|
|
#41 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._big_bang.html
The details are on their website, including some stuff here: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html I would say it is a given that the universe is expanding, and that it had some sort of origin, since we can observe those. How did it happen? Why? Well, those really arn't the job of the Big bang theory to address, and I don't know the answers.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Lost in my childhood
Age: 32
Posts: 1,971
|
For the most part I thought that was just simple variation. Like someone being taller than another or someone having "piano hands" persay.
__________________
Quote:
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
let it snow~
|
I know how little it matters, but Jewpy, he teaches intelligent design as well. It's a theory about how evolution took place, after all, so it has merit to be discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
I know it's just semantics, but still...it's fun to nit-pick. Whatever, I'm so over the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
FFR Player
|
For the record, the chances of life arising from chemicals and atoms is not "so low that it is impossible due to the default of Borel's Law" because to reach that impossibility of even IMAGINING a number of 1 in 10^40,000 chance, you must make step by step assumptions on many things. (for the record, the assumption of zero chance due to Borel's Law is actually inapplicable, since it pertains to physical probabilities only, oops creationists!)
i implore you to tentatively read this page, and all of this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html If you understand that page, you can come to the knowledge that considering the probability was calculated as if it were successive trials (such as coin flipping). The mathematician ignored the fact that all these chemicals were in seas upon seas of chemicals all reacting with eachother, more often near shores. Considering there was an estimation of a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres of water, its much easier to get your mind around how much more likely this must be (due to all that crazy surface area). And no there is no figure that takes into account the simultaneous reactions of seas of chemicals. Understanding that seas of chemicals are reacting with eachother for upwards of a billion years, it no longer seems so powerfully impossible. Also, the video forgets that the calculations were done considering a MODERN protein, when the first would have been very ancient and simple. Again the site explains all this better than i can. But keep in mind that the chance is not even CLOSE to that ridiculously low! BTW, the Watch and Watchmaker analogy is ONE OF the worst analogies i have ever seen.
__________________
Last edited by W_I_N_N_E_R; 04-6-2007 at 12:17 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CANADA
Posts: 141
|
i believe i wuz a monkey
end of story |
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
FFR Player
|
I stronlgly beilieve in Evolution,
I think this planet started out as nothing, only microscopic organisms that evolved and everything just kinda did its own thing until today. BUT It leads me to believe theres a god because Ive seen a couple ghosts. My friend explained to me about how I wouldnt of seen em if there wasnt a god, I forgot what he said. I really wanted to watch this movie but it was putin me to sleep. I'll watch it tomorow, its 3:01 in the morning lol
__________________
![]() ![]() wewt10k aim: IMB3AU![]() http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=vertex+beta I play Vertex BETA :O |
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New York
Age: 29
Posts: 504
|
Could somebody point me to HOW they are finding the probability of live forming? Please?
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
FFR Player
|
First the mathematician took a template for a simple protein, and since proteins are responsible for everything in our bodies, they are important. The protein sequence he used was a 400 long amino acid chain from a very simple, but modern bacterium. He then calculated the probability of 20 amino acids (since there is only 20 that make up all life) being put together into that 400 long chain through chain. Using this i believe he ended up with a probability of 1 in 2.04 x 10^390... dont remember tho. He continued his assumptions doing god-knows-what till he reached 1 in 1 x 10^40,000...
But the creationist mathematician made way too many assumptions in his calculations, and kept calculating as if the chemicals could ever assemble into a bacteria through chance, which everyone knows its impossible. He wasn't aware that chemicals can go through transitional phases of life until reaching a bacteria (self-replicating polymers, protobionts, etc). Also, these probabilities forget to take into thought the processes of natural selection, which yes, would have been acting against the first self-replicating polymers and protocells, making sure the failed replications dont survive. And yes, evolution kicks ass and is MUCH more interesting than creationism, is certainly the ultimate rags to riches story (bwahaha terrible joke). Lastly don't you think its more likely everything started from a huge, powerful explosion (more accurately described as a 'powerful expansion') then to believe that a Sky-God intelligently designed everything in existence with a predetermined meaning... i certainly find the Big Bang much much more plausible than its alternatives (WHICH ISN'T ONLY CREATIONISM BTW, ignorant creationists...)
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
FFR Player
|
there could be more than one universe if you go by the big bang theory if you thing of it realisicly.
|
|
|
|
|
#51 |
|
Super Scooter Happy
|
All the truly smart people are agnostic.
Also lol this issue
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds. |
|
|
|
|
#52 |
|
FFR Player
|
Religion is a delusion, therefore its rare for religious people to be truly logical. And since logic is the basis of all cognitive reasoning and all intelligence we hold, i would also come to a conclusion that quite often agnostics and atheists are intelligent, but thats not always so.
Sometimes agnostics are just fence-sitters because they are afraid to join in the whole religion vs. non-religion "war", so thats just fear and other things, not intelligence.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Super Scooter Happy
|
Wow you're not biased at all!
The rest of your post is either rofl or headshake or both.
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds. |
|
|
|
|
#54 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
FFR Player
|
I said truly logical, to be religious you must have faith, faith is best described as casting out logic in favour for emotion and willing to believe, which isnt bad, its just not logical. That is what im referring to, i never said religious people are pure illogic, i have many friends whom i adore who are very VERY christian. I have alot of respect for them for other things.
Furthermore, your statement of requiring disproval is odd, because what kind of proof do u require? Stats showing religion if often more of a detriment to society? Or do u mean the proof of "no god", which is next to impossible... Or do u require proof of the bible being false? I do respect ur choices, but u must understand why i say the things i do. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html proof religion occasionally causes societal detriment http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm proof of jesus most likely not have even existing http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html check this list for any scientific proof u need that u think creationists have over evolution. Its a good site for referencing when doubting evolution, or even science for that matter. talkorigins rulez.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
is against custom titles
|
No.
Faith is belief in the absence of scientific evidence; it is not the absence of logic. Some of the greatest thinkers in history were devoutly religious and highly logical. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
#57 | |||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Theology is one of the most intensely logical fields in existence.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 04-6-2007 at 09:49 PM.. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
#58 | ||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
You're not biased at all ;o
Also, I think most people that are atheist are atheist in respect to the judeo-christian (or whatever other manmade God) God, not necessarily a God in general. Quote:
Quote:
But you're right, it isn't the absense of logic. You just have to seperate the part of your life that is faith and the part that is science and you'll do just fine.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 04-6-2007 at 10:39 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
FFR Player
|
OK, let me clear something up. My assumptions are based off of using logic in the logic-gate definition of logic. If A and B are true, and C is the conclusion of the 2, then C will be true because both arguments are true. But (in reference to AND gates) if A is false but B is true, then C is false.
In reference to Guido, i call it illogical to reject scientific evidence, since the evidence suggests a conclusion. If a prayer study resulted in evidence for prayer not working, logically, prayer doesnt work. Therefore logic is involved with faith. I find it illogical to ignore evidence, is an illogical conclusion. Ignorance is rarely a good thing. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, most people through time who are brilliant have been religious, BACK WHEN IT WAS FORCIBLY MAINSTREAM. Before Darwin, what was it, 95% of scientists were creationists?? therefore, logically, i would be surprised if the greatest minds of the past werent religious, due to probability and statistics. But really, the closer to our time you get, the less christian the scientists get (christian in the sense of personal god and related specialties). NOW referencing my ORIGINAL insulting statement, which no one EVER seems to pay attention to, i said ITS RARE, not impossible. OF COURSE people will be intelligent even tho they are religious, i just meant the ratio suggests that it is rare. Think about the amount of scientists up till the last 150 years, and the progress we have attained so recently. Times so close to now have been more atheist than ever and we have progressed insanely quickly. (please understand the terminology when i say: ) the locus of breakthrough scientists increase as time progresses, for the most part, the greeks were pretty amazing in their philosophy and intelligence tho. So to summarize i said its RARE, not impossible. When given long enough time, rarities do exist in quantity. >Reason is a synonym of logic, cognition is knowledge through perception, so when i say COGNITIVE REASONING, i mean knowledge and conclusions that are reached through logic.< Delusions can follow logical patterns, yes, but rarely does someone jump into a delusion using logic, or with a stable mind. When i said agnostics tend to be intelligent i reached it through a quasi-logical fallacy, i recognize that. I used more gate-logic: logic = intelligence = atheists (on the grounds that they deny religion through logic, and not because they hate rules). My statements were meant in general terms, of course there are examples that work against my statements, i know many people who are definitively intelligent yet are strongly religious. I meant intelligence in a cognitive sense, not in a knowledge sense... I should have defined that better, but i wanted to try to say alot in less words, rather than being FORCED like this to defend my presuppositions. I'm sorry for typing so much, but everyone is forcing me to type alot to fully explain myself, when i said religion is a delusion, i meant it humourously. I said it in a sense of referencing a common atheist site GodIsImaginary.com because he calls religion a delusion in one of his videos. I was alluding to it, trying to be funny to those who know. go look at the site... look at the site to understand why i say religion is a delusion! Im also sorry for offending when i say that, to me you are false in your belief, and delusion is "a false belief or opinion" so i state it as such. Thanks for the support Reach, although small and probably not intentional, i respect the support. I dont hate religious people, my girlfriend is highly religious and i love her, i just recognize that often its built from LOGICAL FALLACIES www.theskepticsguide.org look them up. Now before you quote me, i said OFTEN, not ALWAYS. Just like i said RARE and not IMPOSSIBLE. **edit** Yes reach, you're right, people shut that part from their lives and do not apply logic to it. Hence why i said something along the lines of TRULY logical about everything. to ignore logic for one aspect is a logical fallacy and would prevent someone from approaching life, as a whole, through logic.
__________________
Last edited by W_I_N_N_E_R; 04-6-2007 at 11:14 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|