General Music Chat

Etu thinks the world is a "pentagram". (j/k) lol

Well Mike, World Class scholars such as Stephan Hawking, who spent quite a bit of his genius mind exploring the issue. Then there is just about every philosopher since Socrates/Plato, who has respectively, in their own capacities, explored the issue... Then, pretty much every professor of Physics, (in pretty much every reputable university in the world) and then of course, the fabulous Wikipedia

I acknowledge that gravity exists, but I don't necessarily 'believe" in it.

As for Flat -Earthers, I'm not one of them because I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is an octagon

I highly doubt that Stephen Hawking takes creationism seriously.
But, even if he entertained the idea, his forte' is physics not biology.

Ancient philosophers have one thing in common.
They're dead.
Of course the issue has been debated ad infinitum for centuries, "where did life come from?"
But, no one is likely to ever know THAT with 100% certainty.
But, we can observe HOW life works.

Evolution is an observable phenomenon with millions of years of data to back it up.
Creationism is based on one book of ancient fables.
It requires FAITH to believe it.
Science requires evidence and the willingness to accept that evidence when it conflicts with previously held beliefs.

Evolutionists, explain how the behaviour of Lemmings fits in with the idea of adapting and evolving to survive.
Creationists, explain Lemmings.

Not EVERY mutation is necessarily beneficial to survival.
Like cancer.
Everything alive now is the surviving offspring of it's predecessors.
I believe that about 90% of all species that ever lived are now extinct.
Someone could look that up.
But, I think it's about right.

I thought Darwin's main premise was "this is how things get better"?
Thus, the 'evolving' part of evolution.

Nay?

More like a mere process. If a gene mutates and suddenly a person can grow back his eyebrows, it just simply means that in the universe of EDS ( Eyebrow deficit syndrome) , that person will prolly survive unscathed, where others might not.

Well Mike, World Class scholars such as Stephan Hawking, who spent quite a bit of his genius mind exploring the issue. Then there is just about every philosopher since Socrates/Plato, who has respectively, in their own capacities, explored the issue... Then, pretty much every professor of Physics, (in pretty much every reputable university in the world) and then of course, the fabulous Wikipedia

I acknowledge that gravity exists, but I don't necessarily 'believe" in it.

As for Flat -Earthers, I'm not one of them because I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is an octagon

I highly doubt that Stephen Hawking takes creationism seriously.
But, even if he entertained the idea, his forte' is physics not biology.

Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Evolution is an observable phenomenon with millions of years of data to back it up.
Creationism is based on one book of ancient fables.
It requires FAITH to believe it.
Science requires evidence and the willingness to accept that evidence when it conflicts with previously held beliefs.

Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?

Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?

That's your argument?

Okayyyyy.....

Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?

Faith requires no evidence?
Yes.
That's why it's called faith.
And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"

"Well, I have FAITH!"

It doesn't make it so.

As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.

Humans are unique in their prodigious creative tendencies. We are creating primitive, but successively more sophisticated models of our brains, that we call computers. We have recently created synthetic cells completely controlled by man-made genetic instructions. We have already conceptualized and begun designs of self replicating softwares and robots. The idea of us being intentionally created is actually becoming more plausible in light of our scientific advancements.

"God created man in his own image" ...

It would be silly to limit the scope of the discussion to a dichotomy of Christianity vs. Atheism. The idea that as creators of things lesser than ourselves, we are the offspring of a creator greater than ourselves, is much older than Christianity and nearly every culture has created a myth based upon the theme. So in this context, some of the ideas expressed from a variety of Gnostic and other influences .. that our creator, like us, was a less than perfect being who created a less than perfect creation, in turn was also created .. seems much more plausible than the Christian creation myth.

At this point we still might very well know less about whatever created us than a present day computer is able to perceive, to know, and to think about humans that created it.

Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?

That's your argument?

Okayyyyy.....

No, I am saying that in order to prove or disprove any theory in the absense of obvious evidence, one has to embrace the theory objectively, without prejudice .
More to the point, a scientist would then assign alternate theories Viai "Null Hypothesis"

-My missing Car keys are due to trolls
-My missing car keys are due to my Forgetfulness
-My Missing car keys are due to the dog eating them.

And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"common logic
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"

They are ridiculous if such claims are proved to be wrong. Fortunately, these calims would not be hard to prove wrong, or at least dispel with common logic

"Well, I have FAITH!"
It doesn't make it so.

Nor does it make it 'Not so"

As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.

Not trying to be facetious. If you 'believe' that Love, Hate, Sadness , Happiness exist. then How do you quantify that and prove that it exists?
According to your logic, just because you feel them, does not make it so. (There are many folks who would dispute the theory of happiness)

Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?

That's your argument?

Okayyyyy.....

Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?

Faith requires no evidence?
Yes.
That's why it's called faith.
And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"

"Well, I have FAITH!"

It doesn't make it so.

As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.

He said can you prove it empirically.
The answer is 'no you can not'.

If you are insistent on empirical evidence, then higher mathematics must be invalid to you.

Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y

Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?

That's your argument?

Okayyyyy.....

Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?

Faith requires no evidence?
Yes.
That's why it's called faith.
And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"

"Well, I have FAITH!"

It doesn't make it so.

As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.

He said can you prove it empirically.
The answer is 'no you can not'.

If you are insistent on empirical evidence, then higher mathematics must be invalid to you.

"Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which
we never know what we are talking about, nor whether
what we are saying is true."
-- Bertrand Russell

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-- Albert Einstein

actually the debate between creationism and what ever their calling scientific atheism these days, has very little to do with weather it can be proved that fish eventually become frogs. It has more to do with the appearance of randomness in nature. either the universe is random or it is not, if life was a random event then you cannot ever discover it's cause so science it self is finished. if it was created, than your life has a purpose and you are being watched. so end the end you must still decide where you will put your faith.

Nothing man can measure is ever going to be exact...but we can say with a high degree of confidence what we believe to be true. We don't know the exact mechanics of how life started but we have a pretty good idea it started in the ocean as a result of some energy input (lightning) interacting with chemicals. There are only four "letters" in the the DNA sequence, but they are arranged into a self-replicating order that although unlikely is possible. Every other thing that has ever lived came from that event. What we want to know is how common is life; if we even find slime growing on a rock on Titan it will have huge implications.

actually the debate between creationism and what ever their calling scientific atheism these days, has very little to do with weather it can be proved that fish eventually become frogs. It has more to do with the appearance of randomness in nature. either the universe is random or it is not, if life was a random event then you cannot ever discover it's cause so science it self is finished. if it was created, than your life has a purpose and you are being watched. so end the end you must still decide where you will put your faith.

If we were, for the sake of argument, able to determine conclusively that we were created intentionally

... that, in and of itself, would not necessarily prove that our life has a purpose, nor that we are being watched.

It would not validate the Christian myth above any other speculations about creation. Nor would it prove that our creator has a purpose, nor whether or not that creator was in turn the intentional creation of another creator, with or without a purpose.

Randomness is the label humans apply to events that have no apparent order to human observers. What we call "random" could just as well be exquisitely orderly events that occur beyond the range of present day human's ability to correlate and recognize. Randomness might be entirely subjective.

We now have a fairly deep understanding of how stars, planets, black holes, and tons of other amazing things are created. They say in the first line of the video that life requires water, and right then I knew it was uninformed crap.

They should have said "Life, as we know it, requires water". At least that addresses that we don't know what we don't know. We know carbon-based organic life. We wouldn't know or understand energy-based life if we encountered it. We also only know of the elements and create the table of elements based on what we've found and a few we created by mixing up what we found. There's probably scores other elements in the universe that we cannot even comprehend.

All that being said, what we do know is enough to paint a very precise and accurate of the formation of our solar system 4.5 billion years ago. Carbon molecules are attracted to each other (form of alternate magnetics?), and they are what joined to create life (or continue it...)

The way they described lightning being the catalyst of life was laughable, and presumptious.. they don't know that, and most scientists would be weary of endorsing such a broad statement. It's not even a theory, but more like an uninformed guess by someone with an agenda (sell the advertising space on NBC)?

Who knows, but we are most certainly not the only life in the galaxy, much less the whole universe.

"There's probably scores other elements in the universe that we cannot even comprehend."

Not really. The elements are universal - a carbon atom is going to be exactly the same regardless where it is found in the universe. There may be places and conditions where exotic molecules form, but two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen is always going to be water. Scientists believe water is an essential part of the origin of life, not only on this planet but wherever you might find it. Sure other scenarios exist for other types of life to evolve under different conditions, but until we find them it's just speculation.

actually the debate between creationism and what ever their calling scientific atheism these days, has very little to do with weather it can be proved that fish eventually become frogs. It has more to do with the appearance of randomness in nature. either the universe is random or it is not, if life was a random event then you cannot ever discover it's cause so science it self is finished. if it was created, than your life has a purpose and you are being watched. so end the end you must still decide where you will put your faith.

If we were, for the sake of argument, able to determine conclusively that we were created intentionally

... that, in and of itself, would not necessarily prove that our life has a purpose, nor that we are being watched.

It would not validate the Christian myth above any other speculations about creation. Nor would it prove that our creator has a purpose, nor whether or not that creator was in turn the intentional creation of another creator, with or without a purpose.

Randomness is the label humans apply to events that have no apparent order to human observers. What we call "random" could just as well be exquisitely orderly events that occur beyond the range of present day human's ability to correlate and recognize. Randomness might be entirely subjective.

and quite possibly orderly dose not mean orderly
but what you mean by orderly is in fact complete disarray.

in your world non-sense means deep and profound meaning.
good luck with that.

really?
this is how you attempt to win an argument?
are you on work release or something?