HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
current us events
jim993 - Jun 26, 2002

 < Prev  1  ...  5  6  7  8  Next> 

  jim993 Jun 27, 2002
yes it is good reading i like to read everyone's views because i learn about people.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002
Rumata, go to the back of the class. That IS the basic premiss for how life spang up on earth according to evolution. You say the odds are inaccurate, why? You offer no opposing proof. I offered scientific references. Where are yours?

My long posts were rather broad, I will admit. They take a shotgun view to the subject covering many of the points people have discussed in this thread. But they were all scientific references. All you both state is that you don't agree. So what! Where is your scientific evidence to back up your side of the arguement? Come on, at least make playing devils advocate fun.(maybe that was a bad turn of phrase.)

It doesn't look as if either of you really read my previous several posts as these points were covered. Maybe skimmed is appropiate.

Mal, who cares who's God? The fact that any God created the earth would be anti-evolutionary. I'm not pushing one religion here. I have quoted some from the bible, but that is because here in the west it is most common. Besides, if you compare the koran and the bible you will see incredible similarities. Not so with Hinduism, Toaism, Shintoism, or Confusism. But they are not as familiar to most in the west as the other two.

Rumata, Dna.Not really. The ammount that we are different from other species is minimal. The fact that we are all so alike in so many ways, including in the fossil record, an support evolution. Or it can support that we all had a maker originally. Just as a painter or sculpters works can be recognized by their style of work. Many plants and animals that existed before that dont anymore could be victoms of climate changes that were naturally programmed into the world around us or evolution. Maybe evolution is our way of expressing our world around us. But as I stated at the beggining, why cant the two, creation and evolution live together. Life was created and then evolved. Whats wrong with that. If not, then someone please explain where even the basic building blocks of life and the universe came from.

 jim993 Jun 27, 2002
yes somehow it all began that is the only thing that is a fact.(if you want to look at it in that way. some people believe there are no facts there really is no past there is no future

i mean if you want to think about it there's really no way to prove anything yes yes i know all of you will say you can but you can't since reality is a perspective time is a perspective everything is what you make it. there is no world there is no rain there is no summer there is no happiness there is no sad. all we know is nothing all we are is nothing.)

 Rumata Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Life was created and then evolved. Whats wrong with that.

Now that, is something I have no argument against at all.


  
	
	

		
		

			You say the odds are inaccurate, why? You offer no opposing proof. I offered scientific references. Where are yours?

The odds are calculated by dividing the number of possible protein arrangements by the number of atoms in the Universe.

[begin edit]

I have seen this perticular number many times along with several explanations of its origin. Another one is the number of possible protein arrangements divided by the total number of arrangements needed to form an average protein molecule. I say that the odds are inaccurate becuase
  • they do not account for any chemical knowlege related to the subject such as probability of atom combinations (H3O is possible, but extremely improbable) or the sequences of reactions that lead to formation of proteins from inorganic molecules. This has the effect that many, many zeros are added to the 1.
  • the ratio does not take time into account. It is the inaccurate probability of abiosynthesis occuring at any moment in time. To account for time, speeds of different reactions with account to pressure and temperature has to be considered.
[end edit]

An exert from one of my Biology textbooks:
  
	
	

		
		

			Evolution - is the process of historical development of organic world from the simplest life forms to the highly organized ones.

It does not mention the creation of life.

 mal Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by falstaff@June 28 2002,11:07



Mal, who cares who's God? The fact that any God created the earth would be anti-evolutionary. I'm not pushing one religion here.I have quoted some from the bible, but that is because here in the west it is most common. Besides, if you compare the koran and the bible you will see incredible similarities. Not so with Hinduism, Toaism, Shintoism, or Confusism. But they are not as familiar to most in the west as the other two.


So because more peolpe believe it it must be true, is that what you are saying?

By doing so you immediatly discount the beliefs of many people who probably believe just as strongly as you, but in something or someone else. What makes you and your god right?

I don't know, there may have been a creator, but I don't think he/she/it is any of those worshipped by 'modern' religions. I believe man has created those gods, not the other way around.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002
Mal, read my last post again. Thats basically what I am saying. I'm not 'pushing' one religion here. All I've ever said is that I'm playing devils advocate here, offering an opposing view, with some quotations that show some in the scientific community even have their doubts. But a lot of the staunchly pro evolution posts (not all) seem to think I'm a radical right winger. I have presented some of their arguements, but ony to keep it interesting and maybe have some rethink their stand. If we never do that, we become intelectually stagnant. We have a good collection of abstract thinkers here. You have to be to understand games, programing and particularly Sega's past marketing strategies. Lets just not set our opinion in concrete too early, or ever, in life.

 mal Jun 27, 2002
Read mine too. If your version of creation isn't the 'correct' one, where does that leave christianity? With a god taking credit for someone else's work or with a fictional book made up of some really good stories that has helped mould peoples need to believe in something into one of the largest religions around today.

I know I'm getting a bit off topic, but it's not often I get to discuss religion with others before they start getting uptight and defensive about their basis of faith.

 M3d10n Jun 27, 2002
That's why I always scape when my father tries to get me in the church. I feel a greater force, a conscious force (I really don't like the word "God"), but organizated religion drives me nuts! I simply can't feel good in there. The whole place, premise aside, is plaged by human's bad features, I feel it in my bones, and it bothers me.

I feel people that loathe other religions, and even loathe other christian denominations, holding a hideous competitive feeling. There is the horrible "my religion is the right one, and all the others will burn in hell!" feeling, the "if I work for God he'll make my life better" feeling. I can feel that from some of the most "devouted" members of the church.

Also the fact they ask you to adapat yourself, your own personal way, into their ways. The music, the dancing, the talk... it's demanded from you, not directly, but subtely, that you throw away your own persona and melt in the mass.

It's too disgusting for me. Far too.

I really admire and respect the few ones who can go in there, and filter out all the BS, and get only the benefits of it (in reare, very rare times, I could feel incrediblely good in a church). But I'm not able of doing that all the time...

I really devised from the discussion by posting a particular view, and experience. But... maybe it's this the spirituality's true purpose. To be a particular experience, not an all-or-nothing philosophical debate. We (the mankind AND the forum members) are far too small, and far too young to be discussing such things. No matter how many books one read, or how many years one devoted into the subject. There's not enough basis for discussing things as big and complex as the universe, or life.

Even if you guys say (and get proud of) making up ideas by yourself, it's unlikely you did anything more than developing upon things you learned, things someone teched, things you read (and someone wrote).

Racketboy said that he has faith on something he doesn't know about, while people who have faith on science base their fate on "feasible facts", observations and data collected by humans. But Racketboy also base his faith upon "feasible facts". After all, he surely had absorved some "facts", as data that led him to accept his religion.

Maybe the fact that he was raised by religious parents. The fact that his parents believed in that religion could be enough to make him accept it. Maybe the fact that the bible is thousands of years old. Maybe the fact our calendar is based upon Jesus'. Maybe the fact history shows that Jesus really existed. Maybe the fact that millions of other people follow the same religion, and millions of people, over thousand of yeras, can't be wrong, right? And many others "facts", that aren't enough to validade that religion, or maybe that definition of God, entirely, but were enough to make them look true to his eyes.

Sorry if I offended someone, or if it seems I'm taking sides, but I'm not: I'm using this as an example to tell that both sides in this discussion are equivocated. We all are following other people's paths, no matter how strongly we deny it. Just stop by a second and evaluate your acknowledge (or you "lack of"). With rare expections, it's possible to trace them back to things you learned somewhere in the past. Did anyone here found about the existance and properties of DNA themselves? Did anyone here deducted earth is an sphere, before they were told so? Did the fact lotsa people we live with, and we respect, believe in something (science, religion, doesn't matters) had ZERO effect on our beliefs (or disbeliefs)?

It's impossible for us to get to an conclusion, because by sitting here, chatting, and reading books, and researching the net or whatever, will never come up with a full, real, view of the subject. Even if we come up with something pretty logic that makes sense, how could we proof it, if we can't reproduce the "experiment"? If we are limited to the small glimpse of reality our brains are capable of reproducing in it's memory, that's not the actual reality, but a mere reducted representation of it, so we can "understand" it?

And in the very end, if one manages to prove their view, there's still the task of CONVINCING the other side of their view, something that is unlikely to happen. No matter how strong are the evidences, most people are hard headed, and their minds will often twist the reality to make it fit their inner reality, so it won't hurt.

It's useless. This post too, as it'll be proven further...

 ExCyber Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			This is talking about mathimatical probabilities. I know that is stating the obviouse but you seemed to have missed that in your rush to post a reply. There is no 'new' math here.


My core problem with the probability quote is that it provides no supporting information on the context in which this probability is said to be valid. "Organic soup" and "simple protein" are hardly precise descriptions, and the quoted portion contains not one reference to an actual evolutionist who puts forth this particular position (without which it is impossible to more thoroughly investigate the basis of the claim).


  
	
	

		
		

			Ok, maybe your not a statistition.


I am certainly not. I am convinced that you are not, as well. If you were, you'd be able to actually correct a misconception I might have had about statistics and probability instead of merely insulting my intelligence.


  
	
	

		
		

			But did you even for a moment consider it is so, or was this the bums rush to dogmatic condemnation.


I did consider the possibility, and I have not ruled it out. What I have ruled out is that the quotes you supplied provide sufficient information to come to a reasonable conclusion.


  
	
	

		
		

			You haven't offered any opposing figures to show it is possible.


Even if I was interested in arguing for abiogenesis, that apparently wouldn't do any good because you've already concluded that an impossible event can have a nonzero probability.


  
	
	

		
		

			I noted as well that you had no comment on the opinions expressed by several well known and respected members of the scientific community.


I've never even heard of most of those people, and the quotes provide very little real information. Most also do not contain assertions that I consider to be particularly questionable (as with the probability claim), so I don't really care.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002
I also have a healthy loathing of organized religions. L. Ron Hubbard, back in the day when he was strictly a science fiction writer, stated that if one wanted to get rich in America, then start your own religion. More bad in this world has and is taking place in the name of religion. But at the same time i have a healthy respect for the bible and other religious texts. The compiled wisdom in these works can't be ignored. Ok so you think they are full of fables. Read Ecclesiastes and Proverbs (to use the bible as an example). Damn they make you think. Good advise no matter what your faith.

One last point I want to make. People make a religion and or a god out of many things. For some its materialism including money, themselves by being overly narcisistic, science and ect. Balance in all is the key. That and being open to new or old ideas.

Mal, I don't disagree with you. But it's religion that has gotten carried away most of the time, not the (fill in the blank with the religious text of your choice.) Let's look at christianity, if you will for a moment. Many may rebel at this, but if you really examin what most teach and compare it to the bible, you begin to understand why so many put no or have lost confidence in it. Lets not get started on their conduct. Not many practice what they preach. Oh, there are many who are sincere in their 'devotion' to God'. But it reminds me of what Jesus said about the religiouse leaders of his day. "They are the blind, leading the blind , destined to fall into a pit." I don't have all the answers or any for that matter. We all have lots of questions like you are asking. The are so many contradictions. Some continue to pursue it, many have given up. I see the hipocracy on both sides of the issue. I'm just not ready to throw in the towel yet. Maybe someday. ???

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by ExCyber@June 27 2002,20:16








  
	
	

		
		

			This is talking about mathimatical probabilities. I know that is stating the obviouse but you seemed to have missed that in your rush to post a reply. There is no 'new' math here.
		

		

	





My core problem with the probability quote is that it provides no supporting information on the context in which this probability is said to be valid. "Organic soup" and "simple protein" are hardly precise descriptions, and the quoted portion contains not one reference to an actual evolutionist who puts forth this particular position (without which it is impossible to more thoroughly investigate the basis of the claim).








  
	
	

		
		

			Ok, maybe your not a statistition.
		

		

	





I am certainly not. I am convinced that you are not, as well. If you were, you'd be able to actually correct a misconception I might have had about statistics and probability instead of merely insulting my intelligence.








  
	
	

		
		

			But did you even for a moment consider it is so, or was this the bums rush to dogmatic condemnation.
		

		

	





I did consider the possibility, and I have not ruled it out. What I have ruled out is that the quotes you supplied provide sufficient information to come to a reasonable conclusion.








  
	
	

		
		

			You haven't offered any opposing figures to show it is possible.
		

		

	





Even if I was interested in arguing for abiogenesis, that apparently wouldn't do any good because you've already concluded that an impossible event can have a nonzero probability.








  
	
	

		
		

			I noted as well that you had no comment on the opinions expressed by several well known and respected members of the scientific community.
		

		

	





I've never even heard of most of those people, and the quotes provide very little real information. Most also do not contain assertions that I consider to be particularly questionable (as with the probability claim), so I don't really care.


Excyber I most certainly did not mean to insult your intelligence. I apologize if that is the way it seemed. Maybe a little more care in phasing is in order. Actually, you, masterakumtata, mal, takaissilly, arakon are a few of the ones on this board that I ALWAYS read your posts. I learn a lot that way.

Geez, I don't want to have to go back and cut and past every post of mine where I have stated my personal views in contrast to the info I am providing for discussion and the 'devils advocate' I have adopted here for this discussion. Please read my last couple of post. They may help.

 ExCyber Jun 27, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Excyber I most certainly did not mean to insult your intelligence. I apologize if that is the way it seemed.


Well, it did seem that way, but I guess I should have known better. I think I got too focused on defusing the argument, which I guess means we're having a meta-argument.

Anyway, no hard feelings or anything, I just got too caught up in the text and didn't stop to think about things in general.

 crystalmethod Jun 27, 2002
Faslstaff, I dunno much about science grant you but it appears to me that you like to quote bucketloads of stuff from your reference library at home. I've read, enjoyed and understood much of it, but there is one think I can't help but notice. Most of the quotes you have produced, well, they're just the scientists, well respected thinkers and all, presenting their own opinion. Just as we can't prove our opinion when we state that "evolution started like XXXX or continues and occurs like YYYYY" neither do they really.

They state general things such as the probablity is virtually impossible. wheres is there proof? How can they know what the conditions were like at the time of conception (whenever that was) to accurately tell us certain things?

They have "facts", which they all widely believe in and just make assumptions from there. Just like we all get facts such as the world is round. Can anyone of you out there prove to me that the world is round? How many of you have gone into space and seen the curviture of the earth with their own two eyes? Sorry if I digress, but I think your giving scientists more credit then they deserve.

 Falstaf Jun 27, 2002
Damn I keep going from fire to frying pan. If you want me to I will post a hell of a lot of info about what they were speaking of. The actual scientific info. But then some would probably state, "oh, thats just their opinion", or "where did they get their facts".

Listen I stated earlier and will once more for the last time. I don't care what you believe personally. Believe what you want. All I have been doing is providing info so that people would think, with some sucsess. Unfortunately, some seem to feel that this is all what I personally adovocate. All I advocate here is open mindedness. Don't be caught up in the dogma, investigate on your own, dont be a parrot. Only by gathering information from all sides of the issue and then sifting it, do we have a speck of a chance to find even a clue to what is. As I have stated, I have many questions myself and I have read a lot on the issue. Truth like so many thinks, is elusive and its the search for it that is worthwhile. If we think we have found it, question it again. I'm not sure there is anything in this world we can point at and say without fail, that this is so, my search is over.

 crystalmethod Jun 27, 2002
I absolutely believe that that is true Falstaff. I believe we could search for our lifetimes and never find certain things. That shouldn't stop us on our quest for knowledge however. And I was not meaning to argue with you thinking those were your beliefs. I was just stating somewhat of a fact that some things in life can NEVER be proven.

It's true that religion is somewhat of an interpersonal journey, and whatever we discover on this journey will be our own perspective and as such can never be proven. That does not mean for one second that what we discover is incorrect. Just that proof is not everything in life faith in what we discover is jus as important, I'm sure a great deal of faith goes into each scientifc thesis that is offered.

On a bit of a side note I would like to share a bit of a personal reflection on religion. During a highschool English class, the class as a whole was studying Shakesperian comedy, more specifically Twelfth Night. The teacher stated the situations people get into while in a comedic story are unrealistic and as such, for a comedy to "work" we as an audience must suspend our disbelief. And then an analogy hit me, thats exactly how religion works.

For any of us, to truly get the benefits that were meant from religion and thus, for religion to truly work we must all suspend our disbelief.

 jim993 Jun 27, 2002
ya it's also the way to apretiate magic shows, and cartoons.

 racketboy Jun 28, 2002

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by mal@June 27 2002,16:37



how do you know that the stories in the bible are correct and that everyone else is wrong?


Faith, man, faith

like I said before

 mal Jun 28, 2002
racketboy, how can you say that you faith is any more valid than someone who worships another god or believes in another creation story?

Isn't that a bit arrogant to dismiss other people's beliefs that simply?

 jim993 Jun 28, 2002
Why I gave up religion

It didn't provide with me with hope. Not once did it shine a light in my lightless tunnel of life.

To get back to the pledge how would people like if it read

I pledge a legeance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands one nation under satan indevisable with liberty and justic for all.

or

I pledge a legeance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under scooby doo indevisable with liberty and justic for all.

 Subura Jun 28, 2002
Well put, the fact that most americans' belive in god doesnt mean it should be in the pledge, some (be it a few) pray to an incarnation of evil, should they be allowed to pray to their Lord in a nationally recognized and (pun not intended) religously repeated anthem?

The pledge should represent american UNITY , i 'm a big fan for that part "for the people which it stands" ,we're strongest when we are unified.

 < Prev  1  ...  5  6  7  8  Next>