[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
[/ QUOTE ]
Silly monkey you can't stop the game there you have to keep playing.
[not actual chat log]
Vig: But where did that matter come from?
JKMakowka: The earth came from a giant explosion.
Vig: Where did the explosion come from.
JKMakowka: Gasses and particles mixed together.
Vig: Where did the gasses and particles come from?
JKMakowka: ... not sure but don't you have a model you should be working on.
Vig: yeah...
But according to the definition of scientific positivism (postulated in the 18th century by David Hiene), Science is able to explain everything, Theology and Metaphysics are not needed anymore, they are imperfect and today redundant. Of course time is something that prevents us from reconstructing certain happenings, but we have to be able to redo them today if they are true.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know more about reality now then he did. Some things happening on the sub-atomic scale may be unobservable. I do think theology and metaphysics are worthless, and even though science is much better, it will never explain everything (as you point out, also things lost to time).
Yes. We'll have to redefine what ID means once humans are able to do it.
I think that there may have been an infinite amout of time to allow biology to arise. Given that is the case, even the smallest chance would result in life.
To be honest, ID on the macro level seems so absurb that I can hardly bare to think people believe in it. I already gave my basic argument on irreducable complexity, but I have a lot more where that came from.
Given enough time sience will explain everything, even things lost to time. Being able to explain it, even recreate it doesn't mean that God doesn't exsist. I can do some simple magic tricks but it doesn't mean the person who first came up with it didn't exsist. Yeah the smart monkeys figured out how the magician did the tricks! Can we have a cookie and a nap all that sience made my hungry and tired.
Personally I like how the big question was "answered" in Cerebus.
As mentioned above, I have to read more about entropy first. But if the point about leveling out all energy of the universe is true, then organic elements with metabolism would indeed be the only element to reverse this trend. Self-forming elements like certain crystals would not stop this, since they have a fix order once they reached their final form after an exothermal reaction.
Taking this into order, in addition to the fact that the universe itsself can't be infinite old, it was just a timeframe that allowed the forming of simple cells, thus a small chance may just as well simply pass by. And we don't even have reached evolution yet.
I do understand, that ID seems absurd to you, but that's as a matter of fact simply a point of view. I'm working on my master of law at the moment and I work with thought up systems the whole day. From my point of view, the construction of a cell looks perfectly similar to a though up system. This is not a scientific argument, but I'm not trying to prove anything here. I just want to point out the insecurities and additional possibilities.
As far as ID goes, I can think myself of 2 different models that are plausible. There is the idea of an intervention from a higher dimension into a lower dimension. According to the analogy of an intervention of the 3th dimension into the 2th dimension, such an intervention would not be traceable. You could only find the impact. And in addition, if you follow this analogy, a being from a higher dimension would be able to interfere in lower dimensions. This could perfectly well explain how purposeful mutation could take place.
Another model I can think of is the following: A universe parallel to ours, within the exact same space. Particles of this universe do not interfere with any particles we can see with our 5 senses or we can make visible with other devices. This is totally possible and a discussion among physicist. It is also possible, that there are interfering particles and thus, there is some sort of "chain translation" from one world to the other. This way it could some day be possible to possibly make particles visible that interact with particles from that world, the way we could actually find this other world. That's the big difference to the first idea. Both would explain how ID could take place.
But that's not as far as I need to go to believe in god. It just shows possibilities, we can't probe any of them.
As Vig says, the question about matter itsself, space and time is an argument for chistians too. There is just not a big discussion about it, since scientists don't claim they know it.
If its not ID, how do you explain everything? How did all this matter come to be?
Maybe its not one extreme or the other. Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can. I think in everyones egarness to find an answer that we have polarized ourselves into camps and neglect certain avenues of thought and research because they do not fit into our or support our camp. But that's human nature for you, we always try to boil things down as simple as possible. If its grey it doesn't fit in the black pile, or in the white pile. Instead of making a pile for grey we toss it in the garbage.
[ QUOTE ]
But if the point about leveling out all energy of the universe is true, then organic elements with metabolism would indeed be the only element to reverse this trend.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, because life does not spontaneously become ordered through physically impossible energy manipulation. Life is ordered because of energy input from the sun that powers our entire ecosystem. Without that extra energy to make up for the entropy life wouldn't exist. However, viewed as a whole (solar system, or universe if you want to go bigger), and not as individual pieces, the system is still entropic.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its not one extreme or the other. Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can as well, but the problem is what to teach to people. Considereing that ID is nothing but a thought excercise until some sort of evidence surfaces, teaching it seriously would be a terrible misapropriation of funds, a waste of time, and if it turns out to be wrong, complete ruinous bullshit.
Evolution is an established and mostly proven theory with loads of supportive evidence, much of it empirical. Teaching it is a good call.
And in the same vein, until ID is supported by evidence that can guide our genesis theories, trying to find a middleground between ID and evolution is futile, because we don't even know what ID constitutes.
There is no overall "reversing entropy" ever. You do need to read more about it because I think you don't understand it on a fundimental level. Life exists on earth because of a finite amount of energy pouring from the sun.
order vs. chaos and entropy are related but totally different issues.
I find it absurd because I have done fruit fly experiments to observe evolution. Computer algorithims based on evolution solve problems every day. Logic tells me that evolution makes sense and there are tons of recorded examples of evolution in recorded history, not to mention tons of historical evidence. The people I have argued against know nothing about science beyond what their pastor told them.
It is like arguing the color of the sky with a blind man.
Yes. This universe has a finite age. How many universes are there? How many existed before that?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it can exist as a possibility, but it should not be taught in a science class. It deals with the supernatural, which is by definition beyond science. I think that's the real controversy over ID. I see no problem with teaching ID in a theology class, mythology class, or even a philosophy class (or all of the above), but the people pushing ID are using it as a wedge issue to present it as an alternative to evolution (which is a scientific theory) with something that is not scientific in the least bit.
If its a matter of what to teach childern in public schools in science classes, then I agree Evolution over ID is a good call. But teaching evolution discounts ID is a mistake. Let them get thier religous education from thier church if they wish to or like KeyserSoze said we need to keep God/religion/ID in theology, mythology, or even a philosophy class. It is not the job of the science teacher to tech kids if God exsists or not. We need to be careful not to fill childerns heads with untruth one way or the other. When teaching childern we need to try and let them make decisions on thier own and not try to bolster our camps numbers by teaching one trumps the other, that is for them to decide.
From a christain perspective I don't think Jesus intented the public education system to be a massive brain washing facility to put people in pews and money in the church coffers. The curent uproar among religious types about ID being taken out of school pisses them off because it forces them to do thier job and answer question and talk to people (like the bible commands). Instead of relaying on the play-doh factory down the steet pumping out plyable childern that are hip to the preachers ideas.
Oh noes mr preacher man has make sure the pews are filled with people who actually beieve!!!11one
I really don't even like the science vs. religion debate because it makes no sense.
Science is a collection of ideas that when applied are useful at predicting the future.
Religion offers truth based on a book or convention.
science has nothing to say about truth. Any good scientist knows experiments either support or disprove theories. There is no test you can do to prove a theory.
The problem scientists have with religion is that it is not useful at predicting the future.
The whole situation is muddied up by people who treat science like a religion.
A:No one, even God, would try to take a rib from a black man.
I agree that ID shouldn't be taught in science class. But while evolution is being explained it should be mentioned as a possibility to introduce the options they have.
One thing I've noticed in all this arguing is that all these scientific facts are of course still theory. They are theory believed to be true, but there is still a possibility things don't work the way we think they do.
A:No one, even God, would try to take a rib from a black man.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling this thread is now going to devolve into an argument about racism. Good job. Are those the kinds of jokes they tell in Church and youth groups?
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I've noticed in all this arguing is that all these scientific facts are of course still theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, just like physics is just a bunch of theories. Gravity... psshh, they claim it exists, but do they have an explanation of what causes it? What they call gravity, I say is obviously IF (Intelligent Falling).
[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling this thread is now going to devolve into an argument about racism. Good job. Are those the kinds of jokes they tell in Church and youth groups?
Yes, just like physics is just a bunch of theories. Gravity... psshh, they claim it exists, but do they have an explanation of what causes it? What they call gravity, I say is obviously IF (Intelligent Falling).
[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't tell you. But I'm just doing my part
And there's a pretty big difference between gravity which is a concept we observe with the naked eyes and complex things like entropy.
[ QUOTE ]
And there's a pretty big difference between gravity which is a concept we observe with the naked eyes and complex things like entropy.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not actually observing gravity, you're observing the result of gravity. The cause of gravity is still unknown. But like I said, I think it's all bullshit, the truth is that things fall because of Intelligent Falling.
Replies
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
[/ QUOTE ]
Silly monkey you can't stop the game there you have to keep playing.
[not actual chat log]
Vig: But where did that matter come from?
JKMakowka: The earth came from a giant explosion.
Vig: Where did the explosion come from.
JKMakowka: Gasses and particles mixed together.
Vig: Where did the gasses and particles come from?
JKMakowka: ... not sure but don't you have a model you should be working on.
Vig: yeah...
[/ QUOTE ]
And then Vig took a rib, and modeled a woman..
The link is the the MTV 2003 Movie Awards Spoof the Matrix, with Will Ferrel its 10 min long and the part I refer to is at the end
But according to the definition of scientific positivism (postulated in the 18th century by David Hiene), Science is able to explain everything, Theology and Metaphysics are not needed anymore, they are imperfect and today redundant. Of course time is something that prevents us from reconstructing certain happenings, but we have to be able to redo them today if they are true.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know more about reality now then he did. Some things happening on the sub-atomic scale may be unobservable. I do think theology and metaphysics are worthless, and even though science is much better, it will never explain everything (as you point out, also things lost to time).
Yes. We'll have to redefine what ID means once humans are able to do it.
I think that there may have been an infinite amout of time to allow biology to arise. Given that is the case, even the smallest chance would result in life.
To be honest, ID on the macro level seems so absurb that I can hardly bare to think people believe in it. I already gave my basic argument on irreducable complexity, but I have a lot more where that came from.
Personally I like how the big question was "answered" in Cerebus.
Taking this into order, in addition to the fact that the universe itsself can't be infinite old, it was just a timeframe that allowed the forming of simple cells, thus a small chance may just as well simply pass by. And we don't even have reached evolution yet.
I do understand, that ID seems absurd to you, but that's as a matter of fact simply a point of view. I'm working on my master of law at the moment and I work with thought up systems the whole day. From my point of view, the construction of a cell looks perfectly similar to a though up system. This is not a scientific argument, but I'm not trying to prove anything here. I just want to point out the insecurities and additional possibilities.
As far as ID goes, I can think myself of 2 different models that are plausible. There is the idea of an intervention from a higher dimension into a lower dimension. According to the analogy of an intervention of the 3th dimension into the 2th dimension, such an intervention would not be traceable. You could only find the impact. And in addition, if you follow this analogy, a being from a higher dimension would be able to interfere in lower dimensions. This could perfectly well explain how purposeful mutation could take place.
Another model I can think of is the following: A universe parallel to ours, within the exact same space. Particles of this universe do not interfere with any particles we can see with our 5 senses or we can make visible with other devices. This is totally possible and a discussion among physicist. It is also possible, that there are interfering particles and thus, there is some sort of "chain translation" from one world to the other. This way it could some day be possible to possibly make particles visible that interact with particles from that world, the way we could actually find this other world. That's the big difference to the first idea. Both would explain how ID could take place.
But that's not as far as I need to go to believe in god. It just shows possibilities, we can't probe any of them.
As Vig says, the question about matter itsself, space and time is an argument for chistians too. There is just not a big discussion about it, since scientists don't claim they know it.
Maybe its not one extreme or the other. Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can. I think in everyones egarness to find an answer that we have polarized ourselves into camps and neglect certain avenues of thought and research because they do not fit into our or support our camp. But that's human nature for you, we always try to boil things down as simple as possible. If its grey it doesn't fit in the black pile, or in the white pile. Instead of making a pile for grey we toss it in the garbage.
But if the point about leveling out all energy of the universe is true, then organic elements with metabolism would indeed be the only element to reverse this trend.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, because life does not spontaneously become ordered through physically impossible energy manipulation. Life is ordered because of energy input from the sun that powers our entire ecosystem. Without that extra energy to make up for the entropy life wouldn't exist. However, viewed as a whole (solar system, or universe if you want to go bigger), and not as individual pieces, the system is still entropic.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its not one extreme or the other. Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can as well, but the problem is what to teach to people. Considereing that ID is nothing but a thought excercise until some sort of evidence surfaces, teaching it seriously would be a terrible misapropriation of funds, a waste of time, and if it turns out to be wrong, complete ruinous bullshit.
Evolution is an established and mostly proven theory with loads of supportive evidence, much of it empirical. Teaching it is a good call.
And in the same vein, until ID is supported by evidence that can guide our genesis theories, trying to find a middleground between ID and evolution is futile, because we don't even know what ID constitutes.
order vs. chaos and entropy are related but totally different issues.
I find it absurd because I have done fruit fly experiments to observe evolution. Computer algorithims based on evolution solve problems every day. Logic tells me that evolution makes sense and there are tons of recorded examples of evolution in recorded history, not to mention tons of historical evidence. The people I have argued against know nothing about science beyond what their pastor told them.
It is like arguing the color of the sky with a blind man.
Yes. This universe has a finite age. How many universes are there? How many existed before that?
Maybe its not ID OR Evolution, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? Can that even exsist as a possablity? I think it can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it can exist as a possibility, but it should not be taught in a science class. It deals with the supernatural, which is by definition beyond science. I think that's the real controversy over ID. I see no problem with teaching ID in a theology class, mythology class, or even a philosophy class (or all of the above), but the people pushing ID are using it as a wedge issue to present it as an alternative to evolution (which is a scientific theory) with something that is not scientific in the least bit.
From a christain perspective I don't think Jesus intented the public education system to be a massive brain washing facility to put people in pews and money in the church coffers. The curent uproar among religious types about ID being taken out of school pisses them off because it forces them to do thier job and answer question and talk to people (like the bible commands). Instead of relaying on the play-doh factory down the steet pumping out plyable childern that are hip to the preachers ideas.
Oh noes mr preacher man has make sure the pews are filled with people who actually beieve!!!11one
Science is a collection of ideas that when applied are useful at predicting the future.
Religion offers truth based on a book or convention.
science has nothing to say about truth. Any good scientist knows experiments either support or disprove theories. There is no test you can do to prove a theory.
The problem scientists have with religion is that it is not useful at predicting the future.
The whole situation is muddied up by people who treat science like a religion.
Q:How do we know Adam wasn't black?
A:No one, even God, would try to take a rib from a black man.
I agree that ID shouldn't be taught in science class. But while evolution is being explained it should be mentioned as a possibility to introduce the options they have.
One thing I've noticed in all this arguing is that all these scientific facts are of course still theory. They are theory believed to be true, but there is still a possibility things don't work the way we think they do.
either way, Merry Christmas
Hey I got a joke
Q:How do we know Adam wasn't black?
A:No one, even God, would try to take a rib from a black man.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling this thread is now going to devolve into an argument about racism. Good job. Are those the kinds of jokes they tell in Church and youth groups?
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I've noticed in all this arguing is that all these scientific facts are of course still theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, just like physics is just a bunch of theories. Gravity... psshh, they claim it exists, but do they have an explanation of what causes it? What they call gravity, I say is obviously IF (Intelligent Falling).
I have a feeling this thread is now going to devolve into an argument about racism. Good job. Are those the kinds of jokes they tell in Church and youth groups?
Yes, just like physics is just a bunch of theories. Gravity... psshh, they claim it exists, but do they have an explanation of what causes it? What they call gravity, I say is obviously IF (Intelligent Falling).
[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't tell you. But I'm just doing my part
And there's a pretty big difference between gravity which is a concept we observe with the naked eyes and complex things like entropy.
And there's a pretty big difference between gravity which is a concept we observe with the naked eyes and complex things like entropy.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not actually observing gravity, you're observing the result of gravity. The cause of gravity is still unknown. But like I said, I think it's all bullshit, the truth is that things fall because of Intelligent Falling.