Who cares about the universe? It's nothing. Life is nothing. It's a bunch of BS. Screw all of you transcendentalists and naturalists. Throwing shit at each other all the time. No one ever cares about the third view anymore. You're all nothing! MUWAHAHAHAHA!
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 2631 Location: The Netherlands
Prophet Izaach wrote:
Who cares about the universe? It's nothing. Life is nothing. It's a bunch of BS. Screw all of you transcendentalists and naturalists. Throwing shit at each other all the time. No one ever cares about the third view anymore. You're all nothing! MUWAHAHAHAHA!
So what do you want to say?
_________________ ~ '' Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori ''
all u need to know is that evolution is bs, and if there was evolution.. why are there monkeys today
We went our way, and they went theirs. Ours seems to have been the better path.
and then we randomly started talking to eachother, and some started talking in different languages. No one thought much about it because it's evolution after all... they just go with the flow
sure you can believe we came from apes... but how gradual did the transformation take? I mean how far back in history is recorded to have fully evolved humans? well accordingly, we're never fully evolved, we're still apparently evolving, we're evolving into a better species, a species overrun by technology, a species that has seperated against eachother and formed wars against eachother.
sure you can believe we came from apes... but how gradual did the transformation take? I mean how far back in history is recorded to have fully evolved humans?
well, originally, another group of humanoids called the neanderthals sprouted up around 350,000 yrs ago, then humans came from africa 200,000 yrs ago, close cousins of the chimpanzee after 6.5 million yrs of evolution. earth then became messed up.
Thats why there is a theory that the big bang happpened moments after a old universe died off.
And i have wondered that. How did the first atom form ( This is where people bring religion into th atmopshere, But how did god create himself?)
The argument that my religion (Islaam) uses is that God has always existed, he isnt created neither born. He is above time, materialism, wisdom, power, emotions and everything. Compare it with a circle, it has neither a beginning nor an end
why always a circle y cant it be a triangle, rectangle, hexagon, octagon.... go point out the start and the end of a triangle....
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 9967 Location: västkustskt
blackfalcon wrote:
interesting vid dom.
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
It was the year 9000000, there was only one man and his name was verfo. Verfo was very lonely so he decided to make a universe with his super magical power, but it was a hard deccisson because Verfo knew that if he makes the universe, it would take all his energy out of him and he would have a big chance of dieing, but he knew that it was his destiny to make the universe, it was what he was made for. He was the only survivor after the massive wipe out that war made that wiped out the entire universe. Somehow Verfo survived, he wondered for years in absolute dark, he didnt know why he survived, he felt somehow hopeless and weak. Over the years Verfo learned magic powers and he grew stronger and stronger, strong enough to remake the universe. After years and years of thinking, Verfo decided that he will do it, he will make the universe even if it meant his death, but he also had no choice because it was his destiny, his fate. Woken up by his bird that he made Verfo woke up and gathered all his energy, shouted some magical words and a small circle started to form, and it was forming from himself, he was making it with his energy, the Circle got bigger and bigger, but it still wasnt big enough. Verfo was worn out, he couldnt continue, but he had too, he kep going and going till the circle took over the whole place. Verfo was floating in space smiling, he was happy because he finished what he was made for, and then his heart stopped beating and he was gone.
_________________ << banned for proof of botting. -cin >>
Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 4599 Location: Studying Computer Science, Vienna
dom wrote:
blackfalcon wrote:
interesting vid dom.
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
I consider myself perfectly sane and rational, yet I have religious beliefs. Does that make me narrow-minded and a fundamentalist?
_________________ Carry your cross, and I'll carry mine.
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
I consider myself perfectly sane and rational, yet I have religious beliefs. Does that make me narrow-minded and a fundamentalist?
No, what he meant was: There are two types of Christians.
I'll use an example with Evolution. Say a boy ask his father, "where did man come from?"
According to Dom, the rational will say evolution then say God drives evolution. Now the irrational will say Adam and Eve then say Evolution is a lie/misconception.
Then the boy ask, where did God come from? The rational will answer, well son. We don't know yet but there is an answer somewhere and when God is ready he will allow scientific inquiry to find it. The irrational will say, well son God wasn't created, God just is.
Which one will confuse the boy more?
Anyhoo, I'm atheist, I just cba to get into another Religion vs Science discussion/argument. They're annoying. Keeping the peace, don't taze me bro.
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
i do agree that god could have used the big bang to create the universe, w/ evolution though i think its all bs.. but still to think that god(or some form of higher being, whatever u want to believe) doesnt exist at all and that everything in the universe being almost perfectly balanced is just a coincidence is just stupid imo. no offense to u or anyone who doesnt believe in god, once again this is just my opinion.
ot: no one could ever explain how the universe was created because no one can explain how something formed out of nothing(whether it was god or the big bang). so until we can comprehend that, theres always going to be the agrument between god and science.
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
i do agree that god could have used the big bang to create the universe, w/ evolution though i think its all bs.. but still to think that god(or some form of higher being, whatever u want to believe) doesnt exist at all and that everything in the universe being almost perfectly balanced is just a coincidence is just stupid imo. no offense to u or anyone who doesnt believe in god, once again this is just my opinion.
You think the big bang happened and evolution didn't there is enough evidence of evolution to say it has happened for sure but not for the big bang lol. Most people who don't accept evolution simply don't know how it works, this video will explain it very well.
There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
Respectfully, dom - you just haven't lived long enough. I was taught the Theory of Recapitulation, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Nice theory (yeah, for 1866). I was taught that the atom was the smallest part of matter, and hence indivisible. Taught later that electrons took paths similar to planetary motions within the atom (some are still being taught this - look at the pics in school books).
We had a thread going about 'misconceptions of science' here a little while ago and I could go on and on but that's not really my point. What you seem to be in the habit of doing is reducing complex things into bifurcations and then demanding that any person who doesn't agree with you is uneducated, lacks credibility and / or ignorant or in the above case not 'sane'. Speaking as a Fundamentalist (but not the usual kind) may I ask what you mean by 'sane'? The legal definition of 'sane' is having the capacity to determine right from wrong.
There are two very disturbing problems currently understood about the theory known as Big Bang. The first is that we cannot account for the predicted amount of mass in the universe¹. There is a shortfall. We've looked, but cannot see, sought but cannot find, we've knocked but that door remains closed. Some scientists say that 80% of the expected mass of the universe cannot be accounted for. The other problem is that the big bang theory also predicts a fairly uniform dispertion of matter and it fails to account for what is called the 'clumpiness' of galaxies.
IN my mind the two difficulties that are encountered are NOT the real problem; it's our habit of searching to prove ourselves correct. If scientific reasoning goes like this, "Hmmmmm..... I'm an atheist, how did matter get here if there was no God?" "Oh, it could have been an 'Event" - a "Bang". "Maybe that was it... If that were the case, what could we expect to see?" "Let's look and prove ourselves right."
As the theory progressed they added things like "The Expanding / Contracting Universe" Ooops. But instead of disregarding assumptions that helped form false conclusions - let's just 'improve' our theory, shall we?. Yeah, that's the ticket. We don't have to 'prove' we can 'improve'. We're widely accepted, aren't we? Why mess with a good thing? That's much to be preferred over admitting we were W-w-wron--g. As various cultures emerge and as we continue to gain knowledge it is vital we pay attention. Read Converging Technologies - Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies In Society for more information.
Super Massive Black Holes are presenting disturbing problems as well. Black holes aren't just Super Novas anymore. We had the lifecycle of matter locked down pretty tight there (for a while) and it was a pretty ending - Stars blowing up and Black Holes forming - the vacuum cleaners of space might even hold promise of worm holes and timetravel! A Science FICTION wet dream. The problem is that there are direct correlations between the SMBH and the total mass of the galaxies it's in. Questions like, "How did the black hole know?" suggest that they were formed either prior to or concurrent with the formation of their home galaxy. Look to 2009 for more information about Dark Mater and Dark Energy (I've been saying this for a couple years now). It's really nice to be able to have an Invisible Force that Cannot Be Proven that is responsible for Creation of all Matter. Especially if that Invisible Force that Cannot Be Proven that is Responsible somehow "knows" things like the mass of the Galaxy, isn't it?
No, dom - things cannot be reduced to an bifurcation model, an either / or form of simplicity (except maybe for you) for the sake of 'advancement' of knowledge. For me, the choice of having a Invisible Force WHO cannot be Proven but who according to my Lord Jesus, takes delight in showing the wise of the world to be fools is more credible than putting my faith in the plasma condensed model that their condescending followers purport as their new god.
Dark Matter should be able to resolve part of the problem regarding the total mass of the universe and if it could also be responsible for a 'gravitational lens' it could also help to explain the 'clumpiness' of galaxies. I imagine that next year we will hear more about this (and other things) but for any 'proof' to be advanced we will again need to wait for a new form of math to be accepted.
Cordially, Granps
By the way, sir, I wouldn't normally 'take my gloves' off and argue like this except for the fact that I respect you. I expect that you will say (as you have before), "I can't be bothered to type out a reply especially on a game forum," but that's okay. I don't blame you.
___________________________ FOOTNOTES ¹ Links to confirm available upon request
You don't know, Barotix? I gave you more credit than that. Was it deserved?
They were wrong when in 1866 they said essentially that the stages of evolution from single cell to human is duplicated during pregnancy. Ontogeny (the development or developmental history of an individual organism) does not recapitulate phylogeny (the evolutionary history of a group of organisms, esp. as depicted in a family tree). Third trimester human babies are NOT simply primates, they are human. /DOH!
They were wrong when they said that the atom (from Greek atomos, indivisible) was the smallest part of matter and indivisible. /DOH! Manhattan Project. They were Big Bang Hydrogen Bomb wrong about that. /DOH!
They were wrong when they said later that electrons took orbits similar to planetary motion when they traveled inside the atom. /DOH
Barotix wrote:
/sigh; and how were they wrong, grandpa?
Now more to the point of your objection: The expanding / contracting model of the universe that was first advanced has been proven wrong because there is insufficient mass in the universe to halt the ever expanding outer parts.
They were wrong in their initial predictions of how mass would be distributed through the universe subsequent to the bang event and had to introduce a clumpiness factor (C) to represent the ratio of true cluster potential energy that the observable evidence shows.
You're question "/sigh; and how were they wrong, grandpa?" is indicative of the final real problem that I pointed to. Instead of saying, hmmmmmm... I wonder, then starting fresh it is easier to deny (or sweep to the side) the possibility of being wrong by making things more complicated.
Barotix wrote:
/sigh; and how were they wrong, grandpa?
In other words, implying that science does not have very real and very disturbing problems when attempting to explain everything and asking me to type a long discourse is easier than trying to debate your opponent, isn't it? The inference that science has never been wrong is patently absurd. WE are wrong when we see things as "us vs. them". In the search for knowledge is it every correct to disregard good ideas because of their origin? But I've given you enough to chew on, have I not? If no, kindly refer to my Previous Post (Creatio Ex Nihilo) in this thread. And be sure to read Converging Technologies - Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies In Society because I think it will be of particular interest to you, friend Barotix.
Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 6816 Location: Anything goes
Grandpa wrote:
They were wrong when they said that the atom (from Greek atomos, indivisible) was the smallest part of matter and indivisible. /DOH! Manhattan Project. They were Big Bang Hydrogen Bomb wrong about that. /DOH!
I remember having a conversation with my father about that :o lol
Grandpa wrote:
Barotix wrote:
/sigh; and how were they wrong, grandpa?
In other words, implying that science does not have very real and very disturbing problems when attempting to explain everything and asking me to type a long discourse is easier than trying to debate your opponent, isn't it? The inference that science has never been wrong is patently absurd. But I've given you enough to chew on, have I not? If no, kindly refer to my Previous Post (Creatio Ex Nihilo) in this thread.
~Granps
I definitly have to agree with grandpa
Let's call it erm, "This Life" is not made of infinitelasting truths, that's why Einstein said "Everything is relative".
Instead of regarding this as a Theist vs. Atheist debate, perhaps we can set aside our differences and strive to work together. I sound like a tree-hugger, perhaps, but the eternal argument about how things form from out of nothing isn't going to be resolved today.
Stress wrote:
dom wrote:
The religious are defeated, the big bang theory is widely accepted as there's supporting proof. There's two ways to take this as a religious person. In the case of Christian's, they can either take a more deist approach (as most religious scientists, the educated religious, and religious rationals have done); or completely ignore the proof, lose all credibility, and be a fundamentalist.
I'm an atheist now, but when I was very religious, the only way that a person can look at the proof of evolution and the big bang is to say "yes, science proves this, God must of had a role to play in this" rather than being shrewd and ignorant. As far as being religious goes, that's the only way for a rational and sane person to be.
I consider myself perfectly sane and rational, yet I have religious beliefs. Does that make me narrow-minded and a fundamentalist?
Blessed are the peacemakers. What am I to do?
I very much appreciate this forum and all the work that goes into it's moderation. Frankly I am quite surprised to find myself accepted even in small part here. There are obvious reasons (aside from age) that would argue against such acceptance. I've been removed from other groups (and yes, religious groups) because I would not stand down from my beliefs. I don't expect others to stand down from their beliefs either.
Pastor: "I'm going to have to ask you to leave now." Grandpa: "I will respect your request but there is no lawful reason for you to ask this." Pastor: "God bless you, brother Mike."
No, I wasn't excommunicated, but I came close. I am not yet 'anathama' (accursed) and hope to never be.
I've said it before but perhaps it bears repeating. Our ancestors have fought and shed blood for many things including the freedom of speech. I for one would like to continue to honor spilt blood.
~Granps
Last edited by Grandpa on Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests
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 post attachments in this forum
there is enough evidence of evolution to say it has happened for sure but not for the big bang lol. Most people who don't accept evolution simply don't know how it works, this video will explain it very well.
