Carebian Knight wrote:If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?
That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.
Sounds like something that was made up so that you couldn't be proven wrong.
Coming from the guy defending religion...
I literally cannot get this across to you. There. Was. No. Before. Since this atomic material was infinitely small it was zerodimensional, and time is a dimension so time did not exist until after the big bang.
How can something that is zerodimensional exist? That's basically going against science, from what I know there has to be at least 2 dimensions for something to exist.
Well, your question is basically "What was reality before the universe existed?". It also implies "What was reality before the laws of our universe existed?"
Carebian Knight wrote: I said that conquering someone to make them a slave is morally wrong to me.
So you're only saying that you allow slavery if someone owes you money or something.
THAT IS NOT SLAVERY!>_>
If it was, then we'd all be slaves to the government.
Slavery means you do not receive any form of payment for your work and have no rights. So basically sexual abuse wouldn't be illegal since a man can do with his property whatever he wants.
Carebian Knight wrote:If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?
That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.
Sounds like something that was made up so that you couldn't be proven wrong.
Coming from the guy defending religion...
I literally cannot get this across to you. There. Was. No. Before. Since this atomic material was infinitely small it was zerodimensional, and time is a dimension so time did not exist until after the big bang.
How can something that is zerodimensional exist? That's basically going against science, from what I know there has to be at least 2 dimensions for something to exist.
You've not read much science then...
The whole point of the Big Bang theory is that everything existed as a singularity. The 3 standard dimensions, time, the forces... Everything. We can't really comprehend or visualize what that that would be like (without using mathematics, and even then you have to be Stephen Hawking) because we live in four dimensions. As theists say about God constantly, just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Carebian Knight wrote:You two are only proving to me that some of the evolutionists here don't even know what they are talking about.
This is coming from the guy who says math isn't to be trusted.
It doesn't matter what happened with evolution in the past. RIGHT NOW we know that these radiometric work, since there are alot that are currently being 'used' and they all come up with scarily similar results for the same material.
I never said math isn't to be trusted, I said that maybe an equation used for something can't be trusted. Never said math as a whole can't be trusted.
For something as major and as controversial as the big bang you'd think numerous people looked at the math of the big bang.
If you have Comcast on demand go to 'news & world' -> 'history channel' -> 'the universe' -> 'the big bang' in the next 24 hours as it gets taken off tomorrow. It's a 90 video about the big bang, and by god it outdoes the tabasco videos by a long shot since its made by the history channel.
Whether the Big Bang happened or not, whatever your view of the morality of past civilizations, had little to do with whether the thoery of Evolution is true.
This whole thread is full of the incorrect supposition that all you have to do is disprove one idea or one small part of an idea to essentially dismiss whole theories or even the whole concept of science itself. In fact, "proving things wrong" IS mostly what science is all about. However, you have to use real proof, not just the old "I don't understand so it must be wrong" or "AHA I found ONE person somewhere who agrees with me, so you all must be wrong."
Science is real and factual. It is based by stacking proof upon proof upon proof. Can there be errors along the way? Absolutely. Does this mean the whole idea of science is wrong? No more than saying that because that one bread recipe did not work the whole idea of baking i splain wrong. In baking, you "tweak" the ingredients, temperature, etc. In science you test and test and test again. .. and even after a thousand tests, sometimes are STILL not absolutely sure you have the correct idea.
You see, the fact that scientists are reluctant or unable to "disprove" creationism is not a failure of science, it is its strength. ANY idea will stand in science .. until it can be disproven.
You, however, take the stand that unless we can PROVE our thoughts, we must be wrong. That kind of proof will just never happen. It is the wrong question to ask. And, if you are honest, the truth is you cannot PROOVE your thoughts either. The absolute MOST you can say is that you cannot conceive of another possibility. This is NOT proof. It is your basic assumptions that are incorrect, not the challenges to your thinking. Sorry.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Whether the Big Bang happened or not, whatever your view of the morality of past civilizations, had little to do with whether the thoery of Evolution is true.
YES! SOMEONE GETS IT!
This whole thread is full of the incorrect supposition that all you have to do is disprove one idea or one small part of an idea to essentially dismiss whole theories or even the whole concept of science itself. In fact, "proving things wrong" IS mostly what science is all about. However, you have to use real proof, not just the old "I don't understand so it must be wrong" or "AHA I found ONE person somewhere who agrees with me, so you all must be wrong."
YES!
Science is real and factual. It is based by stacking proof upon proof upon proof. Can there be errors along the way? Absolutely. Does this mean the whole idea of science is wrong? No more than saying that because that one bread recipe did not work the whole idea of baking i splain wrong. In baking, you "tweak" the ingredients, temperature, etc. In science you test and test and test again. .. and even after a thousand tests, sometimes are STILL not absolutely sure you have the correct idea.
YES!
You, however, take the stand that unless we can PROVE our thoughts, we must be wrong. That kind of proof will just never happen. It is the wrong question to ask. And, if you are honest, the truth is you cannot PROOVE your thoughts either. The absolute MOST you can say is that you cannot conceive of another possibility. This is NOT proof. It is your basic assumptions that are incorrect, not the challenges to your thinking. Sorry.
Back to the slavery thing for just a moment. I'm fairly certain that africans (people of color) often enslaved their own people and brought them to us by the boat loads for a reasonable price. Rather than the white man sailing over to Africa and snatching a bunch of black people and making them row the ship back to the shores of america.
jbuckley34 wrote:Back to the slavery thing for just a moment. I'm fairly certain that africans (people of color) often enslaved their own people and brought them to us by the boat loads for a reasonable price. Rather than the white man sailing over to Africa and snatching a bunch of black people and making them row the ship back to the shores of america.
Yes the leaders of the people there were pretty much into the whole thing. All we had to do was sail there and buy a bunch and sail back. Not that we didn't gather our own ones from other sources, but those leaders were just more sensible since they saw we would take their people anyway.
Apart from morons like Suggs posting irrelvancies and irritating anal nonsense, why is this thread still alive?
May as well have a post called "Evolution vs Lex Luther" for all the relevance to the real world.
It wears me out...
Norse wrote:But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
suggs wrote:Apart from morons like Suggs posting irrelvancies and irritating anal nonsense, why is this thread still alive? May as well have a post called "Evolution vs Lex Luther" for all the relevance to the real world. It wears me out...
I think it has much to do with the fact that many of us are very bored, or drunk, or both (in my case). What's more fun that arguing with a brick wall of believers that cannot be convinced with anything ranging from evidence to plain common sense?
If your answer is everything, then you're probably on to something.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Whether the Big Bang happened or not, whatever your view of the morality of past civilizations, had little to do with whether the thoery of Evolution is true.
This whole thread is full of the incorrect supposition that all you have to do is disprove one idea or one small part of an idea to essentially dismiss whole theories or even the whole concept of science itself. In fact, "proving things wrong" IS mostly what science is all about. However, you have to use real proof, not just the old "I don't understand so it must be wrong" or "AHA I found ONE person somewhere who agrees with me, so you all must be wrong."
Science is real and factual. It is based by stacking proof upon proof upon proof. Can there be errors along the way? Absolutely. Does this mean the whole idea of science is wrong? No more than saying that because that one bread recipe did not work the whole idea of baking i splain wrong. In baking, you "tweak" the ingredients, temperature, etc. In science you test and test and test again. .. and even after a thousand tests, sometimes are STILL not absolutely sure you have the correct idea.
You see, the fact that scientists are reluctant or unable to "disprove" creationism is not a failure of science, it is its strength. ANY idea will stand in science .. until it can be disproven.
You, however, take the stand that unless we can PROVE our thoughts, we must be wrong. That kind of proof will just never happen. It is the wrong question to ask. And, if you are honest, the truth is you cannot PROOVE your thoughts either. The absolute MOST you can say is that you cannot conceive of another possibility. This is NOT proof. It is your basic assumptions that are incorrect, not the challenges to your thinking. Sorry.
You sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist in that sentence. We can't prove God exists, but that doesn't mean we're wrong. I never said that because you believe something you have to prove it to me before I believe it myself. When you are trying to prove wrong something that I've believed all of my life, I'm gonna need some proof before I agree with you.
Carebian Knight wrote: You sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist in that sentence. We can't prove God exists, but that doesn't mean we're wrong. I never said that because you believe something you have to prove it to me before I believe it myself. When you are trying to prove wrong something that I've believed all of my life, I'm gonna need some proof before I agree with you.
But it's not about whether God can be proven or not, most of us realise the futileness of that.
We aren't disproving creationism, we are saying that the shit Widowmakers is saying isn't disproving evolution. f*ck that shit man. This thread isn't about God, this thread is about evolution vs. creationism.
That was so right on time, thank you Mr. flying spaghetti monster. It basically boils down to ones opinion vs. another. Nobody is really right, nobody is totally wrong. The shit will probably hit the fan in our lifetime and if were not all oblitterated at once, we may have a better understanding of our existence/creation/evolution. If some guy is running around fixing all the planets problems, or planes and automobiles are suddenly falling out of the sky and running into ditches along the roads or we are having a chip placed beneath our skin to obtain groceries etc. etc. etc. That will point to creation for me. lol Either way, i just wanna get my kicks in before the whole shit house goes up in flames. May be safer to put the money on creation, would suck to be wrong if the big book is true, and if your wrong about creation, the worms just eat you anyways. why am i even in this? Think the bored and or drunk thing sums it up.
J buckly, you are incorrect. Black tribes absolutely did conquer and enslave neighboring tribes, and eventually they sold them to europeans, but, though there might have been one or two isolated exceptions ( I have never heard of one, but am not going to deny the possiblity completely), they did NOT sail them over to us. A couple of the pirates are thought to have been black or otherwise "not white", and perhaps could have had slaves to sell at times, but they were the exception. .. and pirates generally dealt in goods other than slaves (though it did happen)
As for Europeans enslaving Europeans... serfdom and indentured servants persisted all through the slavery period. You can compare it to slavery. However, even if you dismiss legal differences ( usually even serfs could keep their kids, indentured servants were supposed to have a limited span of service, etc), nobles/society at least admitted that serfs and others were human .. less worthy humans perhaps, but human (remember this is a time when kings had "divine right" to rule, and when nobles in general were considered "above" the "lower" classes). When blacks were brought here they were often (NOT ALWAYS!) considered below human .. or at least below even the "lowest" of whites.
This is most definitely off the original topic however, FAR off. So I suggest starting another thread if you wish to continue....
In the six weeks of this threads life scientists all over the world have been working towards finding answers, they will continue to do so indefinitely. In the same timespan creationists have added nothing to the sum of human knowledge, they will also continue on this path indefinitely.
The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.
The huge majority of Christians accept evolution and it has not diminished their faith, why will creationists not simply do the same rather than continiously attempt to hinder scientific progress.
caribbean. I absolutely DO believe in God and that God created the earth ... and your argument is the second greatest falacy of this debate.
The overhwhelming majority of scientiest (NOT all!) do believe in some God. In THIS country, the majority of those are Chrisitian (both fundamentalist and not-- more or less as the general population). Jews would be second and the rest, including true atheism are all represented in far fewer numbers .. at least at this time.
It is not that scientists "don't believe" in God or that God created everything .. it is just that any such proof is currently very far outside the realm of the ability of science to prove or disprove. It is philosophy and theology, not science.
Attempts to say otherwise rely on SERIOUS misunderstandings of the nature of science, scientific reasoning and usually (as is shown above) in various principals of science
OH, and for the record .. I have ALWAYS believed something pretty close to Intelligent design .. and never seen it as inconsistant with evolution. AND contrary to what only the MOST RECENT Creationist thought tries to suggest (mostly in the last 10 years, but beginning roughly 30 years ago), MOST Chrsitian, Jewish and even Islamic scientists feel pretty much the same (NOT ALL , of course). Shot, for that matter you might as well add in most other God-based faiths as well. To believe in God is generally to believe he/she created all. BUT that belief can and DOES usually include evolution.
Among CHRISTIAN scientists, the primary debate (and it is a philisophical debate, not a scientific debate) is how much God was directly involved. That is, is he like a puppet master "pulling the strings" of evolution OR did he just set up the systems, the process' that exist today (knowing what the outcome would be, of course .. much like he new man would fall, etc, etc.) and more or less stand back (barring miracles, which are God's direct interaction)?
PLAYER57832 wrote:caribbean. I absolutely DO believe in God and that God created the earth ... and your argument is the second greatest falacy of this debate.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
