|
|
| Page 6 of 7 |
|
|
 Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 19:55 Post subject: |
|
 |
| spankie wrote: | well too bad for you that you can create RNA in a reactor using only nitrogen and oxygen and carbion dioxide and lightning bolt  |
RNA is not life. When modern science can create a living creature, i'll be the first to convert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73227
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 19:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Ur choice . That's one of the wonderful things evolution have given us.
But ok...here it is, I would much rather believe (Maybe I actually do) that our "consciousness" was given to us by "Aliens" two or so million years ago, then to say that it was "divine" intervention.
But hey, I was brought up in the faith of the Protestant (Swe) church, but I read up on stuff and formed my own opinion. Believe me I had top grades in Religion in school, but I also had top grades in history and science...and I kept on reading after school.
What ever, each man is his own...right!. Live long and prosper, I am not on a crusade here (using popular terminology)...I am only trying to make ppl to think...on their own, and not just lapping up ideas from some book/scripture that is dated around 500-1000 AD (using the Christian time line here sorry). And remember that the geological age of the Earth is 4.5-5 Billions years old! and the Universe is estimated to 14-15 Billion years old.
Last edited by CaptainCox on Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 20:05; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 20:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| spankie wrote: | dude come on.
All molecular biology is based on RANDOM evolution. R A N D O M. Every drug you take has gone through a research pipeline that uses evolutionary aspects... Especially the new cancer/diabetic etc drugs.
I dont understand why you guys cannot admit it.
For years people have been shitting with grain crops to improve yield. Once they had the DNA code and compared it with other DNA codes of other types of grains, they could spectacularly increase yield.
And how is DNA compared with other DNA sequences, by using a random evolution speed and a non random evolution speed, that is the speed of closely related species.
And you can say whatever you want, but it works. Plants are bigger, drugs work, and it all goes faster than in the past and the results are better than in the past.
You can even put a number on the relatedness of 2 DNA sequences, the e-value. Taking into account the random mutation speed, you can say how unprobable it is that a sequence did mutate randomly into another one and is thus not related. And guess what, everything above 1 appears to be biologically relevant.
Saying that god created DNA is just plain ignorant. Biotech stands (or falls) with the belief in random, uncontrolled events and a random mutation speed compared to a "related mutation speed". It is even possible to determine the tree of life by just looking at the differences in certain genes. But oh wait, tree of life? God just put us all on earth 6000 years ago i guess?
There was no intelligent creator to generate DNA. Hell, DNA/RNA is so complexely regulated that it only can have developed through randomness...
BTW: to all the non believers of evolution. You all think you are so much smarter than monkeys and can speak and have a conscious etc and therefore you can think and bblablabla. You are better than all the rest therefore you have to be created by god.
a) Drugs can take all "modern" behaviour away in like 1 week.
b) A monkey can be stimulated to "modern" behaviour by giving some drugs
c) For every "modern" facet of human life, such as brain, cognitive values etc.. there is an intermediate form present somewhere in animals.
d) And evolution do is possible, Just look at a baby. Shits in his pants, plain stupid, As useful as a dog. But it evolves, mostly, in something better and smarter. Of course, God did that |
I don't deny evolution and i don't deny it's "randomness", but evolution isn't a theory that explains "life".
And the thing about life starting 6000 years ago is purely Christian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73227
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| compubrain3000 wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | You mean like "god" made the flies have one wing full of germs and bacteria while the other wing is full with the cure? |
Glad you mentioned this
| Quote: | | The surface of flies is the last place you would expect to find antibiotics, yet that is exactly where a team of Australian researchers is concentrating their efforts. |
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/10/01/689400.htm?site=science&topic=latest |
Bump  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 20:28 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 20:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 21:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| CaptainCox wrote: | | And remember that the geological age of the Earth is 4.5-5 Billions years old! and the Universe is estimated to 14-15 Billion years old. |
Srry but this is insane. As if earth is a third of the age of the entire universe. humans are such bubble heads they just cannot cope with the possibility that their existence is is smaller than a grain of sand in the Sahara compared to the greater reality beyond human influence. Same goes for humanoid deity pretensions up ont eh question of God.
Bring on teh day we can talk God with aliens & all teh personifications will go out the window. chances are alien beings will see God much like the original native peoples did. The source of life & awareness. Not anybody but something within the fabric of reality that we cannot reproduce or copy.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | .and the Universe is estimated to 14-15 Billion years old. |
That estimate is relatively stupid because it's just taking the age of the oldest stars we can see. For all we know those stars could have been extinguished and reborn a billion times over, and this is just one more cycle...
Like ChinUp said, it is insane to believe that the Earth is a third of the age of the universe.
Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73227
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 23:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
| Quote: | | The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current theory and observations suggest that this is between 13.6 and 13.8 billion years. The uncertainty range has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects. Scientific instruments and methods have improved the ability to measure the age of the universe with a great accuracy. These projects included background radiation measurements and more ways to measure the expansion of the universe. Background radiation measurements give the cooling time of the universe since the big bang. Expansion of the universe measurements give accurate data to calculate the age of the universe. |
But hey, if you two know more than the scientists, good for you. 
What you should have said is, there could have been something before the big bang, like "another" universe, it's one of the current theories. |
The beginning of the universe is a wild goose chase made up by people who want to answer the questions: how old is the universe, where did the universe come from. Any honest person will say we cannot know the answer because the universe is all that is, we will never know all that is, thus the questions are moot.
A little realism & humility goes a long long way. Something popular scientists are lacking in, too busy playing mister all knowing & making a pigs dinner of real science. the quest for knowledge begins with acknowledging what you do not know.
Do not be so quick to treat scientists like a source of truth, when you do that your being a gullible & brainless as those devoted to a prophet/guru.
Prejudice is what fools use for reason. ~Voltaire.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73227
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Is the Big Bang a wild goose chase as well?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 23:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | Is the Big Bang a wild goose chase as well? |
Do you think the big bang is proof of a beginning of the universe or evidence of massive expansion occurring in known space/time ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73227
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd Jan 2009 23:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Big Bang can be considered an event that triggered the creation of what people consider "the universe" nowadays. I do not know what was before (obviously there was something, time is infinite), but it would have been so dramatically different, it wouldn't be called "the universe" by people. One of the theories is that an endless cycle of big bangs occurs, while other theories predict total energy loss throughout the universe, but then, what was before the Big Bang? No body knows what was, or what is to be, but, from what I've read, the "age of the universe" as it appears in the Wiki article seems the most logical. But again, I consider the age of the universe from the Big Bang point, again, as written in the Wiki article.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 00:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | I think the Big Bang can be considered an event that triggered the creation of what people consider "the universe" nowadays. I do not know what was before (obviously there was something, time is infinite), but it would have been so dramatically different, it wouldn't be called "the universe" by people. One of the theories is that an endless cycle of big bangs occurs, while other theories predict total energy loss throughout the universe, but then, what was before the Big Bang? No body knows what was, or what is to be, but, from what I've read, the "age of the universe" as it appears in the Wiki article seems the most logical. But again, I consider the age of the universe from the Big Bang point, again, as written in the Wiki article. |
What leads you to believe the big bang was the beginning of all that is ? If you ask me we need a new word for what it is that contains a swell of galaxies, calling it a universe is silly. The universe is all that is. What you are referring to is all that humans can see. I think there is a dramatic difference. For me its absurd to think the universe is only as big as we can see. That is total idiocy.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 00:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | iNatan wrote: | | I think the Big Bang can be considered an event that triggered the creation of what people consider "the universe" nowadays. I do not know what was before (obviously there was something, time is infinite), but it would have been so dramatically different, it wouldn't be called "the universe" by people. One of the theories is that an endless cycle of big bangs occurs, while other theories predict total energy loss throughout the universe, but then, what was before the Big Bang? No body knows what was, or what is to be, but, from what I've read, the "age of the universe" as it appears in the Wiki article seems the most logical. But again, I consider the age of the universe from the Big Bang point, again, as written in the Wiki article. |
What leads you to believe the big bang was the beginning of all that is ? If you ask me we need a new word for what it is that contains a swell of galaxies, calling it a universe is silly. The universe is all that is. What you are referring to is all that humans can see. I think there is a dramatic difference. For me its absurd to think the universe is only as big as we can see. That is total idiocy. |
the universe that we can see, is enormous, and it APPEARS to go through some kind of expansion, but only a madman or a scientist craving for a nobel prize to assume that the universe is all we see, and then they have to go and invent notions like dark matter and dark energy to make their calculations work.
often when I read new scientific papers I read something like this "scientists amazed by discover of galaxies a few million years after the big bang", and then that paper is discard and forgotten, but if that was in fact true, it only reveals that the universe is much older than anyone thinks.
think of the following analogy, we are living in a electron orbiting it's nucleus (obviously at a very slower speed), and then we begin to look above at other atoms and full molecules, but eventually there's an horizon from which we can see no further, now think that this electron where we live is part of an atom that is part of a molecule of water, and this water is beginning to boil, going from liquid to gas state.
do you not think that we would have exactly the same perspective of the universe than the one we as humans have living on this planet?
one thing is to figure out that god is a cultural myth with great power within people who don't have the ability to question every shred of information presented before them.
another thing is to take for granted scientific theories made by people that live by the assumption that the universe has to have a beginning, when time is nothing more than a localized effect caused by gravity and mass at slow speeds.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spankie
VIP Member
Posts: 2958
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 01:19 Post subject: |
|
|
hehe, a lot of people here think all scientists are idiots... They all work 10-12-14 h a day just to fabricate fake stories and make some non working religion fanatics look bad...
But hey, no problem, someone has to assemble my car, and whatever makes you sleep at night... (not referring to the age of the universe discussion... some experiments are just too expensive to find out...)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 01:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | the universe that we can see, is enormous, and it APPEARS to go through some kind of expansion, but only a madman or a scientist craving for a nobel prize to assume that the universe is all we see, and then they have to go and invent notions like dark matter and dark energy to make their calculations work.
often when I read new scientific papers I read something like this "scientists amazed by discover of galaxies a few million years after the big bang", and then that paper is discard and forgotten, but if that was in fact true, it only reveals that the universe is much older than anyone thinks.
think of the following analogy, we are living in a electron orbiting it's nucleus (obviously at a very slower speed), and then we begin to look above at other atoms and full molecules, but eventually there's an horizon from which we can see no further, now think that this electron where we live is part of an atom that is part of a molecule of water, and this water is beginning to boil, going from liquid to gas state.
do you not think that we would have exactly the same perspective of the universe than the one we as humans have living on this planet?
one thing is to figure out that god is a cultural myth with great power within people who don't have the ability to question every shred of information presented before them.
another thing is to take for granted scientific theories made by people that live by the assumption that the universe has to have a beginning, when time is nothing more than a localized effect caused by gravity and mass at slow speeds. |
Makes sense apart from your buying into how worshiper cultists use the word God. No need.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 11:31 Post subject: |
|
|
I've read a few of Richard Dawkins books and although I appreciate his theories on the beginnings of life, I feel he's got a real chip on his shoulder regarding religion. Maybe he was abused by a priest or something as a kid.
I'm not religious but I think anyone who doesn't believe in spirituality of any kind is a blind moron. Why does anything exsist at all?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 11:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Well I think that the reason we're here can't be explained by science. How we were created (evolution) can be explained by science, but the reason can't... That's why we have philosophy 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |

|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 12:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| CobbMk2 wrote: | | I've read a few of Richard Dawkins books and although I appreciate his theories on the beginnings of life, I feel he's got a real chip on his shoulder regarding religion. Maybe he was abused by a priest or something as a kid. |
Agreed, Dawkins is an anti-theist his whole argument against religion & the belief in God is based on thestic religious ideas & belief in God. He gives atheism a bad name by pretending its going along with what theists preach & just dissing it as garbage. That's not atheism that's just being an ignorant prick.
| CobbMk2 wrote: | | I'm not religious but I think anyone who doesn't believe in spirituality of any kind is a blind moron. Why does anything exsist at all? |
I don't understand why people are afraid to call their spirituality their religion. Its as if folks are programmed to submit to theist church authority over what constitutes being religions or something.
Too much prejudice & not enough thought is put into the topic of religion Imo. People are so busy trying to dissociate themselves from religious ideas they don't agree with they don't make any effort to think about where they're putting themselves as a result. Backing yourself into a corner in the name of liberating yourself isn't smart.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 12:52 Post subject: |
|
|
The main point of Dawkins is that children are being brought up in to a religious belief system before they actually have a chance to form their own ideas. In my view he also are attacking hard core religious groups more then others.
Anyway In September 2008, Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, announcing plans to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.
Sure, he comes across as a bit of a "hard core" atheist in his documentaries, but then again I think he is, no? .
It's like he said in some interview, "if hes criticism where directed towards a political system, hes arguments would probably come across as pretty mild". But as he is criticizing religion (something we are brought up not to do...hell knows why?) it some how makes him look like he is on some sort of crusade against all religion...which perhaps he is.
And is that a bad thing?.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 13:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't it normal for a small child to 'take over' his/her parents beliefs and behaviours? How is that brainwashing? Is the child of an atheist brainwashed to be atheist?
Not bashing or criticizing here, I just don't understand this particular point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
He is arguing this
| Quote: | | Children really ought not be spoken of as a Catholic child or a Muslim child. They ought to be allowed to grow until they're old enough to decide for themselves what their beliefs about the cosmos are. But ... the fact [is] that we do treat [children] that way, and ... parents seem to be regarded as having a unique right to impose their religious beliefs on their child; whereas, nobody thinks they're going to impose their beliefs about -- I don't know -- why the dinosaurs went extinct, or something of that sort. But religion is different. And I do think that you can explain an awful lot about religion if you assume that children start out gullible. Anything that is told to them with sufficient force -- particularly if it's reinforced by some kind of threat, like, "If you don't believe this, you'll go to hell when you die" -- then it is going to get passed on to the next generation. Above all, "You must believe this, and when you grow up, you must teach your children the same thing." That, of course, is precisely how religions get promoted, how they do get passed on from generation to generation. |
I guess in Europe...at least central and northern Europe most parents don't do this, as a matter of fact I believe Sweden is maybe one of the most atheist countries in the world.
But in some areas in the US and especially in the Arab world this is just common practice.
And no I don't think it's "normal" to feed your children with stuff like that...that's me but. Maybe it's a "western thing" The need for the classical religions are something of the past in most ppls view. And now we are worshipping our iPod's and movie stars instead.
It's not so much about being brainwashed, but letting you find your own truths...what ever that might be.
I can give you an example. I was together with a Mormon girl when I was in my teens, she did not even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun...she was in total disbelief when I started to lecture about this and that...that is sad or?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 14:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| CaptainCox wrote: | He is arguing this
| Quote: | | Children really ought not be spoken of as a Catholic child or a Muslim child. They ought to be allowed to grow until they're old enough to decide for themselves what their beliefs about the cosmos are. But ... the fact [is] that we do treat [children] that way, and ... parents seem to be regarded as having a unique right to impose their religious beliefs on their child; whereas, nobody thinks they're going to impose their beliefs about -- I don't know -- why the dinosaurs went extinct, or something of that sort. But religion is different. And I do think that you can explain an awful lot about religion if you assume that children start out gullible. Anything that is told to them with sufficient force -- particularly if it's reinforced by some kind of threat, like, "If you don't believe this, you'll go to hell when you die" -- then it is going to get passed on to the next generation. Above all, "You must believe this, and when you grow up, you must teach your children the same thing." That, of course, is precisely how religions get promoted, how they do get passed on from generation to generation. |
I guess in Europe...at least central and northern Europe most parents don't do this, as a matter of fact I believe Sweden is maybe one of the most atheist countries in the world.
But in some areas in the US and especially in the Arab world this is just common practice.
And no I don't think it's "normal" to feed your children with stuff like that...that's me but. Maybe it's a "western thing" The need for the classical religions are something of the past in most ppls view. And now we are worshipping our iPod's and movie stars instead.
It's not so much about being brainwashed, but letting you find your own truths...what ever that might be.
I can give you an example. I was together with a Mormon girl when I was in my teens, she did not even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun...she was in total disbelief when I started to lecture about this and that...that is sad or? |
Agreed. you just aren't going to get good results if you promote ignorant notions like all who believe in God believe in deities & all who are religious worship somebody.
The evolution of religion is in personal spirituality & rejection of scriptural religion Imo. Backing scripture by acting like religion cant exist without it is plain wrong.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | Isn't it normal for a small child to 'take over' his/her parents beliefs and behaviours? How is that brainwashing? Is the child of an atheist brainwashed to be atheist?
Not bashing or criticizing here, I just don't understand this particular point. |
And that's the very point that was made: the parent passes on the indoctrination to it's child, perpetuating a never-ending chain where the child isn't allowed to make his/her own choice. That's why religion is so difficult to get rid of. And that could be called "brainwashing" in a general sense although actual brainwashing has got nothing to do with this.
And you cannot compare atheism to theism except as the total opposite. That includes the fact that atheism isn't a belief or a faith, it's the opposite of faith and belief in god. Some lesser minded people are saying atheism is a faith. That is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby of it's own.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 24th Jan 2009 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
life is not created by any magical almighty god who can do whatever
if there's a conscious almighty person who created us then there must be someone else who created that creator and etc , a paradox
life is rather an entity and a part of how the universe works
don't base your arguments on religion just because you were born in a specific religious country/family
just as you believe god/allah has no creator to stop the paradox you can easily say that the universe has no creator
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
Ãœber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 6 of 7 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
