General > Off Topic

Two arguments that give the creationists the upper hand.

<< < (4/11) > >>

rsucoop:

--- Quote from: Testlund ---1. Something can't appear out of nothing.

(I wanted to post a link to a video I saw about this but can't manage to find it again. Why is the thing you wants to find the most the most difficult thing to find? It's like you need something in your apartment, but nomatter where you look you can't find it, just everything else that you DON'T need. When you go to a store to buy something you often find it has everything else you DON'T want but not the thing you were looking for!)

2. The complexity of DNA and the machinery of the cell, explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUwitJXHjaQ

I find that after watching these two videos, trying to argue against it feels like refusing facts and just being stubborn. Unless a better explanation about the origin of life comes from the Darwinists I think we should now assume a creator is responsible, but at the same time be open to that other possibilities might be discovered in the future.
The next would be trying to solve what the creator IS. Personally I don't believe in the man with the white beard and the bible as I've already mensioned before is written by humans and sensored by humans through the ages, plus the texts have been missinterpreted by every religious society, so it ends up being little more than a fairytale, although some sections about how a human should behave makes sense wether you're religious or not.
So the concept of God must be a totally new one. It may not be an intelligent being or even self aware, but it may be a law of energy about attraction between forces and matter, that must have some kind of will to progress into complex structures. So what happens if every protein in the DNA was taken appart and just thrown together in a mixer. Would it assemble itself again? Probably not because it needs a machinery to be assembled, by machines that were assembled by machines and so on. Where's the force that started it? I'm talking about cells necessary for complex DNA structures explained in the second video (watch all 10 clips).  

Also these machines need to be working together from the beginning otherwise none of them will work, which can't just appear at random.
On the other hand, once the foundation of life is there it will work by itself without any involvement from a higher being.
When I run my evosims I feel reluctant to even click on a bot that could accidently move it away, because I don't want to interfere. I want it to find it's own way. I want them to have the freedom to chose. To mess around in the sim to try and favor one bot over another would feel like a violation. The progress of the sim will find the best way by itself, otherwise it will cease to exist. There is no need for me to affect it. I just made the foundation of life with the best settings that I've managed to figure out. If it doesn't work, I will start over with something else, which could be compared with mass extinctions on the earth from time to time.
So maybe that's what God is, a founder that watch and wait, until we enters his realm by our own progress. If the suffering of humanity and destruction of the environment is not a good thing it will cease by itself.
What do you think?

And now I'm going to try starting a new zerobot sim from scratch with Eric's latest drop to see if sexual reproduction has it's place in this environment. Maybe it will take a year before it even shows up!
Another thing that's interesting is the time it takes for things to appear. Why would God wait billions of years just watching single cellular organisms before suddenly decide to create the rest of the species that exists? That makes me think God waits and let it appear by itself, like I do when I patiently run my evosims.  
--- End quote ---

You have obviously never heard of dark matter or dark energy. There is no stability in the universe, only a constant change.

It is said that God does want proof of his existance, because with proof their is no need for belief. Yet he claims to have spoken the words of the bible to its writers. Therefore God has shown proof of his existance. Therefore God does not exist. QED    

No you can begin to see the problem with human rationale, vs spiritual belief. If God exists, he does not. But if God doesn't exist, then something else was responsible for the Universe. And our existance is only a mere blink at its current historic value, so how can we possibly explain something we can't comprehend. Surely it can't be as simple as someone conjuring up everything. And as Einstein said, God does not toss die. Secondly, we're not a computer. We can't break the rules of time and space (at the moment), and there is no end or begining. Because in science, even nothingness has a force. Therefore god cannot exist. Evolution is not about the hand of some being, its about the environment from the largest mountain to the tinyest quark. Mutations and the combination of fatty acids occur in the same fashion as the Sun's fusion, on attom exchanges electrons with another and bonds are formed to make more complex compounds.

Also, you should look into the String Theory.

And lastly, look at Douglas Adams' proof why God does not exist.

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: rsucoop ---...Yet he claims to have spoken the words of the bible to its writers...
--- End quote ---

Wrong on three counts.  First, the bible is not God's words personally.  It's the words of various saints and prophets (and some horny kings.  Song of Solomon reads like porn  ).  Second, He hasn't ever said or made any claims to humanity at large except through the saints and prophets, meaning that it's the saints and prophets that say that the bible is the Word of God, that God exists, that He's a good guy and should be trusted, etc.  Not God himself (unless you've had some miraculous visitations yourself).  Third, I don't think it's ever been clamed as proper doctrine that God does not want proof of his existance.  It's just sort of been assumed that way by people who misunderstand the whole premise of God: that there's a benevolent dictator subtley directing the course of human development and the world at large in order to cause humanity as a whole to grow and progress, and individuals specifically to grow and progress.

All taken together: believing the bible is the word of God requires faith, and does not cause the logic of God's existence to unravel at all.  It just adds an extra level of complexity.  


--- Quote ---Also, you should look into the String Theory.
--- End quote ---
Load of hogwash that demonstrates the dangers of pure speculation without empirical backing.  "Oh yeah, the whole universe makes sense if you just presuppose that there are a dozen or some dimensions we can't detect at all."  Pfft, that's like me saying "oh yeah, my homework is done, and it's all correct, but you can't see that because it's in a special language I made up."  Talk about a case of the emporer's new clothes.

Testlund:
I agree with Nums here about the string theory and such. I've been watching movies about string theory, dark matter, membranes, dimensions, black holes, you name it.
The only theory that makes sense to me of all these is the black holes. The rest I can't get how the hell they came to those conclusions. They admit that the law of physics break down and doesn't make sense before the big bang but still a lot of sientists believes in the string theory and multiverse.
Somehow it feels that most of these scientists think too linear. The time concept, travel faster than light makes you go back in time, big bang pushed it's matter from a single point in one expanding direction etc.
I want a believable model that shows how it's done and why!

Peter:
The string theorie 'a load of hogwash'. I wouldn't really think about it like that.


Most scientific theories are just theories and very often they are proven wrong later on, meaning that for any theorie there isn't any complete proof.

String theorie, works practically desame as the other theories, with subtle little chances, like that it doesn't allow time-traveling, it is blocked by the 7th or 8th dimension, well atleast one, or was it a combination.
It isn't proven, but it isn't disproven eather. It is complicated, that's true.

Most physics laws mostly really tend to break down in the time after the big bang, therefore exists the expansion theorie.
But there isn't any real ending proof in science, there isn't real final evidence.
You could just say the big bang theorie is wrong or that the phycics laws are wrong. And as well can you say that the string theorie is wrong. There isn't proof for it, the final question is, is there proof against it. Many theories of Einstein are broken down later in time. The theories where pretty close to truth and explained much, but in the end, wrong.

I think the string theorie is a nice concept, the idea to have everything in one theorie is good. It isn't disproven for as far I know. If it is correct it has nice stuff like the explaination of wave–particle duality of light.

The bible isn't disproven eather, as well as most science. If one was proven the other would be automaticly wrong.

Status quo. What could a scientist say. Einstein believed in god.

Numsgil:
The problem with string theory is that it's all so purely speculative it's hard to even set up an experiment to disprove it.  General relativity, for comparison, is strongly supported by a great number of experiments.  Meaning that it's falsifiable, but strongly supported.  Sure it's a little complex to understand, but it at least makes predictions we can check.  I refuse to call something science if it's impossible to construct an experiment to test it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page