| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| Happy New Year | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 4 2005, 12:56 AM (1,482 Views) | |
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 10 2005, 08:52 PM Post #36 |
|
Knight
|
I have one more comment, why? Are we so arrogant as a species to assume there must be some higher purpose for us, since we are so great? We are in essence a biological organism that exists to procreate, we have evolved intelligence, as it gives us a huge advantage in the evolutionary arms race, as is clearly evident, but we are still in essence a biological organism here to procreate. I personally choose to try and transcend this and be of benefit to humanity as a whole or at least those around me, but this is just a choice, I am not expecting to get rewarded in any way for this any more than I would expect others to be punished for not doing so, if they got away with it. We are born, we hopefully procreate, we die. Everything else is up to you. |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 10 2005, 09:08 PM Post #37 |
|
Knight
|
Nihilism is best defined as a faith in nothing, there's much online about it, though technically I'm more of a Positivist than a Nihilist, but that is more semantics. Irreducible complexity is based on our lack of understanding about the early stages of evolution. The fact that we do not yet understand how a cell could have evolved, does not mean that it could not have done, and needed intelligent design. The reference to a computer is misleading, as the two are fundamentally different, if a computer was found out in the desert, one would have to assume a designer, as it would have no real mechanism to evolve natually, and the odds of all the atoms coming together by chance in the right space are astronomical. Modern evolutionary theory is all about very small steps, which irreducible complexity attempts to refute. Some things are easy to concieve as a series of small steps, others not. The thing to remember though is the exceeding large time scales we are dealing with. If something is a billion to one chance of it happening in any given moment, in a 100 million years, it is quite possible that it happens. We have no fossil record for the early stages of the evolution of cells, so it is totally speculation, but remember that evolution is not an old theory, it may well take centuries before we gain a better understanding of the mechanisms and steps involved, before we can really say that this is irreducibly complex or not. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 10 2005, 09:10 PM Post #38 |
|
Thank you for your words Galahad, appreciated. I will say a few more things but nothing to controversial. What an interesting post Cow, thank you for your input. May i pick you up on a few points ?..
How would you explain the appendix or the coccyx still present in our bodies?
Why do you feel this is unlikely? The anthropic principle governs the nature of matter in our universe, and within this universe i think that such circumstances are possible elswhere if not probable. I do not believe we are so unique, and indeed to think that there is no other sentient life in the universe based on the tiny amount of planets that we can observe is not logical. The Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special. However, it does not rule out the possibility that there is a deeper level to our understanding of the Universe which makes our Universe the most probable universe from the plethora of all possible universes. This still may be true but is not required philosophically or scientifically. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 10 2005, 09:11 PM Post #39 |
|
Knight
|
Another thing to remember is that evolutionary theory has moved on since Darwin. I have read quite interesting theories on how the eye could have evolved by natural selection. Yes they are only theories, but they provide a tenable explanation as to how it *might* have happened. |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 10 2005, 09:16 PM Post #40 |
|
Knight
|
The fact we have redundant organs, doesn't prove evolution.
I mean unlikely in the sense of the probabilty of one system having a planet in exactly the right position with exactly the right conditions for life to evolve. Yes in a larger scheme of billions of systems, this is not unlikely at all. The weak anthropic principle is only really correct with regards to the strong anthropic principle, i.e. things are that they are so that we can exist. If that were the case, what would be the need for the rest of the universe. I regard it as merely a statement that doesn't hold any great understanding just that if things were not as they are, we would not be here to observe them. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 10 2005, 09:19 PM Post #41 |
|
We are writing on top of each other, i can't keep up. It seems that you do agree with me in some respects, i thought you disagreed.
I see your point of view more clearly now. In fact;
that is exactly what i said that caused offence. Maybe not put so eloquently. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 10 2005, 09:42 PM Post #42 |
|
Master of Spam
|
I'm sure I could add valuable thoughts to this conversation, however, that would require me to read all this stuff you posted. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 10 2005, 09:44 PM Post #43 |
|
Knight
|
I was thinking the same earlier this evening ;), then since I'm away from home, bored and with no pc to play Rome on, I decided to read it.... |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 10 2005, 09:59 PM Post #44 |
|
Retired Knight
|
I've argued with Galahad before... generally politics and religion. I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone. I swear he must have a book of all his "facts"... well, actually probably has a bunch of websites bookmarked. :rolleyes: I think I'll just have Cow answer for me... He seems to share my thoughts and lays it out better than I can.
|
![]() |
|
| Spyman8 | Oct 10 2005, 10:30 PM Post #45 |
![]()
|
Relating to the whole "Jesus is G-d" thing, if he was, why do millions of his own believers, act in a way of aggression to the Religion that founded them. People hates Jewish people for only one reason, we are truly G-d's chosen people. You can believe this or not, but the fact is that its true. I know there will be probably at least 10 posts saying I am wrong, with lots of examples, so bring them on, I am waiting. |
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 10 2005, 10:34 PM Post #46 |
![]()
|
Good conversation here guys. Cow as a science major at University and a Christian, I was astounded at the leaps of faith scientist take to try and understand and quantify the universe we are in. From the very bonds that hold matter together, to the origins of mankind, I've found that science is many ways similar to religion as it requires leaps of faith as scientists try to explain and understand what is the universe and its various properties. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 10 2005, 10:35 PM Post #47 |
|
lol, yep, it's turning in to quite a novel. ![]() One last point: All the matter we are made of originated in the death of stars. Before the first star went through it's main sequence to the point of nova there was only hydrogen and some helium produced by the first stars and before that, before the universe cooled enough to form molecules, only radiation from the big bang. All matter is essentially condensed energy created in the big bang (E=Mc2). The various stages of the universe's development can be observed with telescopes by looking at the ancient light in the far reaches of the universe. In fact stars that havent completed their main sequence and are nearly as old as the universe itself can be seen in our own galaxy; the halo stars. All this i consider to be fact, due to the school of thought; what i can see, is. Every religion has it's own version of where we all came from and the above argument fundamentally explains it, and therfor disproves all theological arguments on the origins of the earth. Or at least the probability of it being any different is astronomically small. To assume that all this happened for the benefit of mankind is not a thought that lies well with me especially since we have only joined half way through the life of our universe. Which of course raises another question, what happens to God and heaven after the death of the universe? Is God even governed by the restraints of the physical universe? Sometimes we can only find the truth by disproving other possibilities, not by desperatly trying to prove one theory that can be heavily biased by the want or need for it to be true. What i mean to say is... I feel i MUST live in a world that stands up to scrutiny. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 10 2005, 10:44 PM Post #48 |
|
You posted this as i was posting mine. I like it. The only difference is; one is based on observing the world around us and the search for answers. The other assumes that all the facts are in place. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 10 2005, 10:51 PM Post #49 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Say...where did all that matter come from anyway?
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 10 2005, 11:09 PM Post #50 |
|
I believe that two dimensions that ran parallel to each other, through some event, (maybe even a common event) touched. The properties of energy/matter in one dimension could be very different to the properties of another thus causing a catalyst that prevoked the big bang. An amazing amount of energy suddenly existing in an almost infintely small point in spacetime. *All the energy that was emitted in that big bang still exists today in the form of matter. The energy from the big bang condensed in to hydrogen as i mentioned above.. Hydrogen is turned to helium by stars. Very large stars can go through the main sequence very fast thus turning all the hydrogen to helium. (big suns burn the fuel faster) Suns over 7.5 solar masses will nova at the end of their life. In the few seconds before all the neutrons are stripped from the atoms heavy elements are formed, like iron and carbon (the stuff we are made of). This matter is then flung accross space to form nebulae and then more suns and planets etc. We are quite literally made of star dust. That, Galahad is where matter come from. ![]() The first paragraph is what i believe, the rest below the '*' is fact. Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| Argetlam | Oct 10 2005, 11:54 PM Post #51 |
|
first of all Men can never EVER NOT IN A MILLION YEARS agree on these three topics 1 religion 2 sex 3 politics alll i wanted was a happy new year and a amzel tov lol but i dont mind |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Oct 11 2005, 12:21 AM Post #52 |
|
Retired Knight
|
You mean like supply-side economics, that you, the science major, held onto as if it were your faith even in the face of knowable facts
|
![]() |
|
| Bedivere of Neustia | Oct 11 2005, 01:46 AM Post #53 |
|
Retired Knight
|
not trying to step on toes but the big bang is not proven fact it is a theory and though widely excepted is not proven. There is evidence but then again im holding in my hands 3000 pages of evidence the jesus is the son of god. |
![]() |
|
| Spyman8 | Oct 11 2005, 01:52 AM Post #54 |
![]()
|
And evidence is not always true. In the case with the 3000 page book you are holding in your hand. But the fact is that only about the first 500 pages are the truth. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 11 2005, 02:29 AM Post #55 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Huh? Your copy has a 500 pages long table of contents?
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 11 2005, 02:35 AM Post #56 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Mar...and where did the energy come from? Energy is the by-product of 2 atoms reacting...where did those 2 atoms come from?
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 11 2005, 02:39 AM Post #57 |
|
Master of Spam
|
I'm afraid you are failing to give an ultimate answer, unlike religions :lol: There is typically a next question after each one in science. (Like with little children who don't get tired of asking why? why? why?...) In this case, Galahad may ask how those 2 dimensions were created.. got the answer? Cool, Galahad made his question while I was posting :lol: I didn't guess correctly what he'd ask, but you got the point
|
![]() |
|
| Charlemagne Of Aachen | Oct 11 2005, 04:27 AM Post #58 |
![]()
|
A scientific explanatin Marauder, but one still requiring belief or faith because it cannot be proven. Not looking to disagree or argue with you, just supporting an earlier point I made. And of course we are all entitled to choose what we want to believe in...
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Oct 11 2005, 12:33 PM Post #59 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Ah, but that's not belief or faith in the same sense. No, no, no. You see, they make up a bunch of premises, which, if accepted by enough scientists, is then called a paradigm. :lol: These make the environments for the theories. So, methodically, there is a not that often mentioned "if" at the very beginning, while the 3000 pages don't have their "if", because if you'd have an "if", you don't have faith That's sooooo much different, can't you see? (No? Hehe)
|
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 11 2005, 05:33 PM Post #60 |
|
Knight
|
Marauder, be very careful what you define as fact. All of physics is based on assumptions that fit observations with in a margin of error from which theories are derived. The one thing that can be established is that our current theories do not tell the whole story. There are too many ongoing problems such as tying in Quantum Mechanics with macroscopic physics to really be that confident that our theories are any more so than a theory. As Charlemagne said, Science does have it leaps of faith, as it is necessary to get anywhere, but they are an educated guess, not a blind leap. M-brane theory that I believe you alluded to, is no more than the current best guess. Just because it has much methodology about it, doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, though it does look quite elegant. Starting from first principles, you can only really establish your own existence, but get no further, so it is necessary to make these assumptions. What Science does have over religion is that it is generally easily demonstratable, in that it seeks to describe physical phenomena that can be studied. I take the view point that what I observe happens, and what I do not, without considerable evidence, I cannot accept. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 11 2005, 05:38 PM Post #61 |
|
Indeed Dinadan It's as i said above:
Galahad:
It's as i said above, matter is condensed energy. Imagine the energy/radiation from the big bang as air on a cold morning and matter is what forms on the window. E=Mc2 refers to E-energy being equall to M-matter times the the speed of light (the universal constant) squared. This basically means that energy and matter are the same thing. There is enough condensed energy in you to make a small nuclear warhead. I will enterpret your question as; where did all the energy from the big bang come from? That of course i do not know, but i stated my theory above. One thing i am almost cirtain of is the fact that this is not a one-off event. I believe that if it happened here, it happened elsewhere, maybe even all the time. But i say again, all this is what i believe and everything above the asterix in my post is my own personal believe and has little no relevence in science. A few of you asked what then came before that? Where did the first two dimensions come from. This i feel is a mute point because it implies that time is in some way linear. Time is an aspect of our dimension only, the fourth dimension in fact. You cannot use time to measure events 'before' or 'after' our universe, in essense, there is no such thing. The question of where all this came from, came from... came from.. is a mindbender, but of course i could always ask you where did god come from, who made him eh? As i said... a mute point. All i am trying to say with all this science is that it's completely contradictive to everything in the bible, and thus proving parts wrong it discredits it all. (In my oppinion of course). The fundemental principle of do the right thing is commendable of course but i personally don't need anyone to tell me what is right or wrong. (In my oppinion only)
Ok it is a fact that all bodies in the universe are all moving at massive speeds away from a central point. We can PROVE this by using 'red-shift' (as light moves away from us it stretches turning slightly red, if it moves towards us it shifts slightly blue) to map all the glaxies we can see their speed, their trajectories, and more inmportantly thier origins..... the same place. This leaves no other explanation that there was an explosion of immense force with a massive amount of matter in the same exact point in space. 'The Big Bang' There is no question as to if it happened, the question is how it happened. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 11 2005, 05:47 PM Post #62 |
|
Cow, it pleases me greatly that you have heard of Brane-Theory. My version of these events is efected maybe by the theory but one of the main points of membrane theories is that we exist on the skin, the 'membrane' of a 5th dimension and then that upon it's 6th etc. etc I'd love to chat msn sometime about your views on it? As far as believing what you see, well my posts i believe as fact, are purely because you CAN observe them, read up. I have only once been so bold on all my posts as to assume anything. * Page_Marauder |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 11 2005, 06:10 PM Post #63 |
|
Knight
|
Even if you have observed something that corresponds to a theory, you cannot still state it as fact. All you can really say it that what you believed you observed corresponds with the behaviour suggested by this theory. Just because this happens, doesn't make either your theory, or in truth even your observations fact. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 11 2005, 07:05 PM Post #64 |
|
Indeed my observations may not be fact. It maybe that all we see is not as it is. Perhaps we are nothing but a future construct to study the past. When we believe we are picking apart the threads of space time in quantum mechanics, we may even be beggining to detect the 'program'. However if we explore the realm of what we see not necessarily is, then we have no work bench for any science. Some even say that some particles behave differently when being observed but this is breaching a world of uncirtainty and paranoia. I will conclude by saying; all that i have said above are laws and processes of our universe and the physics that apply there. If i see a car travelling along a road I can measure it's speed and it's direction of travel without making any further assumptions. I could not know how it moves, why it moves or any other detail for cirtain. What i said above is purely and observation with no assumption.
I ask you as 'the devils advocate' what other possible explaination could there be, unless for no apparent reason all the galaxies appeared from nowhere moving at massive speeds away from each other carefully measured to one single point in space and time. Then answer me what is all that background radiation we get from every point in the sky? I will say though there is a micro possibilty that something else did happen but based with the facts we are talking a probability of 10 to the power of 10 times 10. |
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 11 2005, 07:08 PM Post #65 |
|
to 1. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 11 2005, 07:16 PM Post #66 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Which of course brings us full circle back to the Theory of Evolution. Here we have an idea based on the available evidence at the time. Some call it Darwins Black Box. He was not able to see all the "going on's" with in a cell. He also did not have too much of Fossil records to go on, as we do now. The Cambrian Explosion counfounds honest scientists. All of the sudden, boom...Life in very complex forms. Going back further into time to Evolution of the Cosmos, you run into the Cause and Efect Problem. If you start out with nothing, then nothing can explode. Therefor things point away from a natural explanation and into a Supernatural explanation.
|
![]() |
|
| Lamorak de Galis | Oct 11 2005, 07:25 PM Post #67 |
|
All of a sudden meaning.... several million years?
I believe that the all the energy was created, with it's anti-matter due to two dimensions touching. (my belief) The question in hand is how our universe was made... If you ask what was before that it's the same as me asking you what came before god? |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Oct 11 2005, 07:55 PM Post #68 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
At least the belif in God isn't throwing the baby out with that bath water. j/k But it does seem to me you need to throw out known laws of science to believe in Marco Evolution.*ducks the ash tray flying across the room from lional*
|
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 11 2005, 10:38 PM Post #69 |
|
Knight
|
You certainly don't need to throw out the laws of science to believe in macro evolution, you just have to remember that we are dealing with an unbelivably large time scale, to the extent that we can not easily conceive. The complexities of the cell are well documented, but the cell itself took an unbelivable amount of time to evolve. It is certainly not inconceivable that it evolved essentially through natural selection. Just because we cannot understand something, we do not throw all of our toys out of the pram and say that it is impossible. To me, a belief in God is far more non-sensical and based on nothing more than acquired superstition. At least the theory of evolution does not require fantastical, all powerful entities to explain things that have sudden burst of interest in people worshipping them, only to then not bother for the next 2000 years. I'm stating this in a somewhat argumentative tone not to start one, merely to try and emphasise my beliefs. I was brought up as a Protestant, but started reconsidering it around 10-12, and some years later became very much against organised religion, something I have only recently started to move away from to a more live and let live approach, i.e. as long as people do not try to impose there will on others, then I have no problems. Where I do have serious issues is where people use religion as an excuse or justification for their actions, which is incredibly easy to do with religions and prophecies that pretty much universally use very loosely interpreted source texts. People's natural inclination is to read between the lines, or extend what was written to mean what they want it to mean. If you are brought up to believe things are a certain way, it is hard to reject this, when you find it reassuring and "feel", due to life long beliefs, that it is true. This is in short why I feel I have never managed to gain any real ground on this argument. People who are religious always start from the position God exists therefore, even if they do not openly realise it. I cannot start from this position, so I cannot infer the necessity for a God to exist, as so many proclaim, just endless uncertainity. Obviously, as a rationalist, I cannot rule out the existence of a God, just as I cannot rule out the existence of ghosts, but I do not hold that a lack of understanding about the world in which we live necessitates the existence of a God. Finally, I think the primal cause issue is another area of uncertainity, but I believe this to be more a limitation of our current reasoning ability. Why does a Cause have to precede an Effect out side of space and time? When you get down into Quantum mechanics, many of these "laws" do not actually hold the way we understand them. According to the Big Bang theory, at some point the Universe was at a Quantum scale, so ideas in Quantum theory can apply. This is not an answer, as I do not feel I will ever know the answer, but it is a way, or a reasonable hypothesis. From a logical standpoint, I could not start assuming there must be external factors, unless I could rule out internal factors for explaining the issue. |
![]() |
|
| Caradoc of Mercia | Oct 11 2005, 11:10 PM Post #70 |
|
Knight
|
Hmm... a summary of what I just wrote.... If you don't know how to do something, it isn't necessarily impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |









7:32 PM Jul 11