825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
At 10/7/06 02:56 AM, Bajjer wrote:At 10/5/06 04:13 PM, Freemind wrote:Not to mention, you can't really prove that everything has a beginning and an end. We haven't even been able to destroy any form of matter in the universe.Everything in the physical world has a beginning and an end (life, planets, entire galaxies, they all end at some point). It is that law alone that destroys the big bang theory.
The Law of Causality does ensure that everything has a beginning because it must have had a cause. However, "end" is an artificial term and does not actually have to happen in the physical world. For example, the "end" of a human is not really the destrictuion of the human, but just a change in form and function of the human.
At 10/6/06 10:04 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/6/06 09:01 PM, Draconias wrote: No, he was intelligent because he had a unique perspective.I heard a theory that the reason Einstein was so intelligent was because his neurological system worked faster than an average humans.
His "intelligence" (it's such an ill-defined word) had nothing to do with his accomplishments and fame. A long-term infatuation with light and an insightful perspective allowed him to make his most famous advances. Faster processing wouldn't matter.
At 10/5/06 08:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: a) The impossibility that there was a "All Powerful God who created the universe and can bend its laws as he sees fit.
I agree; this is an impossibility.
b) all that matter just "Appeared"
False. It was not matter that appeared. For the first second, no matter existed at all, just energy. Then quantum particles began condensing-- both matter and anti-matter. Matter was more stable.
compressed, then the big bang (wich contradicts physics, shouldnt that dot have been the mother of all black holes?
Without mass at the start, you can't have a black hole.
then various planets forming one wich just so happens to have the perfect amount of everything
Oversimplification. Trillions upon trillions of stars, many more planetoids, and billions of years of stars dying and being reborn passed before the Earth even began to form. Even the tiniest probabilities become huge with that many chances. The Earth wasn't perfect, it just had lots of naturally-forming organic molecules.
amino acids coming together to form life (put some amino acids in a blender
We don't quite know what first formed, but it doesn't take much. Just something self-replicating. It probably only took a million years or so once the conditions were set.
and then...Evolution.
The most natural system of development possible-- if it works better, it performs better.
So you see once you assume the impossible a is much more appealing since there are variables
You can't assume the impossible. Never. No matter how appealing it is, you are lying to yourself.
b involves odds that when looked at would make even a statistics professor go "Lotto.... sure thing huh? ill buy a hundred."
Long odds don't make it impossible. Just very unlikely. Now, when you throw in an effectively infinite amount of time with a constant probability of a Big Bang any instant, eventually it will happen. The time involved will just be beyond human comprehension.
At 10/6/06 05:23 PM, IndianaJamie wrote: Our brains are not the same size as a person 500 years ago.
Actually, they are.
Albert Instein was so intellegent becuase his brain was 15% wider.
No, he was intelligent because he had a unique perspective.
At 10/6/06 01:41 PM, White-hole wrote: I still wouldnt be quick to use the word centuries. Most people would assume that you meant two or three at least instead of one and a bit.
Good point. My mind was just thinking on the wrong scale.
At 10/5/06 03:43 PM, White-hole wrote: Centuries?
First Flight at Kitty Hawk, NC: 1903
Current Year: 2006
1.03 centuries have passed, not counting all the development before that point. 1.03 is greater than 1, so the plurality can apply. It's odd logic, but accurate.
At 10/5/06 01:17 PM, Pontabellum wrote: One thing that gets me, is that supporters of the big bang can never provide a material "provision" for the big bang. What I mean to say is, they are unable to explain where the materials can from. What exploded and where did it originate from?
Actually, they do explain such things, but you simply have not learned about them. The specifics require a complex understanding of science, and scientists still aren't entirely sure if they have it right. However, they do have very strong descriptions of the most probable event.
For the laymen, it needs to stay simple: nothing turned into something because "something" and "anti-something" were created simultaneously in the same way that you can get -5 and 5 from 0.
Christians believe that God, in His infinite power and wisdom created the universe.
Who created God?
At 10/4/06 04:18 PM, White-hole wrote: You idiot, he said PROOF Your talking about evidence, also youve completly strayed off the target.
proof
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence:
At 10/4/06 01:09 PM, flamingsquirrel107 wrote: Okay, I really hate typing this out so much, but here goes.
I am not saying Evelutoin is true, and I am not saying Creatoinism is true, I am just showing somthing that disproves evelutoin as Darwin explained it.
The Giraffe disrpoves evelutoin. Why? We all know the giraffe has a long neck, right? of course,
Your logic is inaccurate. You forgot that these changes occur in slow increments, which means that the giraffe neck length can increase to the current possible limit, at which time continued natural pressures will trigger the development of things such as a larger heart, which raise the maximum limit.
This is not paradoxical, just slow, continual, and long-term. Also, an overly-large heart would not cause the immediate death you suggest. It's really not that amazing a development for something happening over possibly millions of generations.
Now if mr giraffe only got 1 of these, he would die, and if he was missing any one of these he would die. so that means that evelutoin had to pop out a fully evolved giraffe, right off the bat with
Wrong. Your claims are akin to someone looking at a jet aircraft, seeing the complexity of the engine, and declaring that "This vehicle must have been developed entirely at once beacuse it needs all of these current features to fly!" But that ignores the centuries of aircraft development that preceded the jet, simply because the observer could not understand the progression by small parts involved.
so there you have it, a giraffe couldn't have POSSIBLY evolved, he had to come out perfect, or die.
You're wrong.
At 10/4/06 05:29 PM, Peternormous wrote: Have you ever tried to have an intelligent coversation with an average teen? If you did, you'd want to punch a baby.
Have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with an average adult? They're no better than teenagers, they've just learned how to hide it.
Let's look at the successes of the adult generations: crazy dictator in North Korea threatening neighbors with nukes after the Korean War, crazy theocracy ruling Iran gaining nuclear capabilities, Islamic terrorists attacking America directly, the Middle East torn up by war, crazy dictator ruling Cuba, AIDS ravaging Africa and spreading around the world, 4 million people dead from the civil war in the Congo, and the list goes on and on.
We passed "hell in a handbasket" when WWII started.
At 10/3/06 07:12 PM, Begoner wrote:First of all, natural rights actually are defined as god-given rights.No, natural rights are a form of moral absolutism based on the premise that there is definite gauge of right and wrong that is not contingent on the philosophies of men. They do not have anything to do with God, nor do they imply that God exists.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
-- Introduction, Declaration of Independence
"The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are said to be absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation"
-- Wikipedia
Unalienable rights are god-given natural rights when considered in the context of an American civics classroom. One of the core documents of America explicitly describes god-given natural rights, therefore it is a completely valid topic in a civics class, regardless of the religion involved.
At 10/3/06 12:15 AM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/2/06 06:11 PM, Draconias wrote: Macroevolution is a fact.Yeah, Guess that's why people have seen a mudskipper turn into a reptillian. Or a reptillian turn into a bird.
You forgot scale. Macroevolution occurs in a matter of months, years, or decades for bacteria. It occurs over thousands to milliions of years for large multi-cellular organisms like reptiles.
The only difference between reptiles and bacteria is the generation timespan. Since we have observed macroevolution in bacteria, logically it can be extended to reptiles, etc. without direct observation.
First of all, natural rights actually are defined as god-given rights.
You analogy situation is worthless. It doesn't demonstrate anything even remotely accurate about any topic of contention. It is simply false.
Scrizzle, if you believe that you have any other options, such as college, do not go into the marines. If you can do something worthwhile with your mind, go for it. Even if that means joining the military as an officer, engineer, etc.
To put it bluntly, if you aren't sure, you won't make it. All of the people I know who have joined the marines (3) strongly emphasized the dedication it took to stay in the army, and they didn't particularly enjoy going to the Middle East. If you are averse to intense physical workout and life-threatening situations, don't join.
It's an honorable occupation, and a powerful life experience, but if you have any other choices you are considering, take them, for the sake of your family, friends, and future. As I said before, other military occupations are available that would make a better use of your potential. Don't waste your mind.
Did you miss the "too much popular support" part? That's democracy for you.
At 10/2/06 07:34 PM, ThePurplishOne wrote: Your never going to find solid proof of where Humanity came from. There will always be questions. Focus on now, and things we can actually find answers to.
Like how humans originated, and how the universe originated.
If you don't ask the question, you'll never find an answer. We have more than enough manpower available to ask questions we don't think will be easy to answer, and every question has an answer.
At 10/2/06 03:58 PM, emmytee wrote: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I mean, 50000 is quite a big number of accidents, would you not agree?
Nice rounding to suit your argument. 43,500 to 48,300 casualties is more accurate.
Howevering, consider the following:
Iraq contains approximately 26,075,000 citizens.
Since the beginning of the Iraq War, 3 years ago, approximately 0.185% of Iraq's population has died in the crossfire.
This count includes people killed by the enemy, who targets civilians in particular.
At 10/2/06 06:47 PM, Peter-II wrote: It depends on whether you're an advocate of phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium.
Even in punctuated equilibrium, micro- and macro-evolution are effectively idenftical. In both systems, macroevolution is simply an extension of microevolution in the same exact way that typing this post is an extension of pressing one or two keys.
At 10/2/06 06:49 PM, troubles1 wrote: The first of anything, GOD. HE HAS NO BEGINING AND NO END THE ONLY POSSIBALE ;LOGICAL EXPLAINATION.
No.
First of all, the universe can't evolve because, since it is an inanimate thing, it can not reproduce or die. It can not evolve because natural selection can not occur on a population of one non-reproducing, inanimate thing.
Second, God is not logical. Here I will attempt to trace the two logics of science and religion, respectively:
Science's Logic:
1. Humans exist
2. Humans developed from animals through slow genetic changes
3. Animals similarly developed from earlier organisms, eventually tracing to some proto-organism
4. The proto-organism formed from natural organic reactions in the ancient Earth atmosphere, which did not include oxygen (too reactive; would have prevented life)
5. The ancient Earth atmosphere formed along with the planet as our solar system coalesced from post-nova debris of another star
6. Stars have been forming from the debris of older stars, eventually tracing back to an original proto-nova of matter
7. Since, at some point, matter and energy must have derived from apparent nothingness, some event must have occurred which created something
8. Space (vacuum) is not uniform; the underlying fabric of reality is asymmetrical, which opens the possibility for a counter-balanced event
9. Matter and energy may have been created in an event that also created opposites of matter and energy. Thus, 0 = 5 + ( -5 ), and something and anti-something came from equivalence due to some asymmetical event.
10. Something/anti-something pairs are prolific in nature. Positive and negative poles for magnetic fields, positive and negative electric charge, matter and anti-matter (which annihilate to pure energy on contact), etc. This idea is plausible.
Religion's Logic:
1. Humans exist
(divergence)
2A. Humans appear extremely complex. Therefore, we must have been designed by another undefined intelligent being.
2B. Humans may have evolved from animals, tracing back to some original organism.
(divergence)
3A. Life seems amazing and unique. Therefore, it must have been first created by some undefined intelligent being.
3B. Humans may have started from whatever existed at the beginning of Earth.
4. The Earth formed from galactic dust, which traces back to some originating event.
5. Obviously, something can not come from nothing, so the universe must have been first created by some undefined intelligent being not bound by physical laws.
(The next steps, which too many forget to follow)
6. That intelligent being must trace back to an originating event if the logic is to remain consistant. Some can not come from nothing, but assuming another creator would violate monotheistic beliefs and cause an endless chain.
7. If that intelligent being "just always existed" or "just came from nothing" then the logic breaks down: if an ultra-powerful intelligent being can exist without a beginning, or can come into existance from nothing, then the universe is equally likely to have existed without a beginning and come into existance from nothing.
8. Since any event which could have created the undefined intelligent being could also have created the universe, assuming the direct creation of the universe is a simpler explanation than the creation of an omnipotent intelligence which then created the universe with intent.
9. Considering the development of religion by humans, the numerous different definitions of the previous intelligent being, and the lack of empirical evidence for the continued existance of that intelligent being, it is more likely that humans created the previous intelligent being as a concept, rather than the intelligent being creating humans as a reality.
10. Since the simplest explanation favors the non-existance of an omnipotent intelligent being, and the human fabrication of omnipotent intelligent beings has been both proven and is more likely than the reverse situation, the only logical conclusion is that no such intelligent being exists according to current human knowledge.
11. Only completely unknown and unpredicted circumstances could change this result, and all human religions must still be necessarily wrong, since they have constantly-changing definitions of the intelligent being.
That's the real logical train of thought.
At 10/2/06 05:26 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 10/2/06 02:35 PM, neoptolemus wrote: Therefore, technically speaking evolution is both fact and theory.Micro-evolution is fact, macro-evolution is as inane as Genesis' account of creation. In my opinion, though.
Macroevolution is a fact. Bacteria and diseases are a very strong example of macroevolution occurring.
For example, last century almost half a dozen moderately-dangerous animal-infecting diseases have been recorded as they evolved into epidemics of human-only bacteria.
There is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution-- the seperation is almost entirely artificial and created by the opponents of evolution so they can partially justify their own position.
At 9/27/06 08:40 PM, NorseBeast wrote: Heat is for the most part useless in a system, and disperses off into space- forever useless.
Actually, that's false. Heat is actually molecular vibration. Without matter, you can't have heat, so it is impossible for heat to "disperse into space." Where-ever heat goes, matter must be there, too. The last little bit of matter can never be converted into heat because heat must go somewhere.
In fact, as matter is slowly eliminated, the heat of the universe will be concentrated in the small amount of matter than remains. At the last, all matter and heat in the universe may be converted to light, but it will never all turn into heat. It may be a cold end-of-the-universe, but it sure'll be bright!
At 9/27/06 08:34 PM, sean5892jay wrote: Why is the earth, and it's plants so fucking perfect?
It isn't. The more you learn about the real details of how the world and universe work, the more chaotic, haphazard, and messy everything appears. The world isn't perfect.
Why does everything just magically fit together on the earth?
Volcanoes. Earthquakes. Tectonic plate collisions (mountains). Ice ages. Easily-floodable continents. Vast inhospitable deserts.
Does that sound like it just magically fits together? No.
How the fuck could we start out from 1 cell, and suddenly we all can reproduce, and think?
How does a computer goes from a single electronic switch to an AI-capable, graphical, interacting, networked supercomputer? It's all about how you put together the little pieces, and the "human schematics" took a long time to develop.
At 9/27/06 07:24 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And how does this impact life at all today?
Whether or not it's true doesn't change anything or how the universe works.
That's actually not true. How the universe formed will tell us how the universe is. Knowing how the force in an explosion was distributed tells you where the shrapnel will fall. Knowing how the universe formed will eventually tell us where we can expect to find other habitable planets, how matter is distributed throughout the entire universe, and why the universe works how it does.
Knowledge is power, and insight saves time.
At 9/25/06 09:47 PM, fasdit wrote: If CO2 and methane aren't causing the planet's climate to change then what is?
Possibilities for a planetary warming completely independent of the influence of organic life include the following:
1. Increased heat input (for the plant) due to long-term solar fluctuations
2. Increased release of heat from the inner sections of the planet either from the radioactive elements of the core, warmer currents approaching the surface, or some other unknown factor
3. Long-term shifts in planetary orbit or tilt that lead to increased or decreased amounts of heat and light received from the sun
4. Short-term climatic shifts from abnormal events such as meteor impacts or large volcanoes. However, more often than not these events cause cooling, not warming.
5. The planet may be recovering to a natural temperature state that was depressed by the last ice age and the recent little ice age for unknown reasons
At 9/25/06 09:47 PM, fasdit wrote: The graph I provided shows that temperature spikes always corelate with methane and carbon dioxide spikes. So if that is not the cause of these warm and cold cycles what is?
Fasdit, what you have failed to determine is the order of cause and effect. You have not proven that higher methane and carbon dioxide particle counts cause global warming, you have only shown that there is a correlation between warming and particle counts.
It is actually quite possible that in the past, warming caused the increase, not vice versa. For example, warmer temperatures means drier summers and hence more wild fires, a major source of carbon dioxide. Longer summers from the warmth also means a spike in plant growth, which leads to a subsequent explosion of animal populations and carbon dioxide production.
Warmer overall temperatures means higher levels of bacterial operation, which will increase overall methane production. Also, warmer temperatures may alter swamp or marsh regions, releasing methane long stored in stagnant waters. Increased flow of ocean waters from warm currents will occasionally disturb areas that contain huge methane deposits.
You need to prove that carbon dioxide and methane are actually at fault for the temperature increase, and if they are, you need to provide a plausible explanation for why there would be such a large natural spike in those particles that it altered the worldwide climate. Natural systems tend to react to the environment, not the other way around.
At 9/24/06 06:23 PM, metalhead0001 wrote: It doesn't have to take millions of years, it could take 100 years if something drastic happened.
Or 1 month if the event was drastic enough, like an odd ultra-contagious disease disease that killed everyone who doesn't have the gene which gives you twelve fingers.
At 9/24/06 01:47 PM, jmaster306 wrote: But if we WERE designed to exist in a perfect world, then why do we have an appendix? And before you claim that we weren't ever designed to be in a world with disease, that's absurd. We have an extrodinarily complicated immune system for that very reason.
Also, humans rely on a huge array of symbiotic bacteria, especially in digestion. Why would humans have systems arranged specifically to encourage those types of bacteria and eliminate others if we weren't supposed to have bacteria at all?
As a creationist I could turn around and ask why we haven't 'evolved' to possess such advantages?The evolutionist would say that those additional abilities were not necissary for our survival. Instead evolving better physical abiliites, we evolved better mental capabilities to compensate for physical shortcommings.
Actually, you're not quite right. The reason we don't have "perfect" abilities from evolution is because natural selection can only operate on what already exists and promote its prevalence. If no mutation or other situation ever produced perfect eyes that could see the entire spectrum, then evolution can't spread it to an entire species.
Additionally, evolution primarily acts on the primary influences and capabilities. For example, human eyes evolved to be good enough to see a venomous snake slithering through the grass but not ultraviolet light from the sun because that venomous snake is an immediate-death threat, while skin cancer from UV rays is an "if you live to 50+, long after you have kids" threat.
Seeing UV isn't a "benefit" because it is a long-term danger that only really threatens Urbanites who have grown up with low levels of UV exposure. The mechanism that did develop to deal with that problem is tanning, which builds up a layer of protection against UV over time.
I personally believe that religion arose from the need to control society.
I agree with you completely on that point.
Many of you fools don't seem to understand that driving skills are not actually connected to age, they are connected to experience. Many teenage drivers aren't as good because they've only been at it for a year or two. It has nothing to do with this "maturity" bullshit or anything like that, it is just inexperienced drivers getting on the road.
16 is the best age for learning to drive. Kids are still at home with parents, and have one or two years to gain experience before living on their own. We want them to learn the proper ways to drive then, and even screw up then, instead of forcing them to do all of that later, on their own.
Regardless of when people can get their licenses, there will be crappy drivers. Don't pin the blame on teenagers for the universal weakness of inexperience.
At 9/21/06 08:53 PM, Imperator wrote:However, the problem I had was that the reporter asked a question that to me basically ment "A minority of people think differently than the mass. What can we do so that this minority have the opinions that we want, the right opinion that the rest have?"If the show said "1/5 of kids believe black people are an inferior race. What can we do about this?"
Would you have a problem then?
The difference you miss is that we don't know what causes homosexuality. Research does suggest that it may be partially genetic, officially making it a genetic disease. The kids are right.
Race, on the other hand, is an issue that almost everyone has agreed has no effect on actual individuals. It has been eliminated as a comparison factor, thus making an inferior or superior race impossible.
At 9/21/06 08:44 PM, rockizzy wrote:At 9/20/06 09:08 PM, velocitom wrote: The answer to all male vs female threads.hahaha, im glad the guy who conducted the study also claims that iq goes by race and that blacks are "destined" to be criminals, while asians have higher iqs. yeah right. so much to that.
"by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs,"
Don't stick words into someone else's mouth, even if it is a nutjob. He never said anything was inevitable int he entire article, since everything was considered statistically.
However, it is true that Blacks are disproportionately involved in crime in America, even though I don't believe exactly what the guy said.
