Lindsey 0
Recommended Posts
Hausse 0
This has been bugging me for the last hour at LEAST and I still can't come up with any huge energy sources. Damed this is hard...
maadmax 0
And yet the odds of an entity powerful and smart enough to have created a universe out of nothing while simultaneously farting himslf into existence are a dead cert.
Not really. But when one delves into areas of the unknown, evidence based on faith is the only source of information you have to construct that part of your reality. And as is very obvious by this thread, preconceived viewpoints definitely shape where one places their faith.
jcd11235 0
QuoteThis has been bugging me for the last hour at LEAST and I still can't come up with any huge energy sources. Damed this is hard...
Imagine the Soul without you.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Hausse 0
Lol how stupid of me I forgot an irony disclaimer...
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>That is to far fetched.
Actually, that's an excellent metaphor for what happened. That tornado represents energy that 'scrambles' things and provides energy to make/break chemical bonds. And during the early days of the planet, those tornadoes came in the form of lightning and meteor impacts.
Likewise, that junkyard represents a bunch of parts that can be combined in a certain way. It is indeed inconceivable that a tornado could assemble a 747 (containing hundreds of thousands of parts) just as it is inconceivable that chance chemical combinations could assemble a human (containing 7*10^27 atoms.)
However, it is not inconceivable that in a million years, a hundred trillion tornadoes could, eventually reassemble one landing gear with a ferw dozen parts in it. Not well, mind you. It would look like shit, have most of its parts missing, and the tires would be flat. But it would be just good enough that it could roll around when the _next_ tornado hit.
Likewise, it is not inconceivable that over a million years, those lighting strikes resulted in just a single RNA strand that could self-replicate. We've created them in the lab with as few as 165 bases; the smallest self-replicator is almost certainly smaller. Again, it would suck, and would only rarely successfully replicate itself. But that's all life needs to get started.
Again, any one lighting strike would have almost zero chance of producing such a molecule by accident even if all the bases were available. But a billion strikes a year over the course of half a billion years? After a while, the odds of creating a self-replicating molecule approach 1.
Actually, that's an excellent metaphor for what happened. That tornado represents energy that 'scrambles' things and provides energy to make/break chemical bonds. And during the early days of the planet, those tornadoes came in the form of lightning and meteor impacts.
Likewise, that junkyard represents a bunch of parts that can be combined in a certain way. It is indeed inconceivable that a tornado could assemble a 747 (containing hundreds of thousands of parts) just as it is inconceivable that chance chemical combinations could assemble a human (containing 7*10^27 atoms.)
However, it is not inconceivable that in a million years, a hundred trillion tornadoes could, eventually reassemble one landing gear with a ferw dozen parts in it. Not well, mind you. It would look like shit, have most of its parts missing, and the tires would be flat. But it would be just good enough that it could roll around when the _next_ tornado hit.
Likewise, it is not inconceivable that over a million years, those lighting strikes resulted in just a single RNA strand that could self-replicate. We've created them in the lab with as few as 165 bases; the smallest self-replicator is almost certainly smaller. Again, it would suck, and would only rarely successfully replicate itself. But that's all life needs to get started.
Again, any one lighting strike would have almost zero chance of producing such a molecule by accident even if all the bases were available. But a billion strikes a year over the course of half a billion years? After a while, the odds of creating a self-replicating molecule approach 1.
billvon 2,435
>I tried to find it, but I wasn't lucky.
Here it is:
============
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
============
A few others:
==================
Okay as a scientist I am of course very interested in how sciece relates to the Bible. For quite some time now I have wrestled with the idea of the Laws of Science. I have now come this conclusion: there is no such thing as the Laws of Science. That the Laws of Science are a philosophic invention rather than a scientific fact.
So, let me explain. Take an object like a bunch of keys in your hand and let go. What happens? It falls to the ground. Why? Laws of Science says because there is a magnet in the earth called gravity that pulls all objects down. I think it is because God made it drop and if He had not made it drop it would have hovered about in the air.
In other words everything that happens in the scientific realm happens not because of the Laws of Science but by the direct action of God. The Laws of Science were invented by philosophers to explain away God. Look at Psalm 104:14 to find out why grass grows in your garden.
================
There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.
===============
I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.
==============
several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.
==============
How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that
1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys
2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them
3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years
4.how come we cant speak monkey
Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread
===============
It is not known whether God created oil when he made the earth 6000 years ago, or whether oil and coal deposits were generated during Noah's flood 4000 years ago. It does not mattter. What does matter is if you don't believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, you are going to Hell
===============
ok so for school my homework was to read a book on evolution in biology. i didnt want to do it but i had to because i need a good grade in biology. well anyways i waited till the last minute to do it, at like 130 in the morning before school. and i was at my hosue alone in my room. i started to open the book but then i got a really cold feeling. i looked around and nothing was there. i tried opening it again and then it seemed the walls started shaking and i thought i heard a voice saying 'beware the way of heathens' i was just wondering if this was god trying to keep me away.
===============
all the evolutionists, tell me something. i know how the big bang "has happened, but tell me, wouldnt an explosion, especially one that size, take away life instead of allow it? think about it.
ex: the a-bomb, the h-bomb, grenades, cannon balls (when fired from a cannon of course), mines, rocket launchers, and anything and everything in between. they all have taken lives.
Here it is:
============
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
============
A few others:
==================
Okay as a scientist I am of course very interested in how sciece relates to the Bible. For quite some time now I have wrestled with the idea of the Laws of Science. I have now come this conclusion: there is no such thing as the Laws of Science. That the Laws of Science are a philosophic invention rather than a scientific fact.
So, let me explain. Take an object like a bunch of keys in your hand and let go. What happens? It falls to the ground. Why? Laws of Science says because there is a magnet in the earth called gravity that pulls all objects down. I think it is because God made it drop and if He had not made it drop it would have hovered about in the air.
In other words everything that happens in the scientific realm happens not because of the Laws of Science but by the direct action of God. The Laws of Science were invented by philosophers to explain away God. Look at Psalm 104:14 to find out why grass grows in your garden.
================
There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least.
===============
I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.
==============
several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.
==============
How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that
1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys
2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them
3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years
4.how come we cant speak monkey
Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread
===============
It is not known whether God created oil when he made the earth 6000 years ago, or whether oil and coal deposits were generated during Noah's flood 4000 years ago. It does not mattter. What does matter is if you don't believe that God created the earth 6000 years ago, you are going to Hell
===============
ok so for school my homework was to read a book on evolution in biology. i didnt want to do it but i had to because i need a good grade in biology. well anyways i waited till the last minute to do it, at like 130 in the morning before school. and i was at my hosue alone in my room. i started to open the book but then i got a really cold feeling. i looked around and nothing was there. i tried opening it again and then it seemed the walls started shaking and i thought i heard a voice saying 'beware the way of heathens' i was just wondering if this was god trying to keep me away.
===============
all the evolutionists, tell me something. i know how the big bang "has happened, but tell me, wouldnt an explosion, especially one that size, take away life instead of allow it? think about it.
ex: the a-bomb, the h-bomb, grenades, cannon balls (when fired from a cannon of course), mines, rocket launchers, and anything and everything in between. they all have taken lives.
JackC 0
QuoteNot really. But when one delves into areas of the unknown, evidence based on faith is the only source of information you have to construct that part of your reality.
Evidence based on faith?
That's just another way of saying you just make it up as you go along. What a load.
jakee 1,260
QuoteAnd while you are at it explain what it all means.
Why does the universe need to mean anything?
QuoteOr does the omnipotent power of cosmic chance function only to produce a mindless, meaningless, realm of no significance?
Meaningless - I'd say so, but I might not be thinking about it the same way as you. Does a rock mean anything? Does the sea mean anything? Does Omicron Perseii 8 mean anything? As for significance, that's purely in the eye of the beholder, and as an inhabitant of the universe it's pretty significant to me.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
philh 0
“I do admit that it is possible to answer 1 without answering 2. But I tend to be much more comfortable with the answer to 1 when I see the answer to 2 as well.”
So we are agreed , uncertainty as to when human and chimps split does not represent uncertainty as to whether or not it happened. The evidence for the latter conclusion is overwhelming.
“I tend to continually say, in essence--yes, evolution may explain this but is there a third theory--neither evolution nor "creationism" that does even better?”
Well of course that is a possibility but there is no candidate third theory at the moment. Furthermore we don’t need a third theory because the evidence for evolution is so strong. That doesn’t mean we know all the details of the evolutionary story, we don’t. But that’s why we do new research, to help fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Most scientists don’t deny that such gaps exists; if they didn’t there wouldn’t be any point in doing science. Why look for answer when we already know everything? Of course we don’t know everything and that’s why we do science.
In the case of the human chimp split we do have a good idea when it happened, about 5mya +/- 1 mya. Scientists admit their error bars and are open to revising these date in the light of new evidence, so the humility you seek is indeed there. But that does not extend to whether or not we evolved form a common ancestor. Doubting that is taking scepticism to absurd levels. To give another example, scientists don’t fully understand gravity yet that doesn’t mean we doubt that gravity exists.
Onto the issue of trading, we are not talking about errors but rounding. If I round a 960 lot Eurodollar position to 1,000, this is not an error but a practical way of trading. The reason is most deals in the OBS markets are done in round amounts. As we trade in and out quite quickly there’s no point in hedging every position down to zero because one might switch from long to short in seconds. If I have been given 10000 lot Euro$ position say through an IRS and then someone does an FRA deal to hedge it with me and I’m left with 40 lots delta, sure I could hedge it but what’s the point? Someone else may give me a position the other way in a few seconds. If the market is not that busy it would cost me a spread to hedge and that would not be a good way to trade. The point of all of this to suggest that 4 % difference may or may not be considered important, it all depends. If astronomers revised their distance to Vega by 4% that’s no reason to cast doubts on the scientific method.
So we are agreed , uncertainty as to when human and chimps split does not represent uncertainty as to whether or not it happened. The evidence for the latter conclusion is overwhelming.
“I tend to continually say, in essence--yes, evolution may explain this but is there a third theory--neither evolution nor "creationism" that does even better?”
Well of course that is a possibility but there is no candidate third theory at the moment. Furthermore we don’t need a third theory because the evidence for evolution is so strong. That doesn’t mean we know all the details of the evolutionary story, we don’t. But that’s why we do new research, to help fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Most scientists don’t deny that such gaps exists; if they didn’t there wouldn’t be any point in doing science. Why look for answer when we already know everything? Of course we don’t know everything and that’s why we do science.
In the case of the human chimp split we do have a good idea when it happened, about 5mya +/- 1 mya. Scientists admit their error bars and are open to revising these date in the light of new evidence, so the humility you seek is indeed there. But that does not extend to whether or not we evolved form a common ancestor. Doubting that is taking scepticism to absurd levels. To give another example, scientists don’t fully understand gravity yet that doesn’t mean we doubt that gravity exists.
Onto the issue of trading, we are not talking about errors but rounding. If I round a 960 lot Eurodollar position to 1,000, this is not an error but a practical way of trading. The reason is most deals in the OBS markets are done in round amounts. As we trade in and out quite quickly there’s no point in hedging every position down to zero because one might switch from long to short in seconds. If I have been given 10000 lot Euro$ position say through an IRS and then someone does an FRA deal to hedge it with me and I’m left with 40 lots delta, sure I could hedge it but what’s the point? Someone else may give me a position the other way in a few seconds. If the market is not that busy it would cost me a spread to hedge and that would not be a good way to trade. The point of all of this to suggest that 4 % difference may or may not be considered important, it all depends. If astronomers revised their distance to Vega by 4% that’s no reason to cast doubts on the scientific method.
rehmwa 2
QuoteDoes Omicron Perseii 8 mean anything?
PUNY HUMANS!!!
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
maadmax 0
Evidence based on faith?
That's just another way of saying you just make it up as you go along. What a load.
Maybe so, but everyone does it. And from reading your posts, you are no exception.
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteAnd while you are at it explain what it all means.
Why does the universe need to mean anything?QuoteOr does the omnipotent power of cosmic chance function only to produce a mindless, meaningless, realm of no significance?
Meaningless - I'd say so, but I might not be thinking about it the same way as you. Does a rock mean anything? Does the sea mean anything? Does Omicron Perseii 8 mean anything? As for significance, that's purely in the eye of the beholder, and as an inhabitant of the universe it's pretty significant to me.
True enough, but with out a big picture for all of these little pieces to fit into it seem a bit pointless.
And since that conclusion is no more conclusive than one that points to a universe with purpose, I will spend my time searching for a meaning.
_________________________________
jakee 1,260
QuoteTrue enough, but with out a big picture for all of these little pieces to fit into it seem a bit pointless.
So? What's wrong with that?
Strikes me as massively egotistical for people to need to think that the entirety of the universe was created just to house God's experiment with mankind.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
JackC 0
QuoteMaybe so, but everyone does it. And from reading your posts, you are no exception.
Really? How so?
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteMaybe so, but everyone does it. And from reading your posts, you are no exception.
Really? How so?
Well, to restate the obvious. You have constructed your reality on the premise that there is no God. All of us have access to a small amount of limited information on how some physical processes occur, nothing more. Yet as far as you are concerned you have extrapolated this knowledge into a factual realization that God does not exist. Since you have no proof of the absence of God, the evidence to support this fact is derived from your hope that you have correctly extrapolated the few facts that you possess. The evidence that God doesn't exist for you, is based on your faith in these conclusions.
_________________________________________
Hausse 0
Sweet another guy that believes in unicorns. Or can you prove they do not exist?
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteTrue enough, but with out a big picture for all of these little pieces to fit into it seem a bit pointless.
So? What's wrong with that?***
_____________________________________
Everything!!!! If that were true, then the strong would be justified in redirecting all available resources for their consumption and use in propagation. The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore terminated without prejudice. To mention only a few reasons. If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution. As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these inferior people alive.
________________________________________
Hausse 0
Just because the truth isn't comfortable, it doesn't proof the more comfortable stuff to be true.
maadmax 0
QuoteSweet another guy that believes in unicorns. Or can you prove they do not exist?
Surely , you can do better than that. New species are still being discovered, such as a new species of jungle rat in Madagascar. But sadly, no record of a unicorn has been discovered in either the paleontological or taxonomical records.
_______________________________________
Hausse 0
So wait!!! You want to tell me it does not exist??? But it's so nice and pink. If you don't prove to me that it does not exist I don't believe you...
billvon 2,435
>If that were true, then the strong would be justified in redirecting all
>available resources for their consumption and use in propagation.
Why?
>The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore
>terminated without prejudice.
Why?
>If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral
> behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution.
Are you really saying that you would be more likely to be a murderer and a thief, and engage in all sorts of immoral behavior, if you didn't fear divine punishment?
>As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these
>inferior people alive.
How do you account for atheists showing the same sorts of altruism as religious types, then?
>available resources for their consumption and use in propagation.
Why?
>The weak and genetically inferior would be useless and therefore
>terminated without prejudice.
Why?
>If there is no moral authority , why choose moral behavior when amoral
> behavior would better serve our species survival and evolution.
Are you really saying that you would be more likely to be a murderer and a thief, and engage in all sorts of immoral behavior, if you didn't fear divine punishment?
>As it stands now we are destroying our planet to keep all of these
>inferior people alive.
How do you account for atheists showing the same sorts of altruism as religious types, then?
jcd11235 0
QuoteYou have constructed your reality on the premise that there is no God.
What evidence is there that a god exists? Why should one make the assumption that there is a god without any basis? It is much more logical for scientists to assume there is no god until there is evidence to suggest such a supernatural being exists.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
I tried to find it, but I wasn't lucky. There was a post a few months ago outlining people's reasoning as to why God must have created the universe, or something like that. One of the statements is that there's no way life could have begun spontaneously....unless there was an enormous external energy source. BWAHAHAHA!!!! Guess he figures the only massive external energy source must be god.
Maybe a better searcher than me can find the post for you. It really was funny.
linz
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites