at home.
get a friend to look at you from your 7 oclk.
now stand with your feet together and slowy stand on tiptoes with your right foot whilst keeping your left foot rigidly still.
if you have the strength to lift your mass with the single foot then from exactly the right angle (approx your 7 oclk) then it should create the lose illusion of levitation.
thats how he does it. i saw on 'the greatest street tricks unvieled' so it must be true :p
regards
batfink
-
Originally posted by storch
Please allow me to press further. HOW did life originate.
I don't follow, I described exactly HOW it happened. Did you read my response?
???
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I don't follow, I described exactly HOW it happened. Did you read my response?
???
Ok well let me take a stab at a rebuttal. In 1953 Grad student Stanley Miller and his Ph.D. advisor Harold Urey performed an experiment. It was touted as the solution to the (still unanswered) question of origin.
Check out this site and see if thats what you mean?
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
Regards
-
Hi Storch,
I'm familiar with the experiment. I think that processes similar to that were involved. Since there was over a billion and a half years before the first signs of life appeared, there was more time for various combinations to occur until something 'took'. Also, I think that billions of times, it failed.
The science behind that theory is sound. The fact that it hasn't been fully reproduced in a lab yet (as in, producing life that wiggles and quacks, etc) might logically be because it hasn't had quite as much time invested in it (billion + years) as what really happened.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hi Storch,
I'm familiar with the experiment. I think that processes similar to that were involved. Since there was over a billion and a half years before the first signs of life appeared, there was more time for various combinations to occur until something 'took'. Also, I think that billions of times, it failed.
The science behind that theory is sound. The fact that it hasn't been fully reproduced in a lab yet (as in, producing life that wiggles and quacks, etc) might logically be because it hasn't had quite as much time invested in it (billion + years) as what really happened.
Regards,
Well then my question remains. In fact we should agree that at this time science still cannot answer the question of origin. therefore I believe it requires much more faith to hold to your belief system than it does to mine, as the law of thermodynamics actually favors the biblical view. But please explain where i may be going wrong here. Afterall xtomato says I'm an ignorant uneducated moron.
-
No part of thermodynamics or known physics supports the idea of a guy with long white hair saying 'let there be light' and then it happening. At no point does science offer evidence that the earth is 7,000 years old, nor does it support the idea that the entire surface of the earth was recently flooded and that all breeding species were carried aboard an Ark.
Many christians say confidently that 'Science suggests that the bible is requires less faith then what you propose', but that doesn't make it true. Were I to speculate, I would suggest that your faith is like the proverbial hammer in the saying 'When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails'. By that, I mean that your faith is very strong (and as you hold value in that, you should be proud) but my 'belief structure' says that faith is not enough. I can, one by one, demonstrate the elements of scientific reasoning and historical studies. But a religious person cannot prove through demonstration anything except that they feel in their heart that they are correct.
-
There is no God.
Only luck.
May yours always be good.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No part of thermodynamics or known physics supports the idea of a guy with long white hair saying 'let there be light' and then it happening. At no point does science offer evidence that the earth is 7,000 years old, nor does it support the idea that the entire surface of the earth was recently flooded and that all breeding species were carried aboard an Ark.
Many christians say confidently that 'Science suggests that the bible is requires less faith then what you propose', but that doesn't make it true. Were I to speculate, I would suggest that your faith is like the proverbial hammer in the saying 'When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails'. By that, I mean that your faith is very strong (and as you hold value in that, you should be proud) but my 'belief structure' says that faith is not enough. I can, one by one, demonstrate the elements of scientific reasoning and historical studies. But a religious person cannot prove through demonstration anything except that they feel in their heart that they are correct.
Well then I suppose that it is then true that with time things actually......Improve? That order comes from chaos? Are you suggesting that heat comes from cold? Please explain I'm so confused! First there was nothing, cold dark nothing and then......boom BIG (there went the second law of thermodynamics) bang? Oh my my head hurts!
I'm not mocking you.
Regards
-
No takers? anyone? c'mon one of you intelligent godless types can take on a blacksmith for pete's sake, can't you? nothing clever to say xtomato?
-
Originally posted by storch
No takers? anyone? c'mon one of you intelligent godless types can take on a blacksmith for pete's sake, can't you? nothing clever to say xtomato?
Here's the deal, I respect your right to have beliefs that are different from mine. I don't want to 'take you on' because I think it would demonstrate poor taste. My priorities for this life are:
1. Protect and provide for my family.
2. Always do good by others.
3. Square all my debts, financially and other.
4. Watch out for #1, don't step in #2.
(list continues for a while)
.....
.....
.....
(until we get to)
8893. Try to somehow outwit Storch and take away the religion from which he gains strength and comfort.
...intelligent godless types...
I don't know if I'm particularly intelligent, but I think I get by. Of course, 80% of drivers think they are above average, so who knows? If by 'godless' you mean that I don't believe there is a god, then yes, that's accurate. But if you mean it as 'someone who has not found god yet' or something else, then I think there's a misunderstanding about the strength of my beliefs.
I'll discuss the subject, but I don't like the idea of arguing it because that kind of argument can only piss people off and, since it's inherently unprovable, can never produce anything.
-
The story is often told that in the late 1940s, John von Neumann, a pioneer of the computer age, advised communication-theorist Claude E. Shannon to start using the term entropy when discussing information because "no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage"
The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system and the perpetual loss of energy through interaction in that closed system. It is very specific.
Creationists have perverted the law to make a point that is moot by this time. Give it up Storch and join the 19th century.
-
(http://a2k.free.fr/images/npbikini4.jpg)
-
==============================================
quote Chairboy:
"I can, one by one, demonstrate the elements of scientific reasoning and historical studies. But a religious person cannot prove through demonstration anything except that they feel in their heart that they are correct."
==============================================
Sorry for the long cut and paste, CB. Just thought I'd toss this out for your consideration and comments.
Thanks
Sun
btw, the main site has lots more science based evidence that you may find interesting.
http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml
In their persistent rejection of an eternal transcendent Creator, cosmologists (and others) are resorting to more and more bizarre alternatives. There is a certain logic to it all, however. If for personal reasons the God of the Bible is unacceptable, then given the evidence for transcendence and design, the alternatives are severely limited to flights of fancy.
Often in such cases the stated basis for rejection of the God of the Bible is a lack of absolute proof of His existence. However, because we humans are confined to the space-time continuum of the universe, we cannot claim absolute proof of anything. But, that does not mean we cannot draw secure conclusions.
For example, we lack absolute proof that the earth is spherical rather than flat. Nevertheless, we accept the sphericity of the earth because the explanations for a flat earth fall into the category of the absurd, and as time and research progress, those explanations become increasingly absurd, A similar state of affairs has developed and is continuing to develop for the existence of the God of the Bible.
Design Parameters
Recently, it has become possible not only to investigate the transcendence of the Creator, but also to investigate something of His personality. Now that the limits and parameters of the universe have come within the measuring capacity of astronomers and physicists, the design characteristics of the universe are being examined and acknowledged; Astronomers have discovered that the characteristics and parameters of the universe and our solar system are so finely tuned to support life that nothing less than a personal, intelligent Creator can explain the degree of fine-tunedness. It requires power and purpose.
Approximately two dozen parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in order for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe. Some examples of these are given in Table 5.
Table 5: Evidence for design in the universe101 - 110
1. gravitational coupling constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton
if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
The degree of fine-tunedness for many of these parameters is utterly amazing. For example, if the strong nuclear force were even two percent stronger or two percent weaker, the universe would never be able to support life.111, 112 More astounding yet, the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen and/or carbon for any kind of life.110 The expansion rate of the universe is even more sensitive.113 It must be fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 55th! Clearly some ingenious Designer must be involved in the physics of the universe.
The discovery of this degree of design in the universe is having a profound theological impact upon astronomers. Fred Hoyle concluded in 1982 that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."114 Paul Davies moved from promoting atheism in 1983115 to conceding in 1984 that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design"116 to testifying in his 1988 book The Cosmic Blueprint that there "is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming."117 George Greenstein in 1988 expressed these thoughts:
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?118
Words such as superintellect, monkeyed, exceedingly ingenious, supernatural Agency, Supreme Being and providentially crafted obviously apply only to a Person. But, more than just establishing that the Creator is a Person, the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically in His interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race.
For example, the mass density of the universe determines how efficiently nuclear fusion operates in the cosmos. As Table 5 indicates, if the mass density is too great, too much deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) is made in the first few minutes of the universe's existence. This extra deuterium will cause all the stars to burn much too quickly and erratically for any of them to sup-port a planet with life upon it. On the other hand, if the mass density is too small, so little deuterium and helium is made in the first few minutes that the heavier elements necessary for life will never form in the stars. What this means is that the approximately one hundred billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no less, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently, God cared so much for living creatures that He constructed a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live. Of all the gods of the various religions of the world, only the God of the Bible is revealed as investing this much (and more) in humanity.
-
God must have invented the 26 letter alphabet too. If smaller I couldn't spell my name... if larger it would confuse most people on this board.
:rolleyes:
-
Wow, we got lucky. Its kind of like we had an infinite amount of chances.
-
What a waste of space for a Michael Moore thread. Shame on you
Karaya
-
God to me is some form of higher power or higher belief..
As for God vs Science or God vs the big bang, I see plenty of room for god before the big bang which is something people will likely never explain scientifically to anybody's satisfaction.
Personally I like the idea of a god who lights the candle and lets us do our best, with some guidance. It seems big and god like. On the other hand, I find the idea of an obsssesive god who is concerned with every minute aspect of your personal private life to be very petty and very human, espaecially these standards of morality change over time as new leaders and theologies establish themselves in our various churches in response to changing societal norms.. Remember it was not too long ago that churches advocated slavery or the burning of apparently innocent people on trumped up charges opf witchcraft. Or take the sometimes severe christian restrictions on the consumption of alchol, yet what is it that Jesus and the apostles drank?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system and the perpetual loss of energy through interaction in that closed system. It is very specific.
Creationists have perverted the law to make a point that is moot by this time. Give it up Storch and join the 19th century.
Absolute nothing isn't a closed system? space isn't a closed system? what comes in? what goes out?
All I'm trying to say here is science has no answer to the question of origin. Eg. it takes more faith to believe what some of you believe than you are even willing to admit.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Wow, we got lucky. Its kind of like we had an infinite amount of chances.
Quantum Mechanics+10 billion or so years=that's a lot of chances.
-
How about we look at it this way: when did god(s) originate?
I'm not talking about a hypothetical answer, such as "before the big bang." Isn't god more of an invention of man, evolved over the millenia? Seems to me god is exactly the leap-of-faith solution to all metaphysical questions that have gone unanswered by man, as a tool of comfort. Its almost like an impediment to further scientific progress....
And I ignore that "there will be problems you can't solve." That's loser talk.
-
You got it right Hawk, a crutch for weak.
-
Originally posted by storch
Absolute nothing isn't a closed system? space isn't a closed system? what comes in? what goes out?
Copy & paste (http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1.html#1.2)
1.2: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant. Big Bang theory, on the other hand, states that all of the energy of the universe came from nothing. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
(ii) For a theory to violate the lst law of thermodynamics, the theory must predict two points in time T and T', such that the total energy of the universe at T, and the total energy of the universe at T', do not match one another. The creationist argument hinges on Big Bang theory stipulating a time t < 0, prior to the initial singularity of the universe, at which there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist). However, if the origin of the universe is the origin of time (see 1.1), then the idea of such a time t < 0 actually contradicts standard Big Bang theory, and draws no support from any possible theory of quantum cosmology. Therefore, there can be no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe.
(iii) If one supposes that there was in fact a preexisting spacetime from which the universe came, it still may be possible to resolve any violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics if the negative gravitational energy of the universe balances the positive energy, leaving the universe with a net balance of zero energy (or close enough for quantum uncertainty to allow a long time for "payback" of the energy).
-
I remember some interesting new theory based on a statistical model of random existance. Someone calculated the odds that a molecule code come into random existance and proved it could happen. Given infinite time even the smallest odds are a given.
Unfortunately arguments like this usually boil down to who created the universe and then who created "god". To me god is as per Chairboys first post and also an explanation for things many people cannot comprehend yet alone talk about.
Unfortunately for the Christians out there the whole bible story just doesn't add up. Plus theres plenty of other religions so whos right?
-
Not that it's important or particularly relevant, but contrary to popular opinion, many of the founders of our country were deists.
deist
One who believes in the existence of a God,
but denies revealed religion; a freethinker.
deist
a person who believes that God created
the universe and then abandoned it
Atheism is a tough sell, even to crusty old scientists like me. OTOH, revealed religion is an even tougher sell.
curly
-
Religion is a crutch for the weak? That statement is so egotistical it staggers the imagination.
The life-span of the universe may be measured in hundreds of billions of years. Astronomers and physicists have developed several new theories in recent years, based on the latest data, that there is a never ending cycle of universe creation. In other words, our universe is not unique. There has been an unimaginable number of previous universes before our own, and there will be an unimaginable number of them after ours has ceased to exist.
If the life of our universe may be represented by a drop of water, then it is a single drop in an endless ocean of time and existence. Given that human civilization has only existed for 7,000 years how can man so cavalierly dismiss the possibility that a higher life form capable of shaping creation has evolved?
If such a life-form exists, with the benefit of almost limitless knowledge, why should it become more involved in mankind's affairs, other than to provide a modicum of moral and spiritual direction? The Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide for the development of an orderly society, if one is completely honest about it. One doesn't have to live a life of sexual restraint, devoted to a single mate, but it IS definitely safer to do so. There are consequences to the breaking of these guidelines that have nothing to do with a vengeful God.
Some of you guys want proof. I don't think the Creator is going to stop by your local bar, quaff an alcoholic beverage, play a game of pool, and laugh at your sexist jokes. Nor would He interfere in every single aspect of your life. You would resent the attempt anyway.
-
"Religion is the opiate of the people" - Karl Marx.
I tend to agree.
-
Karl Marx. The father of political philosophies that led to the rise of some of the bloodiest regimes in world history.
He definitely has a lot to offer on this subject.
-
As opposed to the regimes brought about and centred upon the beliefs in ones God or religion?
They are allways the most harmless and passive ones after all.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Copy & paste (http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1.html#1.2)
1.2: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant. Big Bang theory, on the other hand, states that all of the energy of the universe came from nothing. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
(ii) For a theory to violate the lst law of thermodynamics, the theory must predict two points in time T and T', such that the total energy of the universe at T, and the total energy of the universe at T', do not match one another. The creationist argument hinges on Big Bang theory stipulating a time t < 0, prior to the initial singularity of the universe, at which there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist). However, if the origin of the universe is the origin of time (see 1.1), then the idea of such a time t < 0 actually contradicts standard Big Bang theory, and draws no support from any possible theory of quantum cosmology. Therefore, there can be no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe.
(iii) If one supposes that there was in fact a preexisting spacetime from which the universe came, it still may be possible to resolve any violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics if the negative gravitational energy of the universe balances the positive energy, leaving the universe with a net balance of zero energy (or close enough for quantum uncertainty to allow a long time for "payback" of the energy).
As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design. There is manifold evidence which hints at intelligent design but that also is a matter of faith. What has and will always annoys/amuses me is the sheer pomposity of the scientific community.
-
Originally posted by storch
As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design.
Hey Strorch,
Darwin's theory does not address the orgins of life or the origins of the universe. It's incorrect and confusing to refer to this as a "darwinist model".
-
there is no god. There's only an idea spread around by people who realized that they could control the blithering masses by telling them that if they didnt do this or that then this superbeing thingy would do horrible things to them.
Always using things that cannot be proven at the time.. drought,rain, thunder, plagues, etc etc in the old days.. or threatening this magicked up concept of the soul being thrown into a really nasty place after you die where you'll suffer until the end of time if you dont follow the dicta set forth by them.
definition: world's oldest scam.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
... Astronomers and physicists have developed several new theories in recent years, based on the latest data, that there is a never ending cycle of universe creation. ...
They proved few years back that universe is expanding at accelerated rate. It might never come together again, instead scatter and cool down completely.
In other words, our universe is not unique. There has been an unimaginable number of previous universes before our own, and there will be an unimaginable number of them after ours has ceased to exist.
Perhaps perhaps..But they are completely irrelevant as long as they cannot share information between them.
Given that human civilization has only existed for 7,000 years how can man so cavalierly dismiss the possibility that a higher life form capable of shaping creation has evolved?
Who has dismissed such possibility? Or do you mean that such higher lifeform has created us?
If such a life-form exists, with the benefit of almost limitless knowledge, why should it become more involved in mankind's affairs, other than to provide a modicum of moral and spiritual direction?
Now wait a minute, if he doesent care about our affairs, why would he care about our mental issues? What is the reasoning behind that? What kind of knowledge you mean, ie. knowing where each atom of the universe is located?
-
Originally posted by storch
As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design.
You do realize the difference between Evolution and Big Bang right? ....right?
-
dp
-
Tuomio,
Allen Guth, the world's most prominent physicist, developed his inflationary theory some years back to explain some of the conundrums associated with the Big Bang. This was the subject of an article in Discover magazine back in 2002. Guth states that the Big Bang was a singular event (that is, only occurring once) was ludicrous. He also speculated that, since the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron, that it might be possible for an "advanced civilization" to recreate the conditions.
As I implied in the previous post, life evolves upward. Who are we to say what is possible or impossible, if time does not, indeed begin and end with the present universe.
Recently two cosmologists, whose names escape me, have proposed a theory that suggests that the Big Bang was the result of the interaction of our own universe with a "shadow universe" separated from our own by the distance of a single electron. In other words, a parallel dimension that whose branes, or planes of existence, occasionally touch our own producing titanic explosions of energy that create, or recreate if you will, our universe.
The accelerated expansion of our universe has no effect on the interaction between our universe and the shadow universe. This theory postulates that this cycle of creation is never ending. You can find this article in the February edition of Discover magazine.
As you can see, the only thing permanent about astronomical physics is its impermanence.
-
Do we really know anything? One of you guys might be a butterfly dreaming all this up. Faith is all that anyone has.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Do we really know anything? One of you guys might be a butterfly dreaming all this up. Faith is all that anyone has.
I've often thought of myself as a butterfly... Other times, more of a chipmunk. Occasionally though, I'm pretty sure I'm patio furniture.
-
As long as we're not in a snowglobe being examined by an autistic child, I'm ok.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I've often thought of myself as a butterfly... Other times, more of a chipmunk. Occasionally though, I'm pretty sure I'm patio furniture.
So now you are Buddhist? Make up your mind.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
You do realize the difference between Evolution and Big Bang right? ....right?
Forgive me for lumping you all into the Darwinist's camp. But it was Mr. Darwin that first brought the Biblical view into question and all Darwinist's also suscribe to the Big Bang theory and vice versa. n'est pas?
To me you are victims of histories most successful troll.
-
Mr Storch,
The reason people who subscribe to evolution usually subscribe to the Big Bang theory is that both have evidence to support them and survive peer review and mathematical models.
Creationism has none of those working for it, only a heartfelt 'feeling' that it must be true.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr Storch,
The reason people who subscribe to evolution usually subscribe to the Big Bang theory is that both have evidence to support them and survive peer review and mathematical models.
Creationism has none of those working for it, only a heartfelt 'feeling' that it must be true.
Regards,
In a nutshell: You either believe in the scriptures, or you don't.
Karaya
-
Ok, then in a nutshell, I don't because it takes such a huge leap of mindless faith and contradicts evidence, archeaology, and scientific method. To accept the scriptures as literal truth requires you to essentially turn off the part of your brain that protects you from scams, fraud, liars, and urban legends.
Is that clear enough?
Like I mentioned early in the thread, my preference is to not try and interfere with someone's religion because I would want them to return the same favor, but as is typical in this type of conversation, people with strong religious views are unlikely to respect those types of requests because they (to use a phrase from countless wars) 'have god on their side' and to them, the concept of 'sanctimonious' is curious at best, misguided at worst.
That said, I see no value in trying to change your mind because the only way I know how to do that is by being rational, and my life up till now has taught me that rationality and religion are not compatible.
So enjoy your religion, just leave me out of it because I'm unwilling to turn off the mental function that seperates humanity from the rest of the animals: the abillity to reason and use logic.
Regards,
-
Originally posted by storch
Forgive me for lumping you all into the Darwinist's camp. But it was Mr. Darwin that first brought the Biblical view into question
You're thinking of Copernicus.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
So now you are Buddhist? Make up your mind.
Karaya
LoL, I was going for a touch of Douglass Adams..ism.
Despite what I said before, just about 100% of the time, I'm glad that I'm not my Khakis.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, then in a nutshell, I don't because it takes such a huge leap of mindless faith and contradicts evidence, archeaology, and scientific method. To accept the scriptures as literal truth requires you to essentially turn off the part of your brain that protects you from scams, fraud, liars, and urban legends.
Is that clear enough?
Just curious here Chairboy, what about the ark that was found, stuck on the side of a mountian, what about the biblical scrolls, stone houses, shelters, (and a bunch of other stuff ) archeaologist have dug up in Isreal ( and surrounding areas). What about the evidence that proves Jesus existed, what about the doctors and scientist that have proven a woman can bare child with out a man( although it is a minomily deal it is still a proven possibility -typo-)and to question who god is? hmm? he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, 1 year is a thousand days, and a thousand years is a day.........we only have the ability of knowledge, that was given to us, by whom did we receive such capability? The only evloving that has taken place is in the last 2000 or so years, more so in the last 200 years........
Everyone has their own belief, wether it be in religion or not......... but I was curious as to where you found the proven facts that religion/belief contradicts evidence, archeaology, and scientific method. I would like to view these findings..........no offense toward you here
TC
-
Is Aces High a bargain or what? $14.95 a month AND the meaning of life? Such a deal.
But seriously, folks ...
What about evolution?
Did all life evolve from a single thread or are there multi threads?
What about spontaneous evolution, i.e., many forms of life evolving spontaneously from separate threads just as you'd expect any boiling sphere of soup to spawn multiple bubbles from all over the hospitable surface instead of one line of alike bubbles from one straw?
-
"s Aces High a bargain or what? $14.95 a month AND the meaning of life? Such a deal. "
SIG MATERIAL! :D
-
Praise Brian
(http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/b-lob.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr Storch,
The reason people who subscribe to evolution usually subscribe to the Big Bang theory is that both have evidence to support them and survive peer review and mathematical models.
Creationism has none of those working for it, only a heartfelt 'feeling' that it must be true.
Regards,
I'm always willing to rethink my values though with the passing of the years one does becoming more convinced that one's world view is the correct opinion. I listen to reasoned argument. What in science indicates to a scintilla of evidence supporting either hypothesis because neither is really a theory.
Take your time.
on another note, how is the recovery coming along? A good friend has a twentytwo year old son weighing 460lbs and I mentioned the proceedure you discribed. Next time he's over I may dig up that thread to show him.
regards chairboy
Chaser it goes beyond that.
Archaeologists have indeed uncovered Sodom and Gomorrah. Under the dead sea, fire, brimstone and all. It was hilarious to me that these "Biblical Archaeologists" were trying to explain where the "obvious remains of a burning lava like material" as a freak of nature type meteor shower that only hit that rather small geographic area. Secular pinheadism at it's finest. I'm sure the Lord himself could have come up and performed any manner of miracle and they could have "intelligently" explained it away.
Not really Myelo the big gun was Darwin. Though copernicus, gallileo, francis abbott, cassini and many others which I can't recall now brought up stuff that calls the Biblical view into question they did so inadvertantly. Mr. Darwin OTOH went after God scientifically (pfffft) as Nietzsche did philosphically.
-
Storch,
My recovery is going great, thanks! Down over 20lbs so far (real weight, not water weight) and full of energy.
Can you give some references to the mention of finding Soddom & Gomorrah? I'd like to read up on it before I respond.
Regards,
-
i dont belive in beliving in things i dont belive in unless i belive in them, then its ok to belive in it. i truly belive im gonna die some day so does that make me a beliver?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Storch,
My recovery is going great, thanks! Down over 20lbs so far (real weight, not water weight) and full of energy.
Can you give some references to the mention of finding Soddom & Gomorrah? I'd like to read up on it before I respond.
Regards,
Good deal, I'm glad to hear that it worked for you and your wife.
I have two links one is from a secular source and it was the segment I saw which was hilarious to me coming from my world view. The other is from a Biblical archaeology site. In any event the find dates back to 1973 but the secular media doesn't generally run these stories. Asbestos underware is uncomfortable and misery loves company, as it were.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1497476.stm
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html
Google sodom and ignore the gay band sites (hehe) how appropriate.
There is a plethora of info on the subject.
Regards
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
Just curious here Chairboy, what about the ark that was found, stuck on the side of a mountian,
TC
Here you go...
Did Ron Wyatt find Noah's ark? (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/wyatt.html)
--------------------------------- The Main Claims at a Glance
TRUE/FALSE?
-Radar shows man-made (boat) structures..........FALSE
-There is a regular metallic pattern..................FALS E
-Lab tests show petrified laminated wood..........FALSE
-Turkish scientists found metal rods................FALSE
-Metal artefacts have been proved by lab...........FALSE
-There are 'ship's ribs' showing....................FA LSE
-There is lots of petrified wood.....................FALS E
-Turkish Commission says 'it's a boat'............FALSE
----------------------------------------
-
Wow, and all this time I thought Eric Clapton was God because it was spray painted all over the place
I must have been misinformed
NwBie
-
"There is lots of petrified wood".
What on earth does this have to do with anything?! Petrified wood is from the Triassic Period (248-206 million years ago). I never knew that Ichthyosaurs and Pachypleurosaurs were on the Ark? Petrification needs Mud, Water and Wood, and hundreds of millions of years to create.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here you go...
Did Ron Wyatt find Noah's ark? (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/wyatt.html)
Thanks for the link Tah Gut!
the homepage of this link is an interesting one as well
Jesus, Dinasours and more (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/)
has alot of different subjects about evloution, the bible, Science, the Big Bang Theory, etc..........
TC
-
I hope that all of you realize that this particular thread has condemmed all of us to an everlasting burning pit of death at the lowest level of hell :eek:
Non-believers are dealt a far worse fate....
jury duty :aok
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
Thanks for the link Tah Gut!
the homepage of this link is an interesting one as well
Jesus, Dinasours and more (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/)
has alot of different subjects about evloution, the bible, Science, the Big Bang Theory, etc..........
TC
Great link TC, thanks
-
answer this question.....
how can something come from nothing....
-
Originally posted by SLO
answer this question.....
how can something come from nothing....
How can a deity come from nothing?
-
Originally posted by SLO
answer this question.....
how can something come from nothing....
Where does God come from?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Where does God come from?
I don't know! But when I meet him then I will won't I? well maybe I will if he wants me to know!
-
If you can't answer that question, then why do you hold people who don't believe in Creation to a different standard?
-
Because they are infidels.
-
Originally posted by storch
Great link TC, thanks
Oh man:(
Here is a link that scientifically disputes the so called facts about carbon dating from that faith based link.
I still dont understand this disbelief in science. Your God made scientists so therefore science is from your God:)
" limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years"
http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html
Faith is in your heart. Keep it there.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you can't answer that question, then why do you hold people who don't believe in Creation to a different standard?
I don't!! I just said that it is simply a matter of personal preference!! Science cannot now and never will satisfactorilly answer the question of origin!! Read back and correct me if I've posted anything inconsistent with the above statement. It takes more faith to believe in your model. I like mine because I don't need asbestos underware. actually I think you have a stronger system of belief and greater faith than I do and I commend you for it. I don't see how you do it!!!!
-
Fair enough, and I can't understand why YOU possibly believe in your faith, but to each his own.
It seems shortsighted to say that Science will never explain the origin of everything. Two hundred years ago, many said man would never fly. 75 years ago, many said that man would never fly faster then the speed of sound. 40 years ago, many said man would never be able to fit powerful computers into a home.
Science is on a continuing march, and as long as humans retain their monkey curiousity, we'll learn more. Who's to say that we won't dot the i's and cross the t's? I say that, because minds greater then mine have already worked out a framework that survives informed scrutiny.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Fair enough, and I can't understand why YOU possibly believe in your faith, but to each his own.
It seems shortsighted to say that Science will never explain the origin of everything. Two hundred years ago, many said man would never fly. 75 years ago, many said that man would never fly faster then the speed of sound. 40 years ago, many said man would never be able to fit powerful computers into a home.
Science is on a continuing march, and as long as humans retain their monkey curiousity, we'll learn more. Who's to say that we won't dot the i's and cross the t's? I say that, because minds greater then mine have already worked out a framework that survives informed scrutiny.
well perhaps you are right, but then again what kind of faith would i have if i didn't profess the same thing about yours that you profess about mine. n'est pas?
regards
-
Science is nowhere near explaining all of the mysteries of even our observable universe. The nature of our existence may never be understood through any vehicle other than our imagination and/or faith. To illustrate my point, anyone remember "The Incredible Shrinking Man" from the '50's? As the man shrank into seeming nonexistence he realized that the universe was still a wondrous place and that he would still have a part in it no matter how small he became. Sure, it was fiction born of imagination, but it poignantly addressed the feelings that most of us have regarding our seemingly insignificant existence when considered in the context of a possibly infinite universe. Why we try to understand it at all is as much a mystery as the cosmos itself. I think there is room for both science and religion in a universe such as ours.
While I'm waxing metaphysically, anyone consider that the notion of curved space might imply that the infinitely small becomes the infinitely large? What if those theoretical vibrating strings are actually universes or maybe just mere galaxies? And not just tiny galaxies but our galaxies including the one we call the Milky Way.
-
Yea but who's gonna explain this ....?
(http://www.poster.net/men-in-black-ii/men-in-black-ii-newspaper-4004253.jpg)