Atheism revisited. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2005, 03:15 AM   #31
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Now how could human senses evolve so perfectly, we humans are so perfectly made...even most animals and insects and plants ..they each have remarkable characteristics...how could they possibly learn such amazing traits through evolution.

SELECTION v EVOLUTION

Selective breeding to enhance certain characteristics has long been common farming practice. Darwin pointed to artificial breeding such as this in his book 'On the origin of the Species'. He saw it(as many do today) as showing that selection can give uphill improvement, which could eventually lead to totally new creatures. However, he was unaware that enhancing one's characteristics through natural selection is likely to be at the expense of others. This is logical, since selection creates no new information, it only 'chooses' from what is there. As a variety becomes more specialized through natural delection, it loses some of the genetic richness of it's ancestors. This is now recognized by world agricultural authorities, who are scrambling to preserve the ancestral 'wild types' of our food crop.

Losing information is the opposite of what needs to occur to turn microbes into man.
__________________

__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:34 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
The visible universe the the universe that can be observed from earth. When we look at the skies we are seeing light that has travelled many light years to get here. Because light takes time to get here we are essentially looking backwards in time. Looking at a star 4 light years away is seeing that star as it was 4 years ago (light travels 1 light year every year). Therefore if we look as far back as we possibly can we hit the wall so to speak, at this distance backwards what we find is a hot universe emiting light in what appears to be the first time, basically we cannot see any furthur backwards than this - the universe was opaque and no light was able to be transmitted hence no light that we can recieve today. This wall exists 13.7 billion light years away in every direction, this means that at that particular time the entire universe was inconcievably hot, of course you must consider that spacetime itself expands and pulls the energetic photons a big shifting them to a lower energy, so what may have been strong gamma radiation that has a very short wavelength in the beginning has stretched out into longer wavelength microwave radiation over its 13.7 billion year trip. Anyhow the important consideration is that we can only see back 13.7 billion years, 13.7 billion light years if you want distance - beyond that we simply do not know and cannot say weather the universe is infinitely large and we can only see a small piece or that what we can see is all that there is and by sheer chace the earth is the very center of the universe.

I don't believe that all scientists are right about the big bang. I think that rapid inflation is a cheat and I also think that when we understand more about the universe, when we have a more complete theory - a GUT if you will - then we will be able to get closer to understanding what went on. If the universe is indeed finite or if it is infinite, if it is static perhaps.

Firstly you are writing posts to get a "gotcha" moment, it is neither proper form nor good for discourse on the matters at hand.

Secondly, what is the point of this? You are demonstrating that science is not static and that there is debate among the scientific community on matters of cosmology (of course the old adage "cosmologists are always certain of their theory until the new data arrives" is in many ways a trueism). A variable speed of light theory can be scientific and could be revolutionary if it explained the universe better than Einstein could (a good book "faster than light, a story of scientific speculation" covers this topic scientifically).

I am of the opinion that the big bang theory has problems that were invented to explain the evidence namely with inflation and the concept of a fixed speed of light during this period. The idea that big bang is universally accepted is wrong, there are different theories and explainations of the data that are worked on by physicists around the world. Science is a process and in the case of cosmology we still have a lot to learn and the universe has a way of surprising us at every turn. We may one day have a complete and totally infallable model of what the universe is but until we do we will continue to strive to understand in the best way we can, make those steps forward that lead to such a grand theory of everything.

You are writing about the variable speed of light theory, that in order for the homogenous background radiation to exist then the speed of light must have been faster at the beginning of the universe. This is a legitimate field of research and the data about the fine structure constant being variable about two years back could hint towards it being scientific fact - but until evidence is produced that can best be described by VSL it will not become as widely reciognised as the standard model of the big bang, inflation and all.

Science is never a matter of final truth, it is a matter of understanding the world to the best of our abilities with what information is at hand, when we find new evidence that contradicts our view then we must understand why we were wrong and come up with an explaination that can explain the new observations. The big bang is a scientific theory, from it we have had to incorparate ideas such as inflation, dark matter and negative energies. When somebody comes up with a theory that can better explain the red shifting of galaxies at proportional distance and and the cosmic background microwave radiation then it may be accepted. Scientific debate and changes in theories is what makes science different from religion, it is a collection of knowledge and explaination and not superstition and ignorance.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:51 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Losing information is the opposite of what needs to occur to turn microbes into man.
You fail to see that random mutations occuring during life and the vast ammounts of new variation that appears within new organisms resulting from sexual reporduction are sources of new information.

You seem to know enough about the principles of natural selection as far as it takes to attack them but not to fully understand them, I could be wrong on that count but simple errors like this turn your arguments into swiss cheese.

It is Very Simple Indeed to understand evolutiion if you give it a try; Variation Selection Inheritance.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:51 AM   #34
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Wanderer... I just wish that these theories would be stated as such(only theories) more often....too many times it seems to be considered fact and is being rammed down childrens throats as truth...
They are assumptions, not many assumptions end up as utter truths now do they.
__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 04:00 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by stagman
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Human beings exist on earth - a factual statement. The statement you made is contradictary and illogical, you state that something exists and then state that its existence is impossible.
I mean that it would be possible only with a creator.
if you take the creator out of the equation it's impossible.
You have no solid evidence to base this with, you have a collection of assumptions and conjecture but you lack evidence. We know from the Miller experiment that it is possible to create organic molecules from inorganic matter through chemistry alone, now consider what happens when you have the total surface area of a terrestrial planet as your experimental chamber and billions of years of time to wait and see, is it not possible that a self replicating polypeptide sequence may come into being, is it not also possible that within inorganic phospholipid drops that such a sequence of amino acids may wind up creating an organism? and if you have this replicating organism is it not possible for its decendants to replicate billions of times over sometimes with slight variation that gives it a compeditve edge over other populations of organisms without that change until after a few billion years you have diverse forms of life on the planet.

I am saying that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for God's existence. From this we must look at what we know,

1: Life exists on the planet earth.

2: Metabolic processes are chemical in nature, life as we know it is chemical in nature.

3: Life as we know it requires liquid water, energy and carbon.

4: If these three criteria can be met withing a range of environmental conditions then it is possible for life to come into existence in a manner no different than that of earth or quite possibly mars.

Speculating on the probabilities of things that we know little about (such as the number of stars with terrestrial planets, the number of planets where life can exist, the number of planets where life does exist etc. is unscientific until the actual facts on them are determined, until that point saying that other planets with life in this univese is rare, probable of certain it is pure speculation and trying to use uncertainties like that to claim scientific case for God is unscientific and dishonest.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 04:17 AM   #36
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 06:39 PM
But when these criteria are met... how does the ball start rolling?
what sets off the process of evolution? You talk of chemical actions or reactions but for this to all start processing into 'life that breathes'...it just seems incomprehensible to me...
I've been trying to argue from a logical point of view...maybe to you it does'nt seem so because I am biased toward God.
__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 04:21 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by stagman
Wanderer... I just wish that these theories would be stated as such(only theories) more often....too many times it seems to be considered fact and is being rammed down childrens throats as truth...
They are assumptions, not many assumptions end up as utter truths now do they.
Scientific theories are not assumptions, they are models of understanding. In common usage a theory is seen as a guess or hypothesis but in science a theory is more specific, a scientific theory is the explainations to explain scientific data.

For example Isaac Newton observed that objects will fall to the ground at at equal speeds in a vacuum regardless of their mass. This is a scientific fact, the observed evidence. he runs experiments with weights at different heights and comes to this conclusion and the experiments can be replicated and the same observations made.

Now from this observation - all things fall down at the same speed - he was able to create a theory. In the case of Newton this theory was his law of universal gravitation: F = G * (m1*m2)/(r^2)

where F is the gravitational force between two masses, G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are mass 1 and mass 2 respectively and r is the distance between them.

This scientific theory can explain that objects will fall at equal rates regardless of their mass (ignore air resistance, which is simply an upward force that cancels out some of the downward force from gravity). It can make accurate predictions about the movement of bodies (newtonian equations were used to send man to the moon) and fitted all of the data that was available at the time.

But we got better at measurements and by the end of the 19th century we discovered that things in this universe didn't travel instantaneously fast, the speed of light was found. Now this presented a unique problem with newtonian physics, it works on the assumption that gravity too works instantaneously. The long and the short of this is that having a speed of light that nothing can go faster than makes newtonian physics break down when put in extreme situations. With this new scientific evidence the old theory became less accurate, it couldnt explain everything. To remedy it a brilliant individual named Albert Einstein created the theory of General Relativity which explained how gravity can work when there is a speed of light. This new theory can do everything newtons could when dealing with slow speeds but when you get into extreme situations like black holes it was able to explain things where newtons theory became illogical.

Scientific theories are the very best explainations for observed phenomenah, we can never be 100% sure that they are right because we can never be 100% certain, but things like Evolution and the Big Bang theory have high levels of confidence and support because they can explain what we currently know better than any other theories out there, when we learn more about these things and a theory cannot explain it then it may need to be modified or we may adopt a theory that can better explain it.


I recomend that you read this little definition on scientific theory so that you can understand why when teaching people about science theories are given such strong weight and why scientists do not treat theories that dont explain the evidence as junk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 04:40 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
I recomend that you consider what science is and what belief is. They are seperate issues, one one hand science offers the facts and explainations, cold logic and on the other religion offers faith and hope. Being a person of faith does not mean that you must forfeit your brain, you can still learn and understand the universe scientifically and you may just find that your faith is affirmed by such a wonderous thing. On the flipside being of the scientificly inclined are not disqualified from having faith.

I am certain that if God exists then that being would not want to see its creations ignore the wonderful mechanisms of life such as evolution - one could think of it as one of the mysterious ways that a deity works through - because a mortal human being starts telling them that no matter what you see around you only their interperatation of the bible is true.

Be more critcal towards what you are told or what you read, you obviously have the capacity for it, ask yourself questions about the agenda of those in the creationist movement such as Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis movement. Learn about science yourself and dont just take little bits and pieces, its a tapestry of knowledge - when you take an individual piece it may seem to be nonsense but when you look at the big picture you will see where it comes from and how it fits in.

Keep your faith strong but for goodness sake don't waste your obviously critical and dare I say scientific brain away on creationism or intelligent design, learn about cosmology and biology from the science book and matters of faith from the bible, or whichever teachings you subscribe. A person is only foolish if they refuse to learn both sides of the story.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:18 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 06:39 PM
A_Wanderer
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:21 AM   #40
The Fly
 
swissair135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 64
Local Time: 06:39 PM
A_wanderer.. good work.

But you still cannot prove that intelligent design is a flawed theory.
__________________
swissair135 is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:25 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:39 AM
I can, modern intelligent design begins with the assumption that in order for life to exist it must be created, it then works backwards and selects isolated bits of evidence to substantiate this claim.

A creator in the context of ID is an unfalsifiable element hence unscientific therefore ID is a flawed theory or more specifically a hypothesis that lacks evidence.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 05:40 AM   #42
The Fly
 
swissair135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 64
Local Time: 06:39 PM
A_wandered,

Again, I am under the belief that everything has a maker. While I do not object to the ideas of the big bang and evolution, science has a tough time explaining WHY things happen?

Who created matter? Who created our "perfect bodies"? How did this perfect world exist?

There are too many perfections in life, that the scientific community cannot grasp. Too man coincidences that science cannot explain, or explain as a "perfect convenience"... hence, the origin and continual growth of faith.

Q - The standard answer "yes but you have no evidence, therefore your cannot substiante your argument".

A - Thats a fair question/statement.

Here are two vital principles that must be kept in view: (1) It is possible that an object possesses purposeful design but that its design is not recognized by the observer; and (2) It is possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but that through the process of degeneration, its obvious design has been erased. Let us consider these two points as applied to some atheistic presuppositions.

Suppose that a native, strolling through the jungle, should come across a watch. Examining it, he cannot perceive its function. Does the fact that he sees no practical purpose in the instrument prove that it has no design?

If there is one thing that we do know about this world, is that everything has a maker. Every "human" creation requires a maker or an intelligent designer. Things just dont come together, they are assembled, intelligently.

A_wanderer, im still looking for specific and undeniable evidence that intelligent design is a false theory... ive been searching all night

Best Regards,

Mark
__________________
swissair135 is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 10:31 AM   #43
War Child
 
2Hearts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 634
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[B]You fail to see that random mutations occuring during life and the vast ammounts of new variation that appears within new organisms resulting from sexual reporduction are sources of new information.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the development of the human genome as we know it today. Do mutation, variation and a few billion years adequately explain how something so complex came into existance? I kind of compare it to a complex piece of software. Sure, Microsoft can design and create an incredibly complex system (e.g. Windows NT consisted of 30 million lines of code), but they didn't write the human genome.

If you do not see the similarity between the two, please explain the differences. To me, both are information systems that perform a specific task. That's why I compare them.
__________________
2Hearts is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 10:57 AM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:39 PM
i can hear the Creationists quiver with fear when A_W walks into the room ... you give facts, they respond with "but this is what i believe!" you give proof of evolution, they stammer ask for proof that intelligent design isn't entirely, 100% wrong. and if there is a 1% that cannot be unequivocally disproved, then they use that to reassert their beliefs.

nicely done.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 11:15 AM   #45
The Fly
 
swissair135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 64
Local Time: 06:39 PM
This thread is not about creationism smart guy.

Its about atheism, and the lack of physical evidence for god.

Still crying that America is a christian society?

(for the record: I am not a typical creationist christian.. I believe in evolution) .. but I believe in intelligent design..
__________________

__________________
swissair135 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com