Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/27/03 09:46 PM, Kev_Dawg wrote: One theory I've always had is that Chaos is the reigning power over the universe. And by Chaos, I mean absolutely ANYTHING is possible at ANY second.:

Are you talking about chaos as in disorder? As to "anything is possible at any second" physicists will disagree. There are fundamental laws of the universe that govern the way objects both micro[atomic ?] and macroscopic behave.

(BTW: I think that the Big Bang was a massive discharge of energy, light, heat, electricity, and when the energy had to settle down, it formed into mass.:

1)Energy is a concept, not a physical entity.
2)Heat is not energy, it is an energy *transfer*
3)There is no such thing as electricity, for it is catch all phrase...do you mean electrical "energy", electrical charge, electric current, electric field, electromagnetism etc...

:And Chaos got them to collide in such a way that they formed the first strand of DNA:

Over simplfication. Again, there are rules and laws that govern the way amino acids can "come together." The concept that it is absolute randomness is a misnomer.

God or atheist,uhmm good topic.i like it!
God is created.He's make him self stupid.He's make this world would like he's wont.He's try to explain to his created,but there is only undercreated by he's owner.I mean his created only a creation.

At 1/26/03 08:19 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 1/25/03 06:50 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: Also there is proof of the great flood and the parting of the red sea. Nasa even proved the bible. Something about an equation about the sun. They checked the bible and it worked. The odds of coincidence are astronomical.

1)There is no proof of a "great flood"
2)There is no proof for the parting of the Red Sea.
3)NASA proving the Bible? No. Perhaps you are talking about the mythical "missing day" which have never been proven either.

Sorry buddy, but NASA did prove everything. No one is impressed by your come back statement. Why dont you go learn first so when you try to sound inteligent you actually will be.

At 1/28/03 02:42 PM, basher13 wrote: God or atheist,uhmm good topic.i like it!
God is created.He's make him self stupid.He's make this world would like he's wont.He's try to explain to his created,but there is only undercreated by he's owner.I mean his created only a creation.

Allow me to say what every human who has read your satement is thinking.... "Huh"?

At 1/27/03 10:00 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 1/27/03 09:46 PM, Kev_Dawg wrote: One theory I've always had is that Chaos is the reigning power over the universe. And by Chaos, I mean absolutely ANYTHING is possible at ANY second.:

Are you talking about chaos as in disorder? As to "anything is possible at any second" physicists will disagree. There are fundamental laws of the universe that govern the way objects both micro[atomic ?] and macroscopic behave.

(BTW: I think that the Big Bang was a massive discharge of energy, light, heat, electricity, and when the energy had to settle down, it formed into mass.:

1)Energy is a concept, not a physical entity.
2)Heat is not energy, it is an energy *transfer*
3)There is no such thing as electricity, for it is catch all phrase...do you mean electrical "energy", electrical charge, electric current, electric field, electromagnetism etc...

And Chaos got them to collide in such a way that they formed the first strand of DNA:

Over simplfication. Again, there are rules and laws that govern the way amino acids can "come together." The concept that it is absolute randomness is a misnomer.

How about this, Imagine there a billions of pieces of Billions of different types of watches just flying, bouncing and crashing into each other. Now you ware walking along looking at this and at your feat is a perfectly assembled watch. What are the odds that all those pieces flew together to form that watch or that some one put it there?

At 1/28/03 05:24 PM, Sirterox wrote:

Sorry buddy, but NASA did prove everything. No one is impressed by your come back statement. Why dont you go learn first so when you try to sound inteligent you actually will be. :

BZZZZZZZZZ. Wrong. NASA has proven exactly what? If it is the "missing day" nonsense, this is an old boring urban legend. I believe the Bible mentions that the earth stood still for one day...or similar to that effect. Fundies have tried many different stories to help prove the missing day, and now they say a NASA computer actually calculated it. If you have some proof that helps to support this conclusion or for that matter, what ever the hell you say NASA has proven...I am all ears "buddy."

At 1/28/03 05:30 PM, Sirterox wrote:

How about this, Imagine there a billions of pieces of Billions of different types of watches just flying, bouncing and crashing into each other. Now you ware walking along looking at this and at your feat is a perfectly assembled watch. What are the odds that all those pieces flew together to form that watch or that some one put it there? :

*POINTS AND LAUGHS AT SIRTEROX* ahhh ha ha ha. Comon dude, lay off that silly fundy schtick. The Argument from Design is so passe Sirterox. The Fundamental problems of the analogy of the watch and its maker are:

1)The watchmaker obviously makes his watch from PRE EXISTING materials, whereas God is said to have created the universe from nothing. Two funamentally different ways to create. Therefore, the analogy is weak.

2)I find a calculator at my feat. Using your silly argument, there must be a creator for that calculator. But the calculator is nothing like the watch, so lo and behold, we have a second creator and thus...ad infintum.

3)In the first part of the watchmaker argument it implies that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and represents the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, it assumes that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order..thus the watch. Therefore, the Watchmaker analogy is internally inconsistent.

What's next? Pascal's Wager?

Evolution??? Then explain how the universe got formed

At 1/28/03 06:18 PM, WolfSoldier wrote: Evolution??? Then explain how the universe got formed:

Big bang is thought to have started it all, and the lovely forces of nature then took over after millions of years later.

Claim: NASA scientists discovered a "missing" day in time that corresponds to Biblical accounts of the sun's standing still in the sky.
Status: False.
From Snopes.com at http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm

"As the very entity of being stroke down to the earth, no man dared question the truthfullnes of his existence, and all knew the truth. The truth that infinity was another word for the universe, and nothingness did not exist in this world, for all would infinitely live in this paradise." Why is the connection made between religion and creation of all? In the country I was born, everyone knows that he exists, and doesn't need to philosophise why, he only does it if he's drunk or bored out of his mind. Of course, people are drunk 50% of the time there. There, the only reason for religion to exist is to make fun of it. Do you blame me for being atheist? I believe in the m-theory, which is a spin-off of the string theory. Know about it?

At 1/29/03 02:12 PM, clownfish wrote: I believe in the m-theory, which is a spin-off of the string theory. Know about it?

Believe in the M-theory? Scientists does not "believe" in their theories. And I do not know much about it, besides if it is a spin off of the Super String theory, then it is not generally acknowledged since the SST itself is still considered fringe science.

I don't know another term to use for a theory such as the m-theory that can never be proven than to "believe". The string theory evolved into the m-theory in a few phases. If you know a bit about quantum physics and want to know anout the m-theory, here's a link:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
Well anyway, maybe you're right about believing in a theory, but I can't seem

At 1/28/03 06:12 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 1/28/03 05:30 PM, Sirterox wrote:

How about this, Imagine there a billions of pieces of Billions of different types of watches just flying, bouncing and crashing into each other. Now you ware walking along looking at this and at your feat is a perfectly assembled watch. What are the odds that all those pieces flew together to form that watch or that some one put it there? :

*POINTS AND LAUGHS AT SIRTEROX* ahhh ha ha ha. Comon dude, lay off that silly fundy schtick. The Argument from Design is so passe Sirterox. The Fundamental problems of the analogy of the watch and its maker are:

1)The watchmaker obviously makes his watch from PRE EXISTING materials, whereas God is said to have created the universe from nothing. Two funamentally different ways to create. Therefore, the analogy is weak.

2)I find a calculator at my feat. Using your silly argument, there must be a creator for that calculator. But the calculator is nothing like the watch, so lo and behold, we have a second creator and thus...ad infintum.

3)In the first part of the watchmaker argument it implies that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and represents the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, it assumes that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order..thus the watch. Therefore, the Watchmaker analogy is internally inconsistent.

What's next? Pascal's Wager?

Alakazam.....First things first, get a new name you pokemon fetish freak. Second, the clock analagy was to prove the big bang as inacurate. Idiot. Second, what the hell is it with you and having the topic dealing with the time jesus was born??? The clock pieces analagy was stated not to long ago. Obviously long enough for clocks to have been invented. Lemme break it down for the intellectually impaired; It is to say that if the odds of a bunch of pieces of clock forming a new clock on their own then what are the odd that an infinate ammount of matter suddenly happen to form DNA? The percentage of that happening is nearly unstatable because a computer has barly enough room to fit all the zeros that come after the decimal.

At 1/28/03 06:26 PM, Alakazam wrote:

At 1/28/03 06:18 PM, WolfSoldier wrote: Evolution??? Then explain how the universe got formed:

Big bang is thought to have started it all, and the lovely forces of nature then took over after millions of years later.

Ok you are an idiot. Millions of years ago Dinosaurs walked the Earth. Your big bang theory supposedly happened 50 billion years ago. The earth itself is roughly 40 billion years old and was sent into motion by a large object running into the ball of magma which is now earth. Pieces from the impact created the moon. There is absolutly NO EVIDENCE of this happening. This THEORY was just created because athiests are to afraid to belive in a God.

Since this topic is drawing towards the big bang theory i'd like to ask a question kind of relating to it. I call it a time theory.

We all know time will always move forward right? Well let's say the universe is created. You could ask what happened before that? If you found that out, you could ask what happened before that. In fact, you could keep asking that question forever. So wouldn't that mean that as time expands forwards, it also expands backwards. Opinions please!

At 1/29/03 06:06 PM, semaGdniM wrote: Since this topic is drawing towards the big bang theory i'd like to ask a question kind of relating to it. I call it a time theory.

We all know time will always move forward right? Well let's say the universe is created. You could ask what happened before that? If you found that out, you could ask what happened before that. In fact, you could keep asking that question forever. So wouldn't that mean that as time expands forwards, it also expands backwards. Opinions please!

In the Bible god says "Do not try to understand my existance or how time works, it is impossible to comprehend."

yeah but that doesn't mean you can't try. if it says don't try, it's just telling us to not think for ourselves. We can't follow blindly. Nazi Germany followed blindly. It's lack of knowledege that creates our true beast.

At 1/29/03 06:19 PM, semaGdniM wrote: yeah but that doesn't mean you can't try. if it says don't try, it's just telling us to not think for ourselves. We can't follow blindly. Nazi Germany followed blindly. It's lack of knowledege that creates our true beast.

You can try but every single man who did either never found out or went insane. Most went insane because most were philosophers in the Constantinople age.

But free thought means so much. Since the beginning of time, people have always faced the fearful question of who they are and were they are going. That's why we look towards the government and religious figures. Because they give us some sort of answer to that question. But it comes with rules and regulations and in truth, they don't always know what's best for all indviduals. That is why we need to think for ourselves and keep our minds in an open and ready state in order to see this world for what it is truly worth.

At 1/29/03 06:00 PM, Sirterox wrote:

Second, the clock analagy was to prove the big bang as inacurate. :

Oh it did? You are using the tired old boring "Argument from Design" to prove the Big Bang wrong? You failed as I pointed out why your watchmaker analogy of the AfD was wrong.

what are the odd that an infinate ammount of matter suddenly happen to form DNA? :

Misnomer. I would speak to a biologist if I were you Sirterox, you boob. No biologist [one with serious credentials] will tell you that amino acids simply came together by utter chance. If you know your chemistry, there are only certain ways amino acids [20, if I am correct] can "connect" together and form life. 20 building blocks, over a 3~4 billion years...sounds to me it to be plausible.

Ya boob.

The percentage of that happening is nearly unstatable because a computer has barly enough room to fit all the zeros that come after the decimal. :

At 1/29/03 06:03 PM, Sirterox wrote:

Your big bang theory supposedly happened 50 billion years ago. :

15 billion years ago, ya boob.

The earth itself is roughly 40 billion years old :

4 billion years old. You are off by a magnitude of 10, ya boob.

and was sent into motion by a large object running into the ball of magma which is now earth. Pieces from the impact created the moon. There is absolutly NO EVIDENCE of this happening. This THEORY was just created because athiests are to afraid to belive in a God. :

I beleive the thought[which is a word that you do not understand, let alone science] that an asteriod collided with the earth during its formation is a competing theory for the formation of the moon. As to evidence, I would have to point you in the direction of the compostion of the moon itself. Be that as it may....

I am not afraid of god, for god is a creation of man. A good one too, but a little bit passe.

I'm agnostic.... to say you know that god doens't exist is just as assuming as saying you know he does. nobody can know! the best thing to do is just wait till you die. don't waist your life trying to figure it out when that is what you will find out at the end..or maybe you won't...who knows!

Is it just me, or does it seem that the millions of watch pieces randomly falling into place theory still seem a little more realistic than the "Big Imaginary Friend in the Sky Who Built a Watch and Put It at Your Feet" theory?

Hooray.

I know, that given infinite time, I can make a watch come together if I put zillions and zillions of parts in an infinitely large box and shake it up.

I don't know that a big invisible, supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing figure will just *poof* make my ass a watch.

Besides, if "God" is all-powerful, and can do anything, can he make something better than himself? Can he make a rock that he can't pick up? If not, wouldn't his power be limited?

If "God" is all-knowing, does he know what you're going to do, before you do it? If he does, then you don't have free will. There's no "test" or whatever the fuck this sick little experiment of "God's" is.

Get it? It's destiny, then. Or Calvinsm. (The belief that all people born are predetermined to either be doomed to Hell, or accepted to Heaven, no matter what their transgressions in life.)

So, if "God" isn't omnipotent, the Bible lies. And if "God" is omniscient, the Bible lies, because mankind doesn't have free will. If "God" isn't omniscient, then the Bible lies AGAIN.

One more thing, just for curiosity of this silly little superstition called organized religion-

Why is there so much evil in the world? Does "God" hate us? If "God" loves all, why must innocents suffer so? If "God" doesn't want us to suffer, and yet we do, then is "God" incompetent?

The Bible is full of fallacies. Whether or not there's fact in some of the historical events, it really has no way of being true to the point of the "Big Invisible Man in the Sky" theory.

Now, anyone else have anything they wish to say about the "Truth" of the Bible?

-Please.

On my opinion, what people call "God" is the physical term "Energy", which was not understood 5000 or more years ago, and that what created religion.

And for the question of "What created this world?" - my answer is that this universe is primal, always have and will always be.

Oh, and I consider myself as an Atheist.

Alakazam: keep your arguments to the facts, theories, and statements, and stop calling people "boob". Insulting people don't give credence to your arguments; don't be an ass.

At 1/30/03 09:30 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Alakazam: keep your arguments to the facts, theories, and statements, and stop calling people "boob". Insulting people don't give credence to your arguments; don't be an ass.

Ha. I will call Sirterox a boob, because he is a giant boob. Calling Sirterox a boob is not an ad hominem logical fallacy as my "insults" do not invalidate the facts that I have handed him. And BTW, even *if* I am an ass, this still does not invalidate my arguments.

But I guess it is OK for Sirterox to run around on the BBS calling people idiots and morons huh?

Doublestandards, and PCism run amuck.

No, it's not OK for that either.

The best way to show a flaw in a person's argument is to attack the agument with opposing facts or theories. The best way to show a flaw in your argument is to attack the other person.

I'm tired of all the personal attacks, and other people are too... not just yours, but in general. This is not the General Forum.

Come on, Sirterox is a big ass and we all know it. You don't have to say he is a boob or anything like that, but I think the mod should be a bit stricter about the claims he makes about there being "evidence" and such. Also, according to Freakapotamus I am allowed to call someone "gay" if you don't use it too much, so: Sirterox is gay!!!!!!!!! There, that should do. Now can we lay of the personal issues and go on with the topic?

Well... In theory I never want to see people calling other people gay or fag, but I'll let it slide this time. I can't delete a post everytime someone calls someone gay.