Please explain

posted on July 25th, 2007, 4:50 am

Wow, I'm back (sort of) from vacation and this is the first thing I click on!~ >:(

Science and religion should not, and cannot be compared, and here's why:

Each of the three major monotheistic religions (for simplicities sake I will not attempt to explain the nuances of the hundreds of others) each implicitely states that it is in the right. It makes no attempt to explain the actions of the other religious groups, save to lump them as non-believers and hence barbaric. Each describes a moral code and strict rules to govern the followers without room for error or change, even though such rules may be modified to include modern trivialities, the "big picture" remains the same.

Science on the other hand is not a monolith. It is not an it: there is no overarching belief that states that "this is the only right, and everything else is wrong" because there is no organized system of belief. In fact there cannot be one in the sciences. Theories change constantly and are not immutable, and most importantly, the theories only try to explain their own existence and not the existence of other theories. For example, the theory of evolution is much talked about but it is composed of a wide range of theories which are all lumped , under the public's eye, as the theory of evolution. We have darwinism, punctuated equilibrium... etc. These have all been modified to fit what is newly discovered.

Unlike religions, the sciences cannot effectively mold facts to fit a belief/theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, there would be no science as everything would constantly be scrutinized and considered false. Religions recquire leaps of faith, ironically, to function. Irregularities between authors (or the divine word) withiin and between the Talmud and New Testament recquire us to believe it is human folly throughout the millenia that has caused us to misinterpret them. Still, in the grand scheme, those followers MUST still believe in the grand precept, otherwise religions would fall apart: i.e. if humans caused such misinterpretation, who is to say that the entire religious book is not misinterpreted. In fact, this is what the three monotheistic religions say of their predescesors: muslims believe christians misunderstood the New testament, and the same christians believe that the jews misunderstood the talmud. However this is not even limited to the larger religion, but remains prevalent through each sect in each religion. Consequentially, although an overarching belief unites all Christians and all Muslims and all Jews, when confronted as a group, each will splinter when no such confrontation exists.

When we start to try and state that science is a monolith, we misconstrue, that unlike religion, there are no immutable texts, no guiding precepts other than to learn more, and no leaders which can possibly claim that their view is correct. In the sciences there is no one view as they are comprised of a myriad of theories. based on facts, and yet unproved hypothesis, which together give a more realistic understanding of the world. Only through our own knowledge of the science can we form an interepretation. For the 3 major religions this is impossible, for we are told what to believe and when to believe it: very little or no room for error or difference of opinions.

SO all you heretics out there can shut up 'cause my view is better than yours! Just Kidding, all that I ask is you read and make an informed decision, and please give me your own insight.

-nightlord out

posted on July 25th, 2007, 10:56 am

wasnt this thread supposed to be about Noahs ark and a museum about it?

posted on July 26th, 2007, 1:20 pm

Probably, but now that the thread has reached such and such a length, it becomes too difficult to go back to the OP and thus the first 3 pages lose all meaning... Now doesn't that make perfect sense? 

posted on July 29th, 2007, 1:26 pm

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post - thanks.
It's been a long time since I've read something so intelligent on the Fleet Operations board.

I noticed that alot of the things ewm quotes about sexuality are quite obvious to us (ie the world lay), and that the other things he quotes...were removed on the non Catholic side due to the separation. And I agree with the majority of your post regarding science and religion. It is my opinion that religion and politics and religion and science should be separate entities. Even if I believe in creationism, don't teach it in school in place of evolution. If you wish to be religiously educated, there should be an option for the course. But seeing as how multiculturalism is so rampant where I am (it's sort of a curse, and a blessing at the same time) it's unlikely that any one religion would succeed in that, and that we're best off using this current system until the fuel runs dry and it ceases.

I was simply...a little bit late to this party to be able to crash in on it and use my 2 cents. As far as ewm's Liberal crusade goes...well, he's got valid options in making fun of Fox who attacks bloggers because they are left wing, and poking out the MOST EXTREME examples of the lengths the bible has been taken to...which sometimes are too far. But he then ignores the fact that every religion has their fundamentalist component. Islam is a prime example. But fundamentalism does not equal extremism. In the same light that regular attendance of church does not leave you vulnerable to a 'Waco' type scenario. For example the big red mosque issue right now, is because of extremists, and the problem ewm and some other individuals have (And they can have this problem (which is only my opinion, again), it is their right to say and think as they wish) that fundamentalist Christians are all preachers who are unintelligent simply based on the fact that they believe in divine creation. Regardless of what I believe both stories and ideas have gaps. Huge ones.

Anyways, for the original questions...sume humorous ways to make his points moot.

Dinosaurs hey?

What if it was like a Sinosauropteryx, or another small dinosaur that could fit in a mans hands! hmmm!

What if the Ark ACTUALLY was rubbed down in a substance that increased its ability to float! (But no one was looking).

What if the Ark was actually constructed of a strange kind of wood that had properties not available in this day and age due to...CLIMATE CHANGE! LOLS. (And was mis indexed, because with all the problems we have with indexes, they are sure to have had a few).

posted on August 2nd, 2007, 10:36 pm

First, since when do the opinions of papers mean anything towards our own opinion?  That doesn't even make sense.  Why bring up the opinion of papers when the debate at this point is between you and me?  Do they express your opionion?  Not all of them.  Scratch one reason.  Do you regard them as meaningful rowards your own opionion?  Not that I'm aware of.  You see, ewm, you have me thouroughly confused with this meaningless paragraph.

You have a good point here. People read what they agree with. I do try to lison to things I dont agree with and try to see why they think that there openen is beater.

Fair enough.  However, I know some people from all political sides who say they listen, but their minds are too busy being mad to actually understand what their ear is hearing.

Well, ewm, if faith reflects the ideas of the people, then what you are looking at is effective democracy.  The will of the people is reflected in the govenment.  You can't fault that, can you?

Democracy is about freedom and forcing ones ideas on others in not freedom their for the Democracy is heart.

You cannot truly force someone to take something to heart without true mindwashing, or possibly psychic powers.  I once told someone who wouldn't shut up that I agreed with his opinion.  Did I?  Not by a long shot.  I left that room after a ten hour indoctrination seminar and my mind was set exactly the same as it entered.  On top of this, he made some very good points that I couldn't refute.  I was simply so dead-set against it that I refused to listen. 

He "forced his opinion" on me, but he did not force me to listen.  That is a choice made BY the person, and is not the fault of the person who's talking.  Neither you nor the government has any right to make him stop expressing himself to others.  That is a blatant violation of the first amendment.  Blatant.  There is no wiggle room.

Oh, and actually I've come to accept what he said as I've learned more about macroeconomics.

Telling somebody something they don't want to hear isn't a crime.  It shouldn't be a crime.  Would you like it if Christians made it "hate speech" to cuss using the terms "Jesus" or "God"?  For us, if you read the Bible, it's as bad as telling a lie... or committing a murder.  If you don't want others to raise hell over their sensitivities, don't raise hell over yours. 

Not that those of us like me will stop you from saying something we don't want to hear...

I personally oppose abortion not because it could be sin, but because it could be murder.  Partial birth abortion IS murder.  Are you willing to take the chance that millions of little children are being slaughtered just because they inconvinience their mothers?!  Are you that hard-hearted and uncaring that you're willing to risk such atrocity?!

abortion can be murder if it is done in a way that would heart a life. But it has bean more that clearly proven that what is performed in the USA is not murder and is far from it. So why is this abortion a problem a sin hummm?

Ewm, if it was "more than clearly proven", 70% of Americans (stat might be about 2 years old, but still close enough) would not oppose it and we would understand much more of human brain development in pre-birth stages than we currently do.  Science has never conclusively proven anything about fetal inelegance capacity that can be relied upon on a consistent basis without possibility of failure.  To prevent murder, that is what we are looking for.

And have you ever heard of partial birth abortion, which I do believe is still legal?  Are you saying that killing a child halfway out of the mother is not murder?!

Science books are designed to reflect science, and I hate to brake it to you, but most scientists considered spontaneous generation to be unshakable scientific fact.  Now, it serves us only as a reminder of how current science, such as the theory of evolution, may be rendered completely menaingless by the progress of science.  I'm not saying that I support intelligent design as an alternative, but I am clear-minded enough to see that evolution has many, many, many flaws, many more of which are not publicly admitted.

The word theory as applied to evolution is a just a proticall becoss of some loss ends that are so trivial its funny to think that people would think that evolution is not a fact in this day and age.

I can tell at this point you were probably getting tired.  First off, the relevancy of your reply is questionable at best, and secondly what you did say was mind-numbingly stupid, from a debater's angle.

First we have this 'word theory as applied to evolution'.  I have no idea where you got it from, but it wasn't my post.  I can only think that you are referring to the theory that evolution was set in motion by God, which I made no mention of or reference to.  Nice try.

Second, (again, two points!) you say something incredibly foolish about evolution... you say people should just accept it as fact, and the phrase 'in this day and age' when attached basically means you believe that everyone should accept it because it is simply the thing to do, not because of any pointed reason.

Oh, and ewm, something that has loose ends is not a fact until those loose ends are accounted for.  For a theory like evolution, that will take centuries.  So be it.  I evolution is the answer, we will not be the generation to find out, and if it's not, that future generation is bound to have another idea.  Do you think anyone who had unshakable faith in spontaneous generation 1200 years ago believed in evolution?  Doubtful.

My point is:  Shut up.  Evolution is not yet a fact.  The future will tell, and I'd rather science gets it absolutely right than they rush it and probably, over the long term, mess up big time.  Either way, our debate will accomplish nothing towards evolution's scientific veracity.  That is now found in the extremely fractured fossil record which, right here in Texas holds human and dino footprints in the same layer, and the lives of earth's animals, who, despite massive climate destruction with the power of an extinction-level event, and despite the onset of probable climate change, have yet to experience anything but microevolution.

Let time be the judge, not us.

Theres a reply and its not for the reason I can not its that I can not reply to every one with out my hands falling off.

[/quote]

I do honestly appriciate the reply.

I sympathize with your hand plight, but the discomfort I experience writing these posts often seems a waste when they are ignored by the intended recipient and more importantly never put to the test.

As a debater, it's like trying to fence someone who just walks away, and then comes up and attacks you (poorly) in a manner made illegal by the rules of the game.  I hope you understand my plight.






Now, for DN:

Wow, I'm back (sort of) from vacation and this is the first thing I click on!~ >:(

Science and religion should not, and cannot be compared, and here's why:

Each of the three major monotheistic religions (for simplicities sake I will not attempt to explain the nuances of the hundreds of others) each implicitely states that it is in the right. It makes no attempt to explain the actions of the other religious groups, save to lump them as non-believers and hence barbaric. Each describes a moral code and strict rules to govern the followers without room for error or change, even though such rules may be modified to include modern trivialities, the "big picture" remains the same.

Science on the other hand is not a monolith. It is not an it: there is no overarching belief that states that "this is the only right, and everything else is wrong" because there is no organized system of belief. In fact there cannot be one in the sciences. Theories change constantly and are not immutable, and most importantly, the theories only try to explain their own existence and not the existence of other theories. For example, the theory of evolution is much talked about but it is composed of a wide range of theories which are all lumped , under the public's eye, as the theory of evolution. We have darwinism, punctuated equilibrium... etc. These have all been modified to fit what is newly discovered.

Unlike religions, the sciences cannot effectively mold facts to fit a belief/theory/hypothesis. Otherwise, there would be no science as everything would constantly be scrutinized and considered false. Religions recquire leaps of faith, ironically, to function. Irregularities between authors (or the divine word) withiin and between the Talmud and New Testament recquire us to believe it is human folly throughout the millenia that has caused us to misinterpret them. Still, in the grand scheme, those followers MUST still believe in the grand precept, otherwise religions would fall apart: i.e. if humans caused such misinterpretation, who is to say that the entire religious book is not misinterpreted. In fact, this is what the three monotheistic religions say of their predescesors: muslims believe christians misunderstood the New testament, and the same christians believe that the jews misunderstood the talmud. However this is not even limited to the larger religion, but remains prevalent through each sect in each religion. Consequentially, although an overarching belief unites all Christians and all Muslims and all Jews, when confronted as a group, each will splinter when no such confrontation exists.

When we start to try and state that science is a monolith, we misconstrue, that unlike religion, there are no immutable texts, no guiding precepts other than to learn more, and no leaders which can possibly claim that their view is correct. In the sciences there is no one view as they are comprised of a myriad of theories. based on facts, and yet unproved hypothesis, which together give a more realistic understanding of the world. Only through our own knowledge of the science can we form an interepretation. For the 3 major religions this is impossible, for we are told what to believe and when to believe it: very little or no room for error or difference of opinions.

SO all you heretics out there can shut up 'cause my view is better than yours! Just Kidding, all that I ask is you read and make an informed decision, and please give me your own insight.

-nightlord out

For science vs. religion, I quickly discovered that the best policy is not caring.





Rhaz (nice avatar, btw):

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post - thanks.
It's been a long time since I've read something so intelligent on the Fleet Operations board.

I much thank you for the complement, and I'm sure ewm and DN feel the same.

Heh... I figured breaking this up is the best way to go.

I noticed that alot of the things ewm quotes about sexuality are quite obvious to us (ie the world lay), and that the other things he quotes...were removed on the non Catholic side due to the separation.

Indeed.  I didn't check the apocrypha (no offence intended in the term) for any of the comments.

And I agree with the majority of your post regarding science and religion. It is my opinion that religion and politics and religion and science should be separate entities.

No comment.

Even if I believe in creationism, don't teach it in school in place of evolution. If you wish to be religiously educated, there should be an option for the course. But seeing as how multiculturalism is so rampant where I am (it's sort of a curse, and a blessing at the same time) it's unlikely that any one religion would succeed in that,

I agree.  That is quite probably the most intelligent thought I've heard on the subject.

and that we're best off using this current system until the fuel runs dry and it ceases.

I'm not quite sure on this one.  The downfall of our current public education system in such a manner could be very bad, unless a replacment is waiting in the wings (unlikely and currently impossible).

It is a subject I'd be more than willing to research or debate, but I feel this is neither the place nor the time.

I was simply...a little bit late to this party to be able to crash in on it and use my 2 cents. As far as ewm's Liberal crusade goes...well, he's got valid options in making fun of Fox who attacks bloggers because they are left wing, and poking out the MOST EXTREME examples of the lengths the bible has been taken to...which sometimes are too far. But he then ignores the fact that every religion has their fundamentalist component. Islam is a prime example. But fundamentalism does not equal extremism. In the same light that regular attendance of church does not leave you vulnerable to a 'Waco' type scenario. For example the big red mosque issue right now, is because of extremists, and the problem ewm and some other individuals have (And they can have this problem (which is only my opinion, again), it is their right to say and think as they wish) that fundamentalist Christians are all preachers who are unintelligent simply based on the fact that they believe in divine creation.

Well put.  However, you have to consider that no matter what policy Fox has, it's still news media and partakes in sensationalist reporting.  For the record, pointing out the worst of something to represent a growing problem is a legit strategy.  If you got toys with worse and worse defects coming off the line, which one are you gonna show the boss?  The worst one at the time.  I believe your real problem is with Fox's application of this to this subject.  Regardless, I do believe that Fox can use more moderation in these reports.

Regardless of what I believe both stories and ideas have gaps. Huge ones.

I am interested in hearing assents and criticisms.

Anyways, for the original questions...sume humorous ways to make his points moot.

Dinosaurs hey?

What if it was like a Sinosauropteryx, or another small dinosaur that could fit in a mans hands! hmmm!

What if the Ark ACTUALLY was rubbed down in a substance that increased its ability to float! (But no one was looking).

What if the Ark was actually constructed of a strange kind of wood that had properties not available in this day and age due to...CLIMATE CHANGE! LOLS. (And was mis indexed, because with all the problems we have with indexes, they are sure to have had a few).

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 3:16 pm

Alright... because I am rather tired and have to pack I'm only going to respond to small chunks of your text Red, ok, so please don't flame me because I haven't "listened" to everything (if any of that sounds sarcastic or denegrating it's not, I'm just being less careful than usual).

First of all, I will attempt to define what a theory (and its associates) is:

1. a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
2. hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If you trust this source, you can understand that theories are conglomerates of knowledge: they are based on facts and reasons that are proven beyond reasonable doubt. When we say fact, this only is a convenience for the public: all facts are "merely" theories that have become so accepted that we think they are unshakeable. This holds true with the (semi-unified) theory of gravity, which probably falls apart when discussed with black holes.

Shut up is not a valid response for a debate, and if you had read my rant (instead of just dismissing it) I have already adressed your concerns regarding evolution. Spontaneous evolution was NEVER a theory, merely a hypothesis, NEVER proven, NO conclusive evidence was ever found to support it (I am not taling about amino acid type genesis: that is still an ill-proven theory/hypothesis), yet still this held until a man named Pasteur applied the scientific method to disprove this common idea.

What do you mean by fractured fossil record. It is the most accurate timetable we have of anything on earth, in the galaxy, and in the universe. Even though we are missing countless species and individuals it is far more complete. If you disagree with this, you are better of believing only what your eyes show you: thus the stars and sun are all just globes of light: we can't prove anything about them cuz we've never been there or maybe our instruments are lying to us. Sorry for that.
Please stop making "science" a monolith. Read my post please, pretty please.

Evolution has taken place over billions of years, yet there are a number of regions/groups of animals in which we can directly observe divergent evolution (allopatric and sympatric). For instance, take the rulers of earth, the insects. Yes you may dismiss them as annoyances, but looking at Krakatau remnants, after insects returned, and observing them for around a century and a half, several beetle species have taken nitches amongst the island remnsants and undergone a limited form of allopatric speciation. Body forms have diverged, feeding habits changed, and reproductive isolation is almost complete (hybrids rarely form and are usually infertile) Or perhaps you prefer plants. For the moment my mind is blank, but sympatric speciation is observable. Homologous chromosomes fail to split, resulting in extra pairs of tetraplody or even quatro (forgot the name at the moment-verrrry tired), thus creating a new species along the appropriate definition; no hybrids with other species, reproductively isolated from them:a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.

In regards to partial birth abortion: I think that is is used anywhere from 4.5 months 'til later. Usually hardly "half-out" of the mother. In regards to abortion in general, where do you draw the line in the sand: where does intelligence begin for you? I find it irresponsible (my opinion remember) to believe that a blastula or gastrula: not specialized in almost anyway, can be considered to be intelligent (no neurons yet). Please don't talk about the capacity for life though: we don't need any more what if statements. I think that it is only fair to consider a fetus, quote, sentient, when it has the capacity for reason (needing higher brain functions). This is very very late in the fetal stages: nearly until birth (around 6-8 months, depending on nourishment etc ad nauseum, don't ask for details right now, I'll give them later if you want). Personally I think it is inhumane to have many of these births for the children are left with so many physical and mental disabilities that they are forced to rely on others for sustenance and even heart beat just to live a minute longer.

Just because the majority of people in one country believe something does not make it right. If you asked the victims of a form of scrapie (who practiced canabilism) if they thought canabilism was wrong, would most answer yes? Think about that analogy carefully please. Although we find canabilism inhumane and horrible, and it was the cause of the prion contamination, that population did not. Humans do not base their opinions on facts and reason, they base them on opinions. That is why we love war, we love to have more children than we can support, and we outpace our resources.

I am asking you again to read my post carefully RedShirt and respond not with abandon, but by counterpoint. If I misunderstood any of it, please tell me and I'll try to rephrase. (Sorry I didn't check my spelling too... )

-DN

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 4:39 pm

Allow me to clarify a few points that may or may not have been touced on with regard to how science works. I am in general agreement with the evolutionist side so it will be obvious who I side with.

A common creationist argument is that evolution is "only a theory". Well, yes, it's a theory, but erm, well, in the arena of science it is not correct to say that something is "only" a theory. In any scientific endevour, there are firstly the "facts" (data/observations in nature). When we examine the facts, we may be able to produce a "law" by way of explanation. Finally, after years of study we may be able to piece together a consistent, sensible "theory" which not only explains the original facts, but can predict new ones.

A good example is gravity. We start with planetary motions and observations ("the facts"). Then Newton came along and produced his Law of Universal Gravitation to explain this data, but he admitted that he fudged by way of true explanation. Finally Einstein produced an explanatory framework (The Theory of General Relativity) which showed how energy fields distort spacetime, explaining the apparent gravity effect. If there was a hierarchy in science, the increasing respective order of importance would be facts, law, theory (there isn't such a hierarchy). So theories, although constantly refined or replaced, occupy the highest order in science. So the creationist idea that "evolution is only a theory" is a weak argument. In everyday colloquial speech, a theory is an unproved idea. In science it has an entirely different meaning.

I should now point out that there are two broad distinctions in evolutionary science. The "facts" (the fossil record) and the "theory" (the Modern Synthesis). Darwin observed the facts, and used Natural Selection as a way of explanation. He even attempted a unified theory, but never claimed that this was the last word on the matter, and in fact it has been completely replaced. However, the "facts" have never been in dispute (that of a gradual change from simpler lifeforms to more complex ones). The theory of genetics and heredity lends support to the ensuing theories by providing a unifying mechanism in biology, a common denominator.

I realise that a common appeal by creationists is to "gaps" in the fossil record.  Firstly, a frind of Richard Dawkins wittily pointed out that if we placed a "missing link" in the middle of one gap, the creationists would now say that there are two gaps!  Like a soccer match, we only have photographs of certain intervals in time, so it is formidably unlikey we will ever see the goals. We just use our intellect to make sensible conclusions about the data.

On the point of missing links, many creationists say, "Why are chimps here if we evolved from apes? Where are the missing links?". This demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. Both chimps and humans evolved from one common ancestor. There is no missing link between us and apes because we did not evolve from present day apes. The common ancestor that produced these two divergent paths (apes and hominids) has died out. And as I said above, if a so-called "missing link" were found, we would require two more missing links to satisfy the creationist's urge for missing links, in the two new gaps! 

My aim here is mainly to clear up some scientific terminology (facts, theories) and to correct their misuse. They are misused so often, and I hate to see it happen. 

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 5:39 pm

I accidentally deleted to bulk of my reply, and do not particularly feel like rewriting it now.  However, when or if I do I will return and write it here.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm the one really ticked about it.

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 6:12 pm

I accidentally deleted to bulk of my reply, and do not particularly feel like rewriting it now.  However, when or if I do I will return and write it here.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I'm the one really ticked about it.

Yeah it's damn annoying when that happens. I advise that you cut and paste into a notepad regularly as you type, especially for long posts. That way you are protected in the event on finger-slip, lightning and nuclear holocaust. 

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 7:19 pm

Well, to be honest...I wanted to keep my opinion neutral and just attempt to correct giant mis conceptions in each theater. But rest assured, I do believe in one of the above. Umm, in the grounds of evolution, it is a pretty sound theory, and I am very happy that it is taught most often AS science in school, in fact I wouldn't be who I am today if it wasn't. The gaps are interesting points for discussion, because they can only be filled in, not widened.

But the tough questions become this.

Evolution in itself is pretty sound, 100% I'd argue, stuff started at one point, and branched off. And I agree perfectly on the monkey example. With the hominids and chimps out competing the origin species, they simply died off, as a form of 'divergent evolution' two organisms spawning from the same point.

So how can this be wrong when it's proven again, and again?

Now the main creationist platform which is actually very sound is the question of, where did the FIRST parts of life originate from? That first piece of biology? Since the non living universe is capable of creating a condition that can SUPPORT life, but not create it, where did we originate from?

And if creationism is wrong, what ARE the conditions required to create life?

(And isn't that in itself a very scary question?)

posted on August 3rd, 2007, 9:13 pm

Now the main creationist platform which is actually very sound is the question of, where did the FIRST parts of life originate from? That first piece of biology? Since the non living universe is capable of creating a condition that can SUPPORT life, but not create it, where did we originate from?

And if creationism is wrong, what ARE the conditions required to create life?

(And isn't that in itself a very scary question?)

The "first origins" thing intrigued me for a while, until I realised that introducing an Almighty Creator right at the beginning simply makes the whole Universe system more complicated (in fact, infinitely so) and also relegates the question of who started it back one step to "Who created God?". Creationists are also fond of using (abusing) the 2nd law of thermodynamics by saying that order cannot come from disorder. As a matter of fact, it can, and this happens all the time in life and in chemistry laboratories. The second law simply says that the total entropy ("disorder") of the whole Universe must increase. However, the entropy of a system may decrease considerably if there is larger increase in the entropy of the surroundings to ofset it. In fact biological systems do this all the time. That's the very definition of life: maintaining offset from equilibrium. You still lose valuable ordered energy in the process, but this is discharged into the environment, an effectively infinite void. Remember that the "closed system" of the 2nd law consists of both the system and the surroundings.

I take exception to the general idea that the universe seems ideal for supporting life; actually the universe seems to favour black holes more than life forms, and most of the universe is chronically hostile to life. Even if it were true with regard to this one planet, it would mean that "God" (however you define God) has an extreme obsession with beetles (not to mention parasitic nematodes), if you just go by numbers alone.

Also I've never been troubled by the argument "who started it all" or "where did we originate from. The bold words are time words. These words imply that the stream of time extends forever backwards into infinity; it does not. As Einstein demonstrated, space and time are inextricbly tied to each other like bad relations. Both space and time came into existence at the "instant" (pardon my language) of the big bang. Any questions of what came first or what "initiated" it are meaningless. This is like asking what is North of the North Pole. Many will try to say that "God" created time, but since "created" is a time word, this implies that God existed in the stream of time before he invented it, a logical fallacy. And since the idea of an infinitely intelligent Creator makes the universe more complex, it is more satisfying to say that the universe "just is". Note that this is precisely what creationists claim about God; he "just is" and required no "beginning". I am equally within my rights to claim the same thing about the Universe, except in my case the whole thing is simpler because it is a finite solution not an infinite one. The most scientific answer is always the one that satisfies "Occam's Razor", the solution that is simlest and has the least peripheral details of implied premises.

This does not rule out the existence of "higher beings" or aliens, robots time-lords. We tend to slap the "god" label on anything we do not understand, when this is probably far too simplistic. As we progress in knowledge, religious people always push everything that we do not understand or cannot yet do into the "God box". This means that gradually God's abilities are changing to adapt to our increasing ability!! Centuries ago, radio technology would have been a god-ability, now it's old news. As a famous researcher once said, any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What happens when we become "gods" (whatever that means)? At least we will never become infinite (by the defintion of infinity) so we don't need to worry that we will mess up the Occam's Razor test. Phew  [br]Posted on: August 03, 2007, 08:53:00 pm

---

If anyone is interested, many of these points are covered at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html.

Besides the entropy argument, these FAQs may help one to see the biologist's view about the origins of life, although it mainly deals with speciation. In my opinion, the "first cause" question is far more easily answered from a physics/cosmology perspective. The question of how life arose from non-life is partly answered by the entropy idea (this is also the explanation for how non-living order, such as crystals, form), but essentially the question is a biochemical one. The explanations on TalkOrigins are usually excellent, so if you can find a section on self-replicating organic molecules, it will probably be satisfactory. I imagine that along with the physical arguments it forma a coherent whole. Nevertheless, I am not a biologist so it is best to seek expert advice somwhere. That said, from my perspective as a physical scientist it seems quite reasonable that "replication" can arise from a "chemical reaction". After all, DNA replication or the polymerisation of amino acids are chemical reactions, they're just more complex than your everyday schoolbook reaction. As long as the component elements are in existence, such as sequence of events is not as improbable as it sounds, and nobody really questions that the nucleosynthesis of the elements is impossible. Creationists say that such increasing complexity cannot arise "by chance", but evolutionists do not claim this, so this is a "straw man argument" (altering the opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down like a straw man). I advise anyone that holds this view to check out the TalkOrigins FAQ, as there is an FAQ about Evolution and Chance that explains this nicely. 

posted on August 4th, 2007, 12:06 pm

All I can state now is that I believe both (or all) arguments have been summed up and very well at that. At the risk of sounding pretentious or self-absorbed, I think this last page has adressed most of the arguments that were introduced and, I think, have been intelligently resolved.

Perhaps this discussion is finished: the logic of the ending statements is quite appeasing to me, unless someone brings up another point that no one has so far thought of, I am content to leave it be. I sincerely hope that everyone who was on this thread (either reading or writing) will read the discusion in its entirety and make an informed decision. Thanks

-DN

posted on August 14th, 2007, 4:41 pm

well EWM im not shure if anny one has said this but their is one slight problem with what you said.

Jesus was not around at the time of the dinos.

my aunt (in her stupidity) asked a while ago "now tell me which came first, Jesus, or the dinos?"
to witch we replyed,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, and then told her to think.
also jesus was way after the dinos,m and all of them big lizzards were dead by the time of moses.

and thats all i have to say about that.

posted on August 16th, 2007, 9:18 pm

What I was saying is not that I think there where dinosaur's on the ark, I thinks its as loony a concept as you. But their is  a museum that thinks there was thats what I true. More so the museum thinks people rode the dinosaur's like horses.

well EWM im not shure if anny one has said this but their is one slight problem with what you said.

Jesus was not around at the time of the dinos.

my aunt (in her stupidity) asked a while ago "now tell me which came first, Jesus, or the dinos?"
to witch we replyed,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, and then told her to think.
also jesus was way after the dinos,m and all of them big lizzards were dead by the time of moses.

and thats all i have to say about that.

posted on October 19th, 2007, 12:13 pm

Well I think we can all safely say that there were no dinosaurs on the ark. It's even questionable whether there was an ark. The most we can say is that there are stories of a large flood across many ancient civilisations, which is hardly a shocking idea, and does nothing to validate religion or scripture.

Frankly, any Biblical-literalist would be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to claim that any dinos were on any ark. It's greatly debatable that Noah would be able to collect at least a pair of every species anyway. And its utterly absurd to expect lions and bears to obey his command and then not eat all the other animals on the ark (believe me, the list goes on if anybody cares to debate this). In all honesty I've not heard much from creationists about Noah's ark, never mind the dino thing. 

Personally I got the point of EWM's cartoons right from the beginning. Of course Jesus wasn't around at the time of the flood, but that does not matter with regards to the joke. And if there is a museum (probably in the USA) that is claiming the dino thing, that's seriously worrying because common sense is bein attacked here. When the fundamentalist Christians try to promote the easily debunked ideas, there's nothing we can do about it because there's no getting through to them. It's like talking to a brick wall. I get bored trying to convince these guys that the Genesis account requires subsequent rapid evolution, etc, etc, etc... 

[br]Posted on: August 16, 2007, 10:42:22 pm

---

Just found a good sum-up article about Noah's flood. As any thinking person can see, to believe the literal Genesis accountof this is to defy reason to a shocking extreme:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=390

Yes yes of course, some of you religious folk will say, "you're not meant to interpret it literally, it's only a story." Well if that's the case then what is it's value? How did you decide to centre your life around a fictional book? If the "entire" bible is "inspired of God and beneficial" (2 Tim 3:16), then at best God tells campfire stories, and at worst he is a liar. Your final argument may be that the bible is only a moral guide. This claim is even more shocking than the rest, and deserves an entire thread of its own. Suffice it to say, the bible is anything but a moral guide. Either way, it is my strongest conviction that only unthinking people can possibly base their life on a foundation of nothing. Comments, questions welcome as usual.