Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Those are not the only possibilities. It is possible that life began on this planet of its own accord. There is interesting work that hypothesizes that DNA, and subsequently life, developed from naturally occuring chemicals between the layers of mica stone. Chemicals and stone to life.

I think that was implied in B. Or at least, it is a theory for the origin of life about the same as B.

Exactly how it happened is up for debate, but one must note that that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Origin of life is not a part of the theory.

Where does spacetime come from though? Aha! Aha indeed...

Does that matter regarding evolution?

Could do. More importantly, it proves there's a God.

No it doesn't.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Could do.

No it couldn't.

For ideas to prosper, they must satisfy. In his Art of Persuasion, Blaise Pascal wrote, “People
almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they
find attractive.”

Pascal was not talking about people merely believing what they want to believe,
as in wish-fulfillment. Rather, he was talking about people being swept away by attractive ideas
that capture their heart and imagination. Darwinism has played that role for many intellectuals,
providing a compelling vision of life and the world.

But visions endure only so long as they can be grounded in reality. The Darwinian vision of
life is fast losing touch with reality, and specifically with the design that pervades the world at
the biochemical level, a world about which Darwin knew nothing. As with all dying paradigms,
Darwinism’s old guard will not, to paraphrase Dylan Thomas, go gently into that good night.
Count on them to rage against the dying light. Notwithstanding, the Darwinian vision is on the
way out, to be replaced by a new vision that captures our imagination and at the same time is
grounded in reality. Intelligent design is that new vision.

A caption from William A. Dembski work

And yes he is a scientist.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... v_pref.pdf

The existence of God does have implications for evolution. I suppose this might be news to you, but then that's because you wouldn't know a philosophy textbook if it waked up and fucking introduced itself.

The world presents to us vast evidence confirming the evolutionary history of life, and nothing even remotely resembling a disproof of it. This is an inexplicable mystery if, as creationists insist, God created the variety of life through a means other than evolution. Had God done so, it would scarcely be possible for the world not to abound with clear evidence decisively refuting evolution; it would, in fact, be possible only if God deliberately rearranged the world after creation to make it look as though evolution had occurred, so that His poor subjects might be misled and thereby condemn themselves to an eternity in Hell. In other words, assuming God exists in the first place, either He used evolution as His means of creating the diversity of life on Earth, or else He is an abhorrent liar and deceiver--titles which have traditionally been reserved for the Devil.

Mark I. Vuletic -- and yes he is a scientist

Napoleon Ier wrote:The existence of God does have implications for evolution.

Good thing there isn't a god then.

golilox wrote:For ideas to prosper, they must satisfy. In his Art of Persuasion, Blaise Pascal wrote, “People
almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they
find attractive.”

Pascal was not talking about people merely believing what they want to believe,
as in wish-fulfillment. Rather, he was talking about people being swept away by attractive ideas
that capture their heart and imagination. Darwinism has played that role for many intellectuals,
providing a compelling vision of life and the world.

But visions endure only so long as they can be grounded in reality. The Darwinian vision of
life is fast losing touch with reality, and specifically with the design that pervades the world at
the biochemical level, a world about which Darwin knew nothing. As with all dying paradigms,
Darwinism’s old guard will not, to paraphrase Dylan Thomas, go gently into that good night.
Count on them to rage against the dying light. Notwithstanding, the Darwinian vision is on the
way out, to be replaced by a new vision that captures our imagination and at the same time is
grounded in reality. Intelligent design is that new vision.

A caption from William A. Dembski work

And yes he is a scientist.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... v_pref.pdf

No he isn't. No it's not, and no it's not. Your mom is that new vision.

mpjh wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

mpjh wrote:

Lev306 wrote:
Science is all about the quest for answers to the unknown, and the process has been accelerating ever since the Arabs invented Algebra.

They really didn't.

yes they did

Hey stop misquoting me!!!

and in response to

mpjh wrote:I know that was the cave-man's initial explanation for anything unknown. "If I don't understand it, god did it." However, we have learned a lot since then. We now know that the world is not flat, the earth orbits around the sun. There is more than one galaxy. The universe is expanding at an expanding rate. etc.etc.

Science is all about the quest for answers to the unknown, and the process has been accelerating ever since the Arabs invented Algebra. So join in hte quest, join modern man.

Technically, the process has been accelerating and decelerating since the existence of man so we're not really joining modern man here but just joining man in general. And since we're all man here(I'm 100% ), we're not really joining anything now are we?

What I'm saying is that the idea of a creator isnt contradictory to science. In fact if anything the lack of explanation from science regarding the origins of the universe can be used as support of the idea of a creator. Even if say we eventually found the reason to be the big bang being "x". Then what created "x"? Intelligent design supporters always use some form of the "everything was created by something, therefore we must have been created by something aka God" arguement. I'm not trying to invoke the same arguement, but as the pattern seems to follow: existence comes as the creation of something else(big bang -> formation of the first elements[hydrogen, lithium, etc] -> formation of stars, asteroids, galaxies, etc -> formation of planets -> formation of a life sustaining environment on Earth -> life -> us), then we fall into some sort of endless cycle where its impossible to know what began it all. To define a start point, there must be a constant of some sort. Perhaps we could define this constant as the creator. I would like to clarify my statement of "intelligent creator" because after all who knows if creation is intelligent in itself or just an application of chaos. Its possible that the big bang is the creator, but its also possible that there may be an intelligent being who predates the big bang and created that. Science fails to explain beyond the big bang, thus why is it not possible that there was a creator and perhaps it was an intelligent creator? I hate to bring religion into this but, the bible refers to God as an absolute being that can not be understood by man and exists outside the rules that bind this universe, so why not apply this analogy to the creator. We need a constant to validate our explanations of creation, so we get this absolute state wether it be a being or just a state. We can't observe this creator or understand it becase we're limited only to our existence within the universe created by the big bang, thus the creator can't be understood by man. Existence can not come from nothingness and existence can not be completely explained by existence itself otherwise u fall into the above loop. The above theory suggests that existence has and always existed in the form of the creator which in itself breaks the rules of existence or nonexistence. And the only way this is possible is if the creator is a constant which exists outside the rules of existence itself and therefore created existence from its absolute self. Doesn't that fit in just right with both science(doesn't contradict any science we know today) and religion(not any of the ones we have currently, just fits in with the idea of a God)?

Also note I'm not necessarily pointing to God. Think about this, perhaps this existence is just the dreams of a random person. Hes not god, but hes our creator nonetheless. This too could be as easily accepted as the idea of an intelligent creator; it all just comes down to personal belief. ++ note that I'm not a religious person either so I'm not spewing religious mumbo jumbo as part of my belief system, just food for thought.

Pure bunkum

Lev306 wrote:Also note I'm not necessarily pointing to God. Think about this, perhaps this existence is just the dreams of a random person. Hes not god, but hes our creator nonetheless. This too could be as easily accepted as the idea of an intelligent creator; it all just comes down to personal belief.

Yup. And when this personal belief leads you to believe this "God" randomly intervenes in people's life and arbitrarily bans people for not following his weird rules, then it starts making less sense.


The problem with this argument is that it always seem to come from those who already have determined that this "creator" is none other than the deity they've been worshipping all along! What a miraculous cooincidence! They've already got a list of attributes and dislikes (few likes) that this creator should obviously have.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:The existence of God does have implications for evolution.

Good thing there isn't a god then.

Well, that's nice that you'd think that snorrarse, but that was the point of my original post, which you so indignantly questioned.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:The existence of God does have implications for evolution.

Good thing there isn't a god then.

Well, that's nice that you'd think that snorrarse, but that was the point of my original post, which you so indignantly questioned.

Actually, you said that an atheist friend of you didn't believe in evolution or something. The only reason evolution would not entirely be accurate is if there was a god.


And anyway, the existence of God does not neccesarily have implications for evolution. It just depends on the god.

Lev306 wrote:Existence can not come from nothingness...

What's your proof? Have you observed nothingness? Pure nothingness, no matter, no time, no dimensions, not even any space for there to be any matter.

MeDeFe wrote:

Lev306 wrote:Existence can not come from nothingness...

What's your proof? Have you observed nothingness? Pure nothingness, no matter, no time, no dimensions, not even any space for there to be any matter.

Yeah, it was kinda boring.

Napoleon Ier wrote:The existence of God does have implications for evolution. I suppose this might be news to you, but then that's because you wouldn't know a philosophy textbook if it waked up and fucking introduced itself.

...he bombasts whilst clinging to Bronze Age superstitions of invisible magical creatures.


(And whoever bumped this mess should be beaten within an inch of their lives! )

Backglass wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:The existence of God does have implications for evolution. I suppose this might be news to you, but then that's because you wouldn't know a philosophy textbook if it waked up and fucking introduced itself.

...he bombasts whilst clinging to Bronze Age superstitions of invisible magical creatures.


(And whoever bumped this mess should be beaten within an inch of their lives! )

Tell, what do you know about complex numbers?

They're imaginary, or "magical" if you like, they're not tangible, or visible, and there's evidence of them having been discovered by the Babylonians in the Bronze Age.

Not that it matters. Simply conjuring up absurd straw men and posting a few smileys afterwards never really has passed for an argument anyway.

Backglass wrote:(And whoever bumped this mess should be beaten within an inch of their lives! )

Have at him:
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=134290

But I think he brings up a pretty interesting point:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&start=4335#p1750596

Snorri1234 wrote: The only reason evolution would not entirely be accurate is if there was a god.

Now that's not a very scientific thing to say...

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Tell, what do you know about complex numbers?

They're imaginary, or "magical" if you like, they're not tangible, or visible, and there's evidence of them having been discovered by the Babylonians in the Bronze Age.

Interesting, but the thing is numbers were made up, not discovered. They are imaginary, something our minds have created themselves in order to better understand and interprit the world around. Numbers are not an outside force but merely a labeling system, similar to words.

Balsiefen wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Tell, what do you know about complex numbers?

They're imaginary, or "magical" if you like, they're not tangible, or visible, and there's evidence of them having been discovered by the Babylonians in the Bronze Age.

Interesting, but the thing is numbers were made up, not discovered. They are imaginary, something our minds have created themselves in order to better understand and interprit the world around. Numbers are not an outside force but merely a labeling system, similar to words.

Hmm... I'd still grant them some kind of Platonic, and metaphysical existence, but that's going a little off topic. The point is that none of the adjectives whatsit constantly applies to God (you'd think he's come up with something new by now) actually have any relevance given the nature of the God posited by any sensible theology.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Balsiefen wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Tell, what do you know about complex numbers?

They're imaginary, or "magical" if you like, they're not tangible, or visible, and there's evidence of them having been discovered by the Babylonians in the Bronze Age.

Interesting, but the thing is numbers were made up, not discovered. They are imaginary, something our minds have created themselves in order to better understand and interprit the world around. Numbers are not an outside force but merely a labeling system, similar to words.

Hmm... I'd still grant them some kind of Platonic, and metaphysical existence, but that's going a little off topic. The point is that none of the adjectives whatsit constantly applies to God (you'd think he's come up with something new by now) actually have any relevance given the nature of the God posited by any sensible theology.

You mean that since God is normally considered magical anyway it is kind of senseless to call him that?

MeDeFe wrote:

Lev306 wrote:Existence can not come from nothingness...

What's your proof? Have you observed nothingness? Pure nothingness, no matter, no time, no dimensions, not even any space for there to be any matter.

Well following what science has told us so far, we haven't found anything that empircally shows existence coming from nothingness - ie. the sudden creation of mass or energy from seemingly no source. Secondly, since when was observation necessary. Have we witnessed four space? five space? six space? ... ten space? How do we know it exists? Is Brian Greene lying to us all? To make an even simpler example, we have never witnessed two space or one space, therefore it doesn't exist? Yet we are composed of two space and one space. By the same way we can envision multiple dimensions, we can imagine no dimension/no space(encompasses no time, no matter, etc). Alternatively you can imagine 2 states, one being the presence of anything, the other being the absence of presence of anything. Think light vs darkness, darkness is simply defined as the absence of light or a cs component, 1 vs 0. Well obviously they aren't exactly the same as existence vs. nothingness but thats the best way I can help you imagine it if you can't think of it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Lev306 wrote:Also note I'm not necessarily pointing to God. Think about this, perhaps this existence is just the dreams of a random person. Hes not god, but hes our creator nonetheless. This too could be as easily accepted as the idea of an intelligent creator; it all just comes down to personal belief.

Yup. And when this personal belief leads you to believe this "God" randomly intervenes in people's life and arbitrarily bans people for not following his weird rules, then it starts making less sense.


The problem with this argument is that it always seem to come from those who already have determined that this "creator" is none other than the deity they've been worshipping all along! What a miraculous cooincidence! They've already got a list of attributes and dislikes (few likes) that this creator should obviously have.

Yeah but thats more of a problem with people who choose to see it that way instead of treating it more in a scientific manner, not so much with the argument. After all, the reason for the vagueness of the definition is meant such that anything can really apply. Chaos itself could be the creator, who knows? Religious ppl just tend to see things the want to, but that pretty much goes for anything for them, natural phenomena included too, or freak accidents.

Lev306 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Lev306 wrote:Existence can not come from nothingness...

What's your proof? Have you observed nothingness? Pure nothingness, no matter, no time, no dimensions, not even any space for there to be any matter.

Well following what science has told us so far, we haven't found anything that empircally shows existence coming from nothingness - ie. the sudden creation of mass or energy from seemingly no source. Secondly, since when was observation necessary. Have we witnessed four space? five space? six space? ... ten space? How do we know it exists? Is Brian Greene lying to us all? To make an even simpler example, we have never witnessed two space or one space, therefore it doesn't exist? Yet we are composed of two space and one space. By the same way we can envision multiple dimensions, we can imagine no dimension/no space(encompasses no time, no matter, etc). Alternatively you can imagine 2 states, one being the presence of anything, the other being the absence of presence of anything. Think light vs darkness, darkness is simply defined as the absence of light or a cs component, 1 vs 0. Well obviously they aren't exactly the same as existence vs. nothingness but thats the best way I can help you imagine it if you can't think of it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Lev306 wrote:Also note I'm not necessarily pointing to God. Think about this, perhaps this existence is just the dreams of a random person. Hes not god, but hes our creator nonetheless. This too could be as easily accepted as the idea of an intelligent creator; it all just comes down to personal belief.

Yup. And when this personal belief leads you to believe this "God" randomly intervenes in people's life and arbitrarily bans people for not following his weird rules, then it starts making less sense.


The problem with this argument is that it always seem to come from those who already have determined that this "creator" is none other than the deity they've been worshipping all along! What a miraculous cooincidence! They've already got a list of attributes and dislikes (few likes) that this creator should obviously have.

Yeah but thats more of a problem with people who choose to see it that way instead of treating it more in a scientific manner, not so much with the argument. After all, the reason for the vagueness of the definition is meant such that anything can really apply. Chaos itself could be the creator, who knows? Religious ppl just tend to see things the want to, but that pretty much goes for anything for them, natural phenomena included too, or freak accidents.

I see, your post is approaching nothingness and it is hard to see any life coming from that. I agree with snorri, nothingness is boring.