Silly Question

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

First of all, you can't prove that we walked like you say we did,

You can show we evolved from monkey like ancestors a lot better and easier than you can show we didn't.

There is a difference between something not being proved, and you rejecting that proof.

If you wish to believe we were all spontaniously created a few thousands years ago thats fine, but I wonder how you reconcile the fact that if this is true God must have also spontainoiusly created a whole load of dead fossils to make it look like we evolved slowly over hundreds of thousands of years.

babyvaio wrote:

I hope that makes sense, if you, I'll clarify it for you. But to make is sure, even you base your evolution belief on certain knowledge, right? Or no?

The theory of evolution is entirely based on knowledge. Thats the point.

babyvaio wrote:

So are you only guessing all the stuff about evolution or you do actually have the required knowledge?

We have the required knowledge, for most of it.

Some bits science doesn't know how they work, but for most of it we do.

babyvaio wrote:

If the first, then you making a nonsense statements, if the second, then you have a faith (non necessarily the correct one).

No, we have knowledge, as you just spend the last 3 paragraphs explaining.

Faith is belief without knowledge, based on a feeling. Feelings can, and a lot of the time are, wrong

Theory is belief with knowledge, based on evidence. Evidence, or interpritation of evidence, can be wrong but when examined under scientific methods this is a lot less likely than a feeling being wrong.

This is why much more weight is put in scientific theories than feelings on subjects some people may have.

Evolution is not faith, it is a theory.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

You can show we evolved from monkey like ancestors a lot better and easier than you can show we didn't.

Let's say for a moment we agree on chimp to human theory.

Now, what happened to universe? It evolved from a chimp-universe or?
And chimp-universe evolved from chimp-chimp-universe? BTW, I'm using the word chimp so that we all understand I mean the evolved universe.

Now, let's go further.

Universe came out of nothing, didn't it? Or it was created out of nothing? Or it evolved our of nothing? Then came out = created = evolved.

So I'm asking you - are you saying that universe evolved or? If so, evolved from what exactly? Or you mean, it was there in the infinite past?
If so, how can you disprove the already confirmed big-bang theory?

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

Hey Asia man, long time no see!

Indeed it is my man, just trying not to get Brian too mad at me:). I am also happy to see you are still going strong and stirring up such great debates, just do me a favor and stay away from creationism. As you can see a Hundred plus posts on the creation thread and we are still getting nowhere with our Genesis friends.

That doesn't prove anything except that they disbelieved in the Bible or the Church (probably because they found numerous contradictions in the Bible and probably because they weren't happy with the official church . Why don't you ask them to give you the reasons?

Why, I am an Atheist, I know the reasons myself, I did used to be a Catholic so I do think I can see both sides.

As to evolution and proof, I will leave you in the good hands of my peers here, Wicknight, Scofflaw, Robindch and the Atheist to enlighten you on this one:) I will only but-in if I think I have something meaningful to say.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

I had to open a new thread but not on this sub-forum, but here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51778480#post51778480

Now I know you might not agree with it, but just be an open glass for a few minutes and think about what you read (in other words get rid of your evolution prejudices - if you can that is....)

Its kinda hard to take the discussion with you seriously when you over load the discussion with your own predudices.

"For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position. Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them."

I am a disbeliever and I can assure you my purpose in life is not to collect and amass great wealth or power. I don't over indulge in eating or drinking and I don't take drugs. I would love to over indulge in sex but that one seems a bit beyond my control at the moment.

Your argument is flawed because you assume two things

1 - There must be a meaning to life.

2 - Any meaning to life that is different to yours is by default negative.

My position is that there is no universal meaning to life, there is no meaning beyond what we make ourselves.

The purpose I have assigned myself in life is to be happy in my skin, to attempt to make others happy, to provide for myself and (in the future) my family, and in the wider scheme of things, to help my fellow man. Friends and family are very important to me, as is love and companionship.

I am also an atheist, how has no belief in, or (more importantly) fear of, gods.

If you only view those who do not accept your particular outlook in life as petty selfish hedonistic egotistical meglomaniacs how do you expect to have a serious converstion with them. People don't assume you are a religous nut case do they?

Rev Hellfire

The universe can not have evolved since it is not a living entity. Clearly you do not understand the basic principles of evolution.

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

Your argument is flawed because you assume two things

1 - There must be a meaning to life.

2 - Any meaning to life that is different to yours is by default negative.

1 - Correct

2 - Correct (BTW but it's not my meaning, just to make sure that you don't get me wrong, did you see MY SIGNATURE on that link or?)

Wicknight wrote:

If you only view those who do not accept your particular outlook in life as petty selfish hedonistic egotistical meglomaniacs how do you expect to have a serious converstion with them. People don't assume you are a religous nut case do they?

You said that, not me. Right?

babyvaio

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The universe can not have evolved since it is not a living entity. Clearly you do not understand the basic principles of evolution.

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

Rev Hellfire

You are a troll I am right aren't I.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Now, what happened to universe? It evolved from a chimp-universe or?

Ok, do you actually understand what the theory of evolution is?

Evolution is the gradual adaptation of a series of replicating entities to the challanges of their enviornment, through replication errors (in the case of life this is mutation) and natural selection based on fitness to face said challanges.

Evolution applies to life forms on Earth. Thats about the limit of it. The principles of evolution can be applied to other things, such as genetic programming. But the universe didn't "evolve". Neither did the Earth "evolve"

babyvaio wrote:

Universe came out of nothing, didn't it?

I have no idea what the universe "came out of". No one does.

babyvaio wrote:

Or it evolved our of nothing?

The universe didn't evolve.

babyvaio wrote:

So I'm asking you - are you saying that universe evolved or?

No.

The principle of evolution doesn't apply to the universe, as we understand it.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

God I hope you are a troll, otherwise it is a pretty damning mark on the standard of science education in public schools ... :rolleyes:

The universe is not a life form. For a start it doesn't replicate itself. It also doesn't consume matter for the process of growth or energy. It doesn't responde to stimuli, nor does it show any form of structured organisation.

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

1 - Correct
2 - Correct

So, as I said, your (or the argument you posted to) is deeply flawed.

babyvaio wrote:

(BTW but it's not my meaning, just to make sure that you don't get me wrong, did you see MY SIGNATURE on that link or?)

If you don't agree with the article why did you link to it and tell everyone to go read it ....

I'm begingin to think you are a troll. Where is the mods when you need one

Asiaprod

babyvaio wrote:

It's not alive? How on earth do you know that? Can you prove what you've just said? Hmmm....

Lets turn this the other way round, so you are telling us the earth is alive. Can you prove to us it is alive? What does being alive mean to you?

MooseJam

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It all depends on how you interpret the bible.
The mainstream Christian churches for example the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches both accept the principles of evolution and current scientific thinking.

cheers for the link, I will check it out, your post is the most informative having flicked through all replies, I didn't know the mainstream churches accepted evolution, I assume their idea, never having looked into it more, is that God knew the result of evolution would be us, he knew when he planted the seed so to speak that it would result in humankind, well why did he plant the seed , why not skip the trailers and get to the main event, why not just make US.

Dades

MooseJam wrote:

why not just make US.

For a moment I thought you'd said "why not just make the US". :eek:

Of course some would argue he did...

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

cheers for the link, I will check it out, your post is the most informative having flicked through all replies, I didn't know the mainstream churches accepted evolution, I assume their idea, never having looked into it more, is that God knew the result of evolution would be us, he knew when he planted the seed so to speak that it would result in humankind, well why did he plant the seed , why not skip the trailers and get to the main event, why not just make US.

Oh good. It is the more interesting question, then. The YEC position is really quite dull, and already has a thread. Well, more of a rope, at this stage...

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Sorry guys, I don't have to prove anything - you have to prove the evolution theory though

BTW Good luck with that!

Zombrex

babyvaio wrote:

Sorry guys, I don't have to prove anything - you have to prove the evolution theory though

BTW Good luck with that!

It has already been proven. Quite well infact. The neo-darwin theory of evolution is one of the most accepted and well established theories in modern biology. In fact the vast majority of modern biology is based on it, and would work if it wasn't true.

Your turn. Prove life has purpose, and that there is a God ..... its ok, take your time, no rush ... :rolleyes:

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

The universe is not a life form. For a start it doesn't replicate itself. It also doesn't consume matter for the process of growth or energy. It doesn't responde to stimuli, nor does it show any form of structured organisation.

How, just how do you know that it doesn't replicate? Are you standing on its boundaries so you can say that?

Wouldn't you say that start, galaxies, cluster, etc. are being replicated? No, you probably wouldn't. Me neither 'cos it's not important to know.

It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized? Isn't it? Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet. Wouldn't you call that a perfect organisation? BTW you yourself used these words any form if structured organisation, now don't blame me.

BTW universe is growing, expanding, that's a well known scientific fact. Or maybe it isn't? Well maybe not on Earth, maybe on there are scientists on MArs that have different proofs....:rolleyes:

babyvaio

Wicknight wrote:

It has already been proven. Quite well infact. The neo-darwin theory of evolution is one of the most accepted and well established theories in modern biology. In fact the vast majority of modern biology is based on it, and would work if it wasn't true.

Your turn. Prove life has purpose, and that there is a God ..... its ok, take your time, no rush ... :rolleyes:

Would you be able to see someone's footprints in the desert or in your own garden? Well if did, you would most probably conclude that someone was in your garden or no?

Now look up in the sky and imagine for a second that all those zillions of clusters of galaxies are somebody's footprints (not literally of course).

Are you saying you would believe that someone left his footprints or shoe trails in your garden but you wouldn't believe that somebody must have done something to make this universe appear with all the stars, etc.?? Hmmm...

BTW, I didn't get you on the big bang theory - you don't believe that it happened that way or? :eek:

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

1) This scientific evolution, no matter how many zillion years it may continue (probably not more than till a moment when our Sun dies anyway), still cannot explain the basic and yet very important questions mentioned in 2).

Why not? Go back in time and people couldn't explain many things in nature, thunderstorms, tides the movement of the heavens etc and ascribed their actions to god(s). We may never understand everything(not in our current form*), but at least science makes the attempt to try.

2) Well that scientific suggestion is pure rubbish. Obviously, science cannot explain why we were born and why we have to die (what's the meaning of all this, what's the meaning of life)?

As was pointed out to you yes it can, from a purely scientific point of view. After that sprituality is up to the individual IMHO.

Anybody escaped death? I don't think so. Anybody would love to escape death? Oh yes, they would, a lot of them.

Not yet, but it's not out of the realms of possiblity to increase lifespan massively. We've done it with many animals(fruit flys, nematodes etc). It's a bit of a scale up, but not impossible. In fact we cheat death al the time nowadays. Things that would have killed people 50yrs ago don't now.

Rich, famous, etc. they don't wana leave all the shiny stuff behind.

Equally the poor hardly want to leave anything behind either by dying.

Well if there is no good reason behind all this, then why are we bothered to spend our time talking like a bunch of grannies? Obviously, we're just wasting time.

Maybe talking like grannies(?) is the purpose. Maybe you're wasting time living, most wouldn't agree, religious or not. Sounds too much like a death cult vibe for my liking.

Of course there is a reason behind all this, a big one, however your incapability to find one is making you say what you say.

Why would a God give someone that incapability to understand the truth? Makes no sense. It sounds awfully arbitary and cruel if true.

You wouldn't understand anyway cos you're an atheist.

Brilliant logic there and rude to boot. I wouldn't accuse you over not knowing because you're a theist. I will debate you but wouldn't assume your ignorance, even with a comment like that.

BTW Please don't tell me that mind/intellect/intelligence evolved?/First of all, you can't prove that we walked like you say we did/
So are you only guessing all the stuff about evolution or you do actually have the required knowledge?

I'm not being funny here, but please take advice from this agnostic here. Read more books. Open your mind. Believe it or not it won't stop you believing. It may help. Any faith corrupted by knowledge isn't worthy of the name. All religious texts tell their followers to aquire knowledge(especially your own BTW).

then you have a faith (non necessarily the correct one)

That's the dangerous view right there, no matter the source.

Wicknight wrote:

Its kinda hard to take the discussion with you seriously when you over load the discussion with your own predudices......

Good post. Especially the fear of Gods bit. Fear based systems of control can be the most damaging.

God I hope you are a troll, otherwise it is a pretty damning mark on the standard of science education in public schools

Maybe not. I've personally met this kind of view, from all backgrounds(usually "educated" funny enough) more often than is comfortable.

* We may in the future become more than we are now, either through natural evolution or more likely through evolving ourselves artificially. Who knows.

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

How, just how do you know that it doesn't replicate? Are you standing on its boundaries so you can say that?

Funny enough I would have supprted you in some way in suggesting that the earth was "alive" in some way. Living system anyway, Gaia and all that, but replicate????

Me neither 'cos it's not important to know.

That's the scariest line I've seen in a long time.

It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized? Isn't it? Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet. Wouldn't you call that a perfect organisation? BTW you yourself used these words any form if structured organisation, now don't blame me.

And if it was none of the above we wouldn't be here commenting on it. So what?

Are you saying you would believe that someone left his footprints or shoe trails in your garden but you wouldn't believe that somebody must have done something to make this universe appear with all the stars, etc.?? Hmmm...

Why somebody? Why not a bunch of somebodies? One day we may be able to create universes ourselves(which may make the universe alive as it would reproduce). The maths/physics is getting there, the problem is the energy needed. It's not that impossible though. 2000 yrs ago you would be laughed at if you suggested men would walk on the moon(some muppets still think we didn't).

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Funny enough I would have supprted you in some way in suggesting that the earth was "alive" in some way. Living system anyway, Gaia and all that, but replicate????

That's the scariest line I've seen in a long time.

I didn't mean EARTH I meant UNIVERSE of course (when I was talking about REPLICATION).

Read more carefully.

Wibbs

Sheesh calm yourself. We're just talking here.

babyvaio

Wibbs wrote:

Why somebody? Why not a bunch of somebodies? One day we may be able to create universes ourselves(which may make the universe alive as it would reproduce). The maths/physics is getting there, the problem is the energy needed. It's not that impossible though. 2000 yrs ago you would be laughed at if you suggested men would walk on the moon(some muppets still think we didn't).

As you're being laughed @ now.

Anyway, you're right: why not more somebodies, or just one somebody.
Of course it's up to your view, however you can't deny that somebody or bunch or somebodies left this universe behind, in other words created it, right, or wrong?

Wibbs

babyvaio wrote:

As you're being laughed @ now.

Sorry to repeat myself but read more books or google newer theories of physics(branes etc).

Anyway, you're right: why not more somebodies, or just one somebody.
Of course it's up to your view, however you can't deny that somebody or bunch or somebodies left this universe behind, in other words created it, right, or wrong?

Wrong. While our universe had a "beginning" it could be a cyclical thing that has no "beginning" or "end". I parenthesise those words because there was no "before" the universe as time didn't exist. It came into existence with the universe. There could be an infinity of universi(?).

MooseJam

babyvaio wrote:

It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized? Isn't it? Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet. Wouldn't you call that a perfect organisation? BTW you yourself used these words any form if structured organisation, now don't blame me.

there is a name for the kind of argument you are making, forgive me for not knowing it but i'm sure someone does. In short, you are making the argument that there is order in our solar system because you are HERE, in a totally chaotic and random universe the chances that the conditions to support life would arrize somewhere are quite high I'm sure, and we are here to prove it, while you say "look here we are, there must be order " there are literally another billion worlds where there is nought but silence and if the silence had a voice it would say there is no order, there is nothing but chance!!.

Wibbs

The anthropic principle maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It's in the area anyway.

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized? Isn't it? Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet. Wouldn't you call that a perfect organisation?

It's what's called "a happy accident". See, if it wasn't just right for life, we wouldn't be here to be (in some people's cases) amazed by the fact that it's just right for life.

Just imagine - every day you are not run down by literally millions of cars! Surely this is proof that God has singled you out for some higher purpose?

babyvaio wrote:

BTW universe is growing, expanding, that's a well known scientific fact. Or maybe it isn't? Well maybe not on Earth, maybe on there are scientists on MArs that have different proofs....:rolleyes:

Oh? "Expanding" means exactly the same as "growing", does it? An interesting idea, but one that lacks popular support or the weight of custom.

babyvaio wrote:

Would you be able to see someone's footprints in the desert or in your own garden? Well if did, you would most probably conclude that someone was in your garden or no?

Now look up in the sky and imagine for a second that all those zillions of clusters of galaxies are somebody's footprints (not literally of course).

Are you saying you would believe that someone left his footprints or shoe trails in your garden but you wouldn't believe that somebody must have done something to make this universe appear with all the stars, etc.??

That's rather confused, I think. You appear to be saying that you look out your window, imagine some footprints, and claim that God made them....stronger glasses, perhaps?

It is, after all, quite normal to assume that footprints in your garden were left by someone, but I don't look up at the Wicklow Mountains every day and go "blimey! who dropped those!?". Perhaps you do?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

babyvaio - I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked earlier:

So, your reasoning is "There is a meaning to life because I think there has to be one and the meaning is the one that I say"? Not very convincing at all...Why not have a deeper stab at answering that question, rather than just slagging me off?

babyvaio

MooseJam wrote:

there is a name for the kind of argument you are making, forgive me for not knowing it but i'm sure someone does. In short, you are making the argument that there is order in our solar system because you are HERE, in a totally chaotic and random universe the chances that the conditions to support life would arrize somewhere are quite high I'm sure, and we are here to prove it, while you say "look here we are, there must be order " there are literally another billion worlds where there is nought but silence and if the silence had a voice it would say there is no order, there is nothing but chance!!.

No, sorry, that's not what I said. I'm not saying that just because we are here, that there must an order in the universe. That is not true. There was order in the universe loooong before we showed up, wouldn't you agree? How about the law of gravity? Or any similar law? So, that's not what I meant.

Our minds concluded by observing/researching the universe that there is a perfect set of laws which do not let this universe to fall apart or to collapse within.