A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
Is it a fossil of a mermaid?
Possibly a seal or sea lion?
Seriously though, How does having a fossil prove that it evolved in any way? Science is just like religion, you have to beleive it to be true, it's not that there's scientific proof that we are a product of evolution. It always comes down to faith in God or faith in science. I started a thread about this very subject. People put faith in science just like people put faith in God. It always comes down to faith, not logic.
None of those types of things existed at that point in time, according to the fossil record.
Idk, I think its pretty telling all in all, you have a creature that has parts of it meant for life as a fish, as well as the beginnings of what is required to live on land. No other types of creatures have been found that are like this one, and it is believed to be from the period of time that just happens to be the gap between the all underwater creature period, and first landwalkers period.
Im not saying that it is definite proof, but its very convincing when looked at under the light of evolution.
And yes, in the end, for alot of things, it is faith. But the key thing about science is, the things it deals with can be tested in a varifiable way. Its not about some unknown unknown, and nothing is accepted as "fact" or more precisely, theory, unless it can pass a large measure of scrutiny that most other things faith based cant even begin to fathom passing.
Now we could argue that the methods used for testing, and the very theories and equations we use for the testing are faulty, and therefore what we find is faulty, but at that point in time, you would be calling into question everything in existance, and I think you would find a staunch opponent in natureisawesome then.
A path to faith with science
I'll answer all this stuff later.. tired
A path to faith with science
WOW- - - i n f o r m a t i o n o v e r l o a d
DANGER Will Robinson....
I can't keep up with you natureisawesome, I don't have time to read you replies/posts. Ask a simple question, get an answer the size of a thesis.
Could you perhaps condense this thread into a scientific text and next time I'm in Waterstones I'll pick up a copy and then I can read in on the train on the way to work?
You seem keen to dismiss Prigonine's theories very quickly, I find that surprising since you seem to know a thing or two about a thing or two. I feel out of my depth. I am somewhat sceptical about your bible babble though. I hope I can get round to replying to your comments. Order and disorder are confusing and somewhat subjective concepts when it comes to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It's perhaps better to think of it in terms of equilibrium, non-equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium.
It's over ten years since I studied statmech and it took me some time back then to get my head round it, i've largely forgotten a lot of the microcanonical models and all that. But I am sure I still comprehend the concept of entropy, I looked up wikipedia and it seemed to agree with you on wether a closed system moves towards a state of disorder. So far as I see, a closed system, say a gas, will eventually even out into a state of equilibrium whereopon the molecules will represent a perfect Gaussian spread in term of the kinetic energy they possess. That to me seems the most ordered state a gas can be in?
Anyway, its good to have someone question theories which I have more or less accepted as valid, I hope I can convince both of us that Progigone's dissipative structures hold water.
Tot laters...
A path to faith with science
Quote:
1. Messiah is to be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15)
â?? Jesus was born by Mary (Matthew 1:18â??25, Luke 2:1â??7, Galatians 4:4)
2. Messiah was to be descended from Abraham (Genesis 12:3, 18:18)
â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Abraham (Luke 3:34, Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:16)
3. Messiah to be born of Jacob (Numbers 24:17,19)
â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Jacob (Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34)
4. Messiah to be descended from Judah, a son of Jacob (Genesis 49:10)
â?? Jesus traces his ancestry from Judah (Luke 3:33, Matthew 1:2)
5. Messiah to be descended from King David (Psalm 132:11, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Isaiah 11:10)
â?? Jesus is a direct descendant of Kind David through both his mother and adoptive father (Matthew 1:6, Luke 1:32â??33, Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30)
Every other person that he is supposed to have descended from, according to the bible, they state that he is to descend from said person. But not with Jacob.
Why the difference when it came to Jacob?
A path to faith with science
Also, one problem I always had with the gospel's.
They were written after the fact.
You yourself said that Luke interviewed many people to write his gospel. How on earth do they know that what they quote Jesus and others as saying, is the EXACT words that he used, if its written after the fact? That leaves a margin of error in his words, and no reliable means at the time to make sure what they were attributing to him, was actually what he said.
Im not saying that Jesus didnt say things similar, with the same meaning, but a revisionists history is always much more interesting then the actual thing. There is too much of a chance for bias in the writings, and too much of a chance of error in its quotation of others.
Not to mention, man is imperfect, so to expect man to be able to transcribe past events, perfectly, in a book, is hard to believe. There are bound to be errors, but how can you have errors in a book of God?
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Daniel uses the term sevens, sometimes translated weeks, to mean a group of seven years. 7 + 62 sevens = 69 sevens. 69 x 7 years equals 483 years. The decree came in 445 b.c from Artaxerxes the king of Persia.Using 360 day years as the Hebrews did, we add 483 years and come to ad. 32 plus or minus 1.5 years.
So wait, it sometimes is translated into weeks, but just for this excercise we know that he meant seven years? How do we know, excluding the fact that it fits your excercise here, that he didnt mean weeks? Especially if what he said could be interpretted as weeks?
Quote:
For example, the only way you could logically support buddhism is to deny that the second law always holds true, or to deny that the outside world exists, or that time is real, or that reality is even real. In fact, these are some of the things that buddhism does claim! They are forced to. I think this is unrealistic, and dangerous. Besides, there is no evidence to support that the 2nd law, the outside world, or reality are not real. The case is quite the opposite. I hope these facts do not elude anyones notice.
You took a shred of truth there, and spread it into something entirely different.
Buddhism says that its foolish to look at things as having a definite start, and a definite end. Such things are human creations to help deal with the first Noble Truth, Pain. Doing so, will only cause more pain, and will prevent you from ever reaching nirvana.
Secondly, what Buddhism says makes perfect sense, because alot of what they speak of works on the scientific level.
As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.
You are not the same as you were half a second ago, and the same will be true a half a second from now. The you from then, and the you from now, are not the same being. There are differences, things that seperate the two, and make them different. How can the same thing, be different from another of the same thing? It cant, therefore, you are not the same being you were half a second ago.
Everything in life is waiting for the proper conditions to support its current manifestation. It doesnt completely poof out of no where, pretty much everything needed for it to manifest is there, its waiting for proper conditions.
I can go into more detail if you wish, but I thought I would correct that blatant attack against another religion, and blatantly incorrect statement. Everything Buddhism states about "death" and "birth" makes sense on a scientific level, and not even a complex level either.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
3. All events require that something caused them.
What caused the creation of God? If all events require that something caused them, then what caused the initial existance and creation of God?
If God can "just exist" and "just is", then doesnt that explicitly discredit that third rule? The key word for making it so its a problem, is of course "all", which implies everything, no exceptions.
Quote:
Some things we don't know. Perhaps we never will. But this doesn't mean answers don't exist, or are fundamentally ambiguous.A fact is a fact whether anyone recognizes it or not.
So wait, you state right here with this statement that some things we dont know, but that it doesnt mean that the answers dont exist, or that what we dont know doesnt exist? Isnt that what I was saying in regards to the Dreamer theory? That we dont know, but that doesnt mean its not true? And what did you say to argue against that? Odd...
Quote:
Could life be a self created hallucination? No, not really. To imagine that would be very.... unrealistic. It's an assumption, but while it may be hard to prove it's impossible to disprove.
Exactly. Thats the beauty of it, in so many ways.
And throughout the time you mention the option of this, you seem to immediately discredit it just from a dislike of your own. You claim its unrealistic, but in that case, what is realistic? Do you have definitive proof of what is realistic? Or just an assumption that you choose to believe in because its easier then the alternatives?
Quote:
1. the universe exists.
2. Events occur within the universe.
3. All events require that something caused them.
Therefore something started all motion in the first place. If anything has motion, an original mover must have existed.
Imagine you were riding your bike somewhere and there was a great big freight train blocking the road as far as you can see, all the way to the left, and all the way to the right. The train seems endless. But you would rightly assume that the train is not infinitely long, and at some point has an end. The 2nd law prohibits perpetual motion machines so the train cannot go on moving forever either.
Also, each car is being pulled by the one in front of it. No car moves unless it was pulled. You would rightly assume further that there is an engine car which is different from the other cars, the original mover. You determine that it pulled the first car which pulled the second etc.
The universe is very much like a machine that is in motion. It's laws of operation tell us that it's in motion. It cannot be perpetual, therefore it hasn't been around forever and someday will stop. Every atom of our universe is rubbing and pulling and bumping against each other. And since nothing moves until a force is placed on it, the original force must have begun the cascade of movement that we see today.
Jumping back again to this, and I apologize for the jumping.
If God exists while being exempt from the third rule, then we can assume that the third rule doesnt apply to everything, which means in essence it could apply to nothing. Not that it is applying to nothing, but that its possible if it doesnt apply to everything, that it could apply to nothing.
If that is the case, that God is exempt from the third rule, then is it not possible the universe is exempt from that rule as well? The universe could be a perpetual motion machine, since the third rule doesnt apply to everything. It could span on for infinity in all possible ways, never ending, never beginning. Again, I am not stating that this is the truth or the case, just saying that if the third rule doesnt apply to everything, then its a possibility, no matter how far fetched it might sound.
A path to faith with science
Quote:
Originally Posted by imitator
As is well known, you can not create or destroy matter. Therefore, everything that is your body and is you, existed before you were "born" and will continue to exist after you "die". That is the entire concept. Also, the concept of the everchanging.
The bolded part should read believed. Slip of the fingers when typing that up. Meant believed, not known.
A path to faith with science
If this is a book, it's all wrong (sorry if this is your own post that you wrote)
First let me start off by re-introducing the first Law of thermodynamics.
Energy can not be created or destroyed
That means energy has always been here, and always will be. The energy just didn't pop out of nowhere and is now here. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, and will always be seeing as you can not destroy it. Therefor, the universe can not end, nor can it be destroyed.
Our universe is nothing but pure energy, down to every single atom and quark.
A path to faith with science
imitator:
Quote:
There are places who are unbiased. There are unbiased reports done through many places. I find alot of interesting things from University based studies. Even if something isnt entirely unbiased, you can find things that arent as biased as others. A website that is entirely pro-creationism/evolutionism is the most biased thing you can find when you are searching for information on those two subjects. You cant get more biased then that.
I will tell you right now, that I expected that exact arguement from you. Its the typical one. Please, show me examples of where well thought out, formulated essays and theories founded upon the theory of creationism werent given the same exposure as similarly well formulated essays and theories on evolution.
I have yet to see a scientific journal of any kind not publish a well written, and varifiable essay/thesis, no matter what the subject. The key is, is the science there, and is it provable? If it isnt, no matter what the subject is, it wont get in. And you are rooting for a theory that is largely unprovable(God existing, creating the earth). There are some very very big blaring holes in the theory, which doesnt mean its not correct, but certainly means it is not provable by any means currently.
But just to clarify, you are stating that there is a concerted effort by a large group of people, to try to hinder or prevent the publication and exposure of the theory of creationism? That people are purposely, for no other reason then the subject of the thesis/esasy, rejecting the work of creationist scientists, who are putting out work that is just as good, if not better then the work they publish instead?
Its not unconceivable, but highly unlikely, considering there are plenty of articles in US based scientific publications that were pro-pot, and thats not the general concensus in regards to this country, and the government. Ive seen plenty of unpopular, or highly criticized articles published, because they were so well written, and were high quality thesis'. So this would, literally, be a first for me to see that there is a concerted effort by some large body of people, to purposely hinder and prevent the publication of creationistic theories and thesis papers.
I don't agree that there are totally unbiased journals or media.
There are testimonies of creation scientists who have been unrightfully (and probably unlawfully ) discriminated against that you can find by searching on the internet.
Everyone is biased and when you understand that, you realize it's a matter of finding the right bias rather than no bias. Even when we anylize information, we used a biased mind to do that. People have to decide for themselves ultimatley for themselves whether what someone shares is right or wrong. I believe that comparing both sides and weighing the evidence is an important part ofd this process.
