|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 4, 2006 20:54:32 GMT -8
LOL, ya, now that's truly scary.....Becareful, dont mess up that program your writing, hate to see what a mis-placed 1 does to your bios...
|
|
|
Post by doom3x on Sept 4, 2006 23:19:58 GMT -8
I'm not going to bother refuting the science in your post Chal, because at a barebones level, I agree with most of it. I have two major problems with your argument. The first problem I have is with your use of statistics as a defense against the odds of life forming.
"Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747! (Which I posted earlier, and no one has been able to provide a calculation that is any different)"
While I'm sure the numbers as quoted there are correct, no equation, however complex, can factor in every variable, cosmically, ever. There is no way that number with all those pretty zeroes can be taken as an accurate barometer of the likelihood of life forming. That make sound like an endorsement of creationism right there, since I just said no equation however complex can measure the likelihood of life forming. But it isn't, because even though we can't draw up that equation, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your argument right there is basically "These 2 scientists came up with their best guess of the likelihood of life forming spontaneously, and it's really small, therefore, it can't have happened." That's called a post hoc, ergo propter hoc, fallacy. After this, therefore because of this. If we assume those 2 are right, then the formation of life on Earth is a spectacularly fluke, and worthy of consideration as special. BUT it hinges on us assuming those two scientists getting that probability right, which none of us can prove (or disprove) they did. However, I think it's safe to say they do not have access to the myriad of variables this universe is capable of producing, so the likelihood of their being right is remote. Put simply, until you know what's in the junkyard, you can't assume a tornado sweeping through couldn't assemble a Boeing 747...it damn well might if the junkyard was full of Boeing 747 pieces.
My second problem with the argument is, as you so elegantly put it the other night, time. Your words exactly were "time is the evolutionist's best friend." It is. "When evolution cannot explain any sequence (and this happens often) they tend to offer various, possible solutions to their conundrum in an attempt to provide a reasonable explination. The problem is that these are really just "educated guesses" at best. Can you imagine if I offered these same responses to my attempt to prove creationism? They would demand proof, wanting God himself to appear and provide them with every piece of proof." That is the very definition of the scientific method...so rarely is something perfectly elucidated on the first try that revisions HAVE to be made. We offer various, possible solutions because we don't have all the data, and we make our best guess. And yet, amusingly enough, out of all the guesses, a few correct ones have been culled, and none have taken us in the opposite direction. No creature of more evident complexity has ever been found that predates one of less evident complexity. We modify the theory as we gather data. How many times in our history has a "possible" solution that somebody offered become the correct one? Now here's the catch...the proof for your argument is, if we even assume it's possible (which I don't, but for the sake of argument, I won't go that road), is massively more unlikely. We may someday discovered all the data necessary to cover all those supposed "holes" in evolutionary theory, but I sincerely doubt God will ever show up and ask Lost for the time. Evolution is a constantly evolving theory, with more and more of the puzzle being filled in all the time...your puzzle has just one piece, God, and only he can tell you for certain if it's right, and until he does that, you cannot conclusively prove your side of this. The evolutionist's best friend *is* time...given another thousand years, he very well might be able to emphatically prove his side of the debate beyond a shadow of a doubt. God's unlikely appearance would make that an unnecessary pursuit, but that's the ONLY thing that settles this argument in your favor. I can't guarantee that we'll have all the data available in a thousand or ten thousand years, but I can guarantee we'll have it some day, that much I know for certain. I can't guarantee God will ever show up to back up his side of this.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 5, 2006 0:57:08 GMT -8
I shall dance for joy, nearly 300 posts and finally one person has agreed with me. Woot. Glad you didn't make a fool out of yourself by trying to be smart, because that was really dumb. I myself have a belief/faith in God, as I have mentioned many times, just not a faith based on any one doctrine alone and as also state above, believe in God's helping hand in our development, but also in the process of evolution. Chalupa at least argues his points with a usually detached, unemotional tone to them. When you start calling people who disagree with you noobs and computer junkies AND even threaten physical violence, you do a great disservice to yourself and your religion. You even admit you would rather smack someone than take the time to come up with a valid argument supporting your beliefs. I've found it hard of late to tolerate the neo-christian movement with poster boys like George W. Bush and Jerry Falwell(direct quote on iraqi's: "Let's blow them all up in the name of the Lord"). Now being Christian and being Christ-like are two very different things. Christianity has started to fall into a hole of arrogance and intollerance of others. (I will concede that this is a generalization and that many people who are christians are not like Dubya) Mortal, you perpetuate that Dubya stereotype of violent intollerance of diversity when you post garbage like you did. Although it may matter little to you or anyone else, you have now lost all credibility with me on any topic. Obviously debates like this can become emotional and truly hurt other's feelings since our own beliefs are metaphorically like a part of our body and we feel pain when those beliefs are purpoted to be untrue. The debates may also not change anyone's views on topics. However the debates are great and needed because they force all of us on both sides(or in between) to think about our beliefs and test them against a usually challenging and intelligent argument AGAINST them. Keep the intelligent posts coming, leave the trash or even better, get rid of it from your mind/body/soul. P.S. I don't hate you or anything, I share a few of your beliefs. You just have no credibility anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 5, 2006 6:42:19 GMT -8
Sorry if im just skipping ahead of everyone else, but i skimmed over a few replies and i found this comment as intriguing.
Chal, to go on what you said, God created us with great potential. Take Leonardo da vinci for example. God used him for great things, and i believe he developed his brain much more than we have, and that all attests through his journals that have survived the test of time (thieves, robbers, and the like).
The real reason for your question is, why did god give us a brain that is more than we need?
Let's put it this way:
Our brain, here on earth, only uses 10% of what it is going to be able to use in heaven. Thats 90% of our brain that we can't even use. And to imagine that that 10% has to be an incredibly small portion of our brain, in the first place. That's so amazing! If you we're to compare it to a hard drive, it is much more complex, even for a brain that is 90% unused at the minimum.
I was looking through a computer book, and they have a comparison on the brain and a computer. The brain can process at about 2-101 operations a second, carry 11 terrabytes of data, seamingly core-duo ( i added that one), runs in the MHZ (I think), and can grow, with stronger synaptic connections. It can do all of this only using 10%.
Just think of what we'll be able to do in heaven.
To comment on what lost said about having a god appear to him for him to believe:
Christianity is all about faith. You have to understand the way christians work. If you don't have faith, then how are you going to believe. One of the key things for me to have faith, i believe, are miracles. They are real, and they happen, day by day, when we ask God for a miracle. Why do we sometimes ask him for a miracle, and it doesn't happen? It's all about whether god wants it to happen or not, if it will be a good example to us.
Thats how god works, if something is his will, it will be done. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" Taken from the book of matthew, chapter 6.
God is not a jealous God, where he wants everyone to come to his side. He lets the unbeliever choose which path he shall go, on the path of righteousness, or on the devil's path. That's why God is such an awesome God. He doesn't say, "Oh, you have to come to me, since you do not believe. I will make you come to me." No, he's more like, "It's your decision. I won't pester you. It's all up to you. You decide this day what you will do."
Pre-formed life and science:
How could life come out of nothing??? The big bang, you ask? Out of nothing, come on!! Ok, say it happened. If our earliest ancestors evolved from creatures much less complex, and it all evidently came out of some premordial soup? Wow! I do believe there wasn't even any form of life, even atoms and such. Just a bunch of soup. What can chance to to that soup? Is it somewhat more potent that normal soup to contain the earliest forms of life, just waiting to spring up?
Wow, that really boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 5, 2006 7:54:53 GMT -8
ptc does it really matter what we can do in heaven? with that 90%? since isnt the basic idea of heaven that the body remains here on earth and the soul goes up to heaven
heaven is paradise. my paradise would be not having to think...ever...everything just happens how id want it to. but then again no one knows what heaven is or is like SO saying that we can use that extra 90% in heaven sounds kinda dumb to me
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Sept 5, 2006 7:59:38 GMT -8
My paradise would totally be me playing a video game of my life. It's just so much easier that way - to be able to just reset, or pause when you need time to think...it's unfortunate life's not like that.
Here's a new one for you, does God keep time flowing, or does it just do that on its own?
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 5, 2006 8:34:21 GMT -8
Well, the bible really doesn't have any indication of time, relating to the first book of genesis. Time just happens to be 365 days a year, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes an hour, and 60 seconds a minute..
My answer, in theory is yes, god did set time in motion. If he didn't then he couldn't go back in time. God can go back in time if he wants to, to change the course of life going on in the present now. If the answer had been no, then certainly god couldn't have control of time, and thus wouldn't be able to manipulate time himself.
My answer is yes!
The ancients probably set up the system of time. They put in what they thought time was, and we go about it to this day.
Oh, and to go on what you said rabid, when we get to heaven, our minds will become like the angels. We will be able to think like them. Memory, i imagine, will be much faster than it is on earth. Our minds will be tuned to the tune of angels. We will be able to hear much more, with the help of our brains, also. The mind will become a very useful tool. Using the mind to create objects, or at least an emulation of an object, may be possible in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 5, 2006 12:14:02 GMT -8
so are you telling me that some angels are smarter than other angels? and actually time is not 365 days 24 hours 60 minutes 60 seconds, those are just terms we gave to what we call time so we can try to get a better grasp on it, doesnt really work does it \ but according to einstein, if you traveled at the speed of light, time would stop for you. or something like that
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 5, 2006 14:42:10 GMT -8
Ladies and gentlemen of this thread, I deeply apologize for my behavior on my two recent posts. Hawk was right in pointing that out, and i ask for forgiveness from my fellow brethren. My word is gold, therefore i shall not express such hostility again UNLESS it is in self-defense, but that should be expected. I have sinned as a christian and know that i have been forgiven by HIM. When discussing this topic in any way emotions should not be involved. It is about the facts. The guy i was reacting to (can't remember his name) was probably just joking and i took offense over nothing, on top of that, it wasn't thread related. I guess it was a bad day, haha. To continue with this debate, i noticed the last thread about time, check this out....From the King James Version of the Bible. Genesis 1:5 And God called the light, Day, and the darkness, Night. and the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY. Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the SECOND DAY. Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind: and God saw it was good. And the evening and the morning were the THIRD DAY. Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the FOURTH DAY. Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the FIFTH DAY. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the SIXTH DAY. GenesiS 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the SEVENTH DAY God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. I do not intend on rewritng the whole scripture, for obvious reasons.. Sounds like the average week to me...And for common sense purposes, man created the year simply because of the season's rotation? And hawk, since you don't believe in my "credibility", then rely on the BIBLE for it. Oh, by the way, would you care explaining how you can believe in creationism (which is exclusively the Bible), and Darwinism (which obviously contradict each other) at the same time? Very confusing...
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 5, 2006 15:03:16 GMT -8
Oh yay, this will be my 300 post. First off, creationism is NOT solely from the bible. Creationism is simply a belief that God/The Universe/Great Spirit/Edna had a hand in our creation and development. Second off as I have said before(for the love of fluffy kittens read my posts instead of skimming them) there are differences between believing in the process of evolution(ie that we are a continually evolving species) and the Darwinian "Theory of evolution" and other theories of evolution. Thirdly, before I get into more details I will mention to you mortalcry that I rarely if ever base my issues of credibility over what a person reads. I base it on what a person DOES. The phrase actions speak louder than words is valid in my opinion. People can preach love and tolerance and that God is great. IF that person does not act in a loving manner and shows intolerance, then THATS how I will see that person. Back to the debate. My current belief system on this topic is that God did create us, but it does not mean that he did it in "7 days" as we know it. I also believe that he used the process of evolution to do it. Where exactly He started, I don't know. But to me God seems like a good parent. A parent is involved in the process of the creation of a life, their child. A good parent will nurture their child and help it in its development. Yet the good parent will also let the child have some freedom to develop on their own(mentally, physically, environmentally). To me that's what evolution really is, it's God letting us develop at least in part on our own. Instead of a parent forcing their child into one cookie cutter pattern(Like making them become a lawyer or doctor when they don't want to) God allows our minds,bodies,DNA etc... to develop in ways we never imagined. That may or may not clarify my position to anyone. SO here's some more banana's
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 5, 2006 15:43:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by greeny on Sept 5, 2006 20:08:43 GMT -8
That's a common misconception. Angels are divine spirits created by God to be ever with him in Heaven. People do not turn into angels when they die. Neither can humans ever grasp the true meaning of what an angel really is until we see them..
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 6, 2006 6:00:04 GMT -8
What i mean is that when we get to heaven, our bodies on earth will stay on earth, and we will become spirits in form. Our memories will still be with us, although the evil that we have experienced will be, for the most part, forgotten. Life will be must better, we will be in the likeness of God. We won't have any strife for anyone. Those who did commit evil on this earth, and have no part in God's kingdom will be cast into hell where they will burn for eternity. Satan will be cast into the bottomless abyss, and the keys thrown away.
|
|
|
Post by softspoken on Sept 6, 2006 21:34:17 GMT -8
To find the meaning of life for all mankind, you'd have to read the books of all mankind. Not just the Bible: Limited views on a limited people. You'd have to read the Tao, the Koran, the Torah, among others. absolutely, you'd be only seeing a selective number of views, instead of a larger range of views.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 7, 2006 5:50:35 GMT -8
To further comment on how God controls time:
Yet another point to make true about what i said earlier. Miracles can actually prove that god controls time. A miracle is actually an alteration of the future. When you are in a life-threatening situation, and you pray to god, he'll change the future around so that you'll be safe, if it is his will for you. If you never prayed, the future would play out like God intended. He knows all about the future, and can do whatever he wants with it.
|
|