StarGateWars Forums

Removed

Mister Sandman wrote:
However, that is a theory under the banner of evolution. Kit fox would disagree with you there.

And I dont have a priest....

APE

Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

Now show me where in evolution theory does it say we come from an ape?

Mister Sandman wrote:Again people would disagree with your definition. It isnt the word, it is the theory. And people trying to explain how we 'evolved' out of nothing.... People use the theory of evolution to try to prove that God doesnt exist. Even though as you just stated "Evolution only explains how life EVOLVED not how life STARTED" so therefore you just contradicted yourself by saying

If you own an English dictionary check out what its says under word EVOLUTION,If you dont own it google it up.You cant have your own definitions of the word.If you on the other hand have one,share it with us so we know how you define word evolution.
So back to the Theory of Evolution.Theory only goes from "green stuff" on.It doesnt explain how that "green stuff" came to be.But people like you like to say it also include start of life.I have nothing against If you say someone planted life because as long as creation of life wont be reproduce in a lab we wont know for sure.

Again be more specific,where in Theory of Evolution do you find any word trying to disprove "GOD"?What people do with the theory is beside the point.Your book allegedly teaches of love but many use it as a tool of violence.No matter if evolution is used for cooking eggs you cant disprove it just on bases what it is used for.Only way to disprove it is to show actual evidence,something more then a leap of faith.

Mister Sandman wrote:

unseen1 wrote:It is not possible to believe in both,In any part of it, because one excludes the other.

Where you stated that evolution is a process, not how things started.

As I mentioned before, the theory of evolution is ambiguous and deciding fact from fiction in the theory is a fine line.

Again be more exact?Where is ambiguous?It a pretty wide theory so Its hard to tell what you think its ambiguous?
When you say I contradict myself,you do not know what Creationism is teaching.God made life,everything like it is now?Nothing has changed since.So if that is the case evolution cannot be considered as an option yet alone a serious theory because nothing had ever evolved since "old man"created everything right?
So to believe in both of them is more then absurd its practically impossible.

Mister Sandman wrote:I would gladly like to see the theories disproving my God. And remember, theories are not fact.

You said it yourself.Why you asking me about it?

Mister Sandman wrote:- The theories that, the universe was always around... is impossible (law of thermodynamics)

You see how not one theory cant disprove your "GOD".You say "GOD" was always around.But then again you suit your "GOD" to your own needs and just say he is above those laws,right?
So I say he is caught in a time he created for us,you say he is above that.
You see how I need to trash you with hard evidence and you just use your leap of faith and discard everything and just say he is above it?You see why not one theory cant disprove your "GOD".Its because you wont except any evidence I give you and also wont give me one shred of evidence about "HIM".
And here we are again at definitions.Could you define your "GOD" so I wont confuse your"GOD" with thousand of others out there.I would really hate to do that.
Going onwards we have more definitions you have very big problem with.

You kind a mixed up two words scientific theory and hypothesis.You ever heard of Theory of gravitation?Or I have to remember that that is only a theory and not a fact.Ill remember that when I want to jump from a high building then

Mister Sandman wrote:For the flagellum:
http://www.faces.com/videos/watch/SdwTwNPyR9w

This flagellum case was dismissed on trial in US where Creationist wanted to enforce their "theory" in US schools.Will find link just give me some time.

In a nutshell "GOD" created all living creatures...everything...and nothing changed since then.I wonder if he created bananas also?If he created dozen breeds of cattle,chicken,dogs...list goes on...

Mister Sandman wrote:
with logic it is possible to come from a common origin. i.e With understanding of biology it can be safe to say that adam and eve were Xx

Oh so now you are taking scientific facts to suit your needs.Now they are correct when you want them to be.We did originate from small number of predecessors.Noone denying it you are just repeating parts of evoultion theory.The part you like that is.The other part of theory well that just isnt right?You cant just pick something and drop rest of it.Or at least read the hole thing then if you have some questions about it ask.Dont go picking bits and pieces.It like you judge the book by its covers.

Mister Sandman wrote:Surprisingly I haven't heard that figure from most Christians, and no i didnt say the earth was 6000 years old.. and I dont care how old it is... it is irrelevant. God is outside the constraints of time. The only real base is Christians believe God created the heavens and the earth. How long it took does not matter.

You think scientist came up with that number?
You have to care because number came out from your book.And since you argue book is historically correct then it must be true that Earth is 6000 years old.
And "GOD" IS restrained by time.He,once he created time for us,got caught in it.He is 6000 years old for us,so he is older for 6000 years then he was before.So if he ages he cant be perfect andwhatiknowwhat elsedeityhecanbe.But then again we are back to your definition of "GOD" right?Im sure you will suit him with best armour human rationalisation can buy,right?

Mister Sandman wrote:Again, theory isnt fact.
If you have differing opinion please show why... i.e back up your response. Because what i am just reading is religious prejudice from someone who has a distorted view on the bible and cant recall many facts.

Again get your facts straight.Get your definitions straight.What is theory and what is hypothesis.Just a reminder of Theory of gravitation.

Mister Sandman wrote:Is the bible scientifically accurate when it makes scientific claims? Yes
Does the bible state there is a round earth? Yes

Please show me parts in bible where those two things can be found.I cannot recollect any of them.

And again I ask you what exactly you want me to back up?

Mister Sandman wrote:As mentioned over and over, it depends on the parts of evolution, and what you exactly mean by evolution.

What exactly you mean by evolution?!?!?
Exactly that,that is written in Great book of evolution.Nothing more and nothing less.This isnt left for interpretation.It is written in book word by word.You cant take out something from a theory and say I believe in theory in evolution but not in this part of it.Well surprise,surprise then it becomes hole another hypothesis you have to prove it to become a theory.


And why shouldnt Creationism be thought in school.It should but not in science class with the evolution.It doesnt belong there.Its not a theory its a hypothesis that doesnt hold even a ounce of water.It doesnt provide a single proof it just tries to oppose to Theory of Evolution with no basis in science what so ever.

I think some need to be careful with the idea of intelligent design. It appears that two words can only have one meaning these days. Intelligent design originally advocated the belief that the Universe was designed by a conscious being. Pure Creationism has been added to and tied to ID because they are closely related.. but please...don't be so stringent with it's meaning.

A lot of people believe that religion is tremendously flawed because it was created by humans. At the same time though a lot of us believe that the Universe by it's own laws could not have simply just sprung to existence from the big bang randomly (it came from molecules that obeyed laws and systems that came from somewhere), nor could it last indefinitely without some form of recycling. These are generally accepted facts. At the same time though the Universe itself and the things in it.. all obey a very complex series of rules, some of which are far beyond human understanding at present. Now we can logically conclude that we have seen intelligent life build things on earth, some things we would consider very complex when appealed to relatively... so we can impose this logic on a large scale and say, well... if the universe is so complex and, ultimate so devoid of the human ideas of good and evil (evolution is a 'fair' system) then it's reasonable to assume that it all was designed by a higher being. This does not mean that the being loves us all, it does not mean we have an afterlife and it does not mean we could ever interact with that being in any way shape or form. It also does not mean that this being is all knowing, all powerful or all good at all.

As for this creator being it's reasonable to assume it's external to those systems (so entropy and thermodynamics which no one are sure completely negate forms of immortality) do not apply to it...

You want proof for that, just look around you. Go get an apple and drop it down. You doubt that this means there is an intelligent being behind it? Well hold the phone.. you see big sacks of cell's doing things all the time, adhering to and creating micro laws... if you doubt an intelligent designer then you might as well doubt the existence of humans beyond your visual range. (Did you meet JFK? How can you be sure he ever existed? Because people said so? Because he had a physical effect on the earth.. because he left physical evidence.. trademarks of his existence... Same with a black hole... you cannot see a black hole you can only see the physical effects of it's existence...yet you don't see this force of nature creating fundamental physical laws, life or beyond...however you do see humans manipulating their environment to create others in similar images.)

The ultimate questions for me... (and I have gone off topic here.. as I have already answered my question which is the thread)...are not if their is an intelligent designer, but how can anything exist indefinitely for all eternity, surely only something completely inhuman could do such, without knowledge of the idea of time and without human desire and conscience or hope a truly animalistic or semi-nihilistic/depressed thing) ...the universe would need to be infinite and everlasting and even then... would you be able to exert enough freedom to use that infinity? and finally where does the book stop? Who created the designer? The architect... God. How does it know or imagine without ever experiencing...perhaps the universe is just like a clock.. continually ticking round and round and round. No start, no finish.. just an endless cycle.

Just some foods for thought!

Removed

I think he gets it

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:Any designer must inherently be part of our universe or they wouldnt be able to affect things with in our universe. If they are part of the universe then the rules regarding entropy etc apply to them just as equally as they apply to use.

I suppose the answer to that is that the universe is the designer as it were. but that requires the universe to be sentient, which we wouldnt be aware of atm, and its likely we'd never be able to be aware of it.

I am not a part of my quiche, but I still affect its composition.

I'm quite glad you brought up entropy. It reminds me of a militant atheist I knew, demanding that I prove that there must be a God. I asked him to explain the origin of the universe. He gave me the usually Big-Bang answer, so I asked him what caused the Big-Bang. We went on for a few stages of him saying "something else" and "whatever thing was there before that", until I said "Surely, there was a start to all of this?". I understood it as a fundamental law of existence that nothing can have 'always existed'. Everything is created by something(s) else. The universe cannot be ageless; something created it.

There has to have been something that existed before all else, something that had no creator before it; something that exists by its own devices, not bound by the fundamental laws of existence which bind all of us. By my definition, that is a God: one which is bound by no laws.

It could be any God.... I just believe in it as mine.

excellent reading.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:Ahh good old narrativium in evidence there

so how did the universe begin? 'Begin' is the wrong word. Nonetheless, there is good evidence that the age of the universe is about 15 billion years, so nothing - not space, not time - existed before some instant of time roughly 15 billion years ago. See how our narrativium-powered semantics confuses us. This does not mean that if you went back 15 million and 1 years, you would find nothing. It means that you cannot go back 15 million and 1 years. That description makes no sense. It refers to a time before time began, which is logically incoherant, let alone physically so.

so even if a 'creator' exists how exactly did it manage to do anything?

Hmmm.... narrativium semantics. So, because there is no way to conceivably understand existence before the universe, it cannot have existed.

Of course we could not go back to before the beginning of the universe. Nothing existed that we could travel to. Traveling through time would require some form of manipulation of the point of origin and destination. There would be nothing we can conceive for us to manipulate at the destination in order to arrive. To use a metaphor: you could try to fly there, but there would be nowhere to land.

I do however, find your confident assertion that time did not exist before the universe quite perplexing. I had no idea that man had mastered the science of time. It is quite easy to quantify time by modern standards. But I do not think we can claim that, until a point, time did not exist simply because nothing existed to experience its passing.

As I have said. Something - 'the creator' if you will - that is bound by no laws must be the origin of things. If it is bound by no laws, it can act without constraints. That is how it managed to 'do anything'.

Semper wrote:I think some need to be careful with the idea of intelligent design. It appears that two words can only have one meaning these days. Intelligent design originally advocated the belief that the Universe was designed by a conscious being. Pure Creationism has been added to and tied to ID because they are closely related.. but please...don't be so stringent with it's meaning.

To be thought in school it has to have only one meaning

Can someone define their GOD?Everyone seems to have their personal GOD so its kind a hard keep track of them all.

Kit-Fox wrote:Any designer must inherently be part of our universe or they wouldnt be able to affect things with in our universe.

Oh really?

I would very much beg to differ. Ever played a computer game? Do you have to be within the computer game to affect anything within it? Do you follow the rules of that computer game, the fundamental rules? Let's say gravity is non existent and things are held down by long organic strings that form instantly upon contact with different types of naturally occurring surfaces and planets and stars are in the same situation...instead of gravity boundaries it's distance an object can form a string at.

On top of that...Entropy does not necessarily negate immortality. There are scientific theories to suggest and speculate as to whether it would or it wouldn't... but nothing to confirm it. To human knowledge their are two biologically immortal creatures. The deep sea Hydra (suspected) and a certain species of Jelly fish that pretty much does the growing part and get's to puberty. Has a mating season. Then goes back through puberty to being a 'child' or infant jelly fish, ready to repeat the process again.

I see a lot of people are making several amazing presumptions here. Firstly.. it's that scientist's are right. Not necessarily true. In our life times the Universe has been expanding slower and then faster, they've discovered lots of anomalies in their understanding of the universe.. so have done the same as religion and copped out to give it a name (giving us dark matter and dark energy) presuming their presumption is right opposed to anything else (as silly as it may sound... both a 'God' and Dark Matter/Energy could be used interchangeably...scientist's are just acting under the predicate that their understanding MUST be right ergo it MUST be dark energy and dark matter.. which I find an amazing leap of logic.)

Secondly... as someone has already pointed out.. is that the presumption of time starting at the point of the big bang is also amazing. By accepting the Big Bang, you're accepting one of the two given sources of it.. a group of atoms or God, if not both. Two out of the three possibilities (the two most accepted ones by any scientist) require 'time' and require laws and obviously require a set of atoms that have not so far existed in our Universe. Perhaps a new universe is born when everything has been devoured by Black Holes and what's left converges to go boom.

Thirdly are the leaps of understanding. I sympathise with a lot of people in the respect that we have to apply human and our universal laws to everything...because it's so very difficult for a human being to even begin to imagine things external to our universe and even more so come to understand how anything external could ever effect anything internal. Firstly - Quantum Physics. Two different sets of laws at two different set's of levels within the same Universe. Secondly is Mordack's beetle. Could you ever make a beetle understand the nature of your existence?

Finally @Unseen1. It can have more than one definition to be taught. It would not be the first time I have seen an extreme and light version of theories taught. The extreme being pure creationism, the light version being just the recognition that the Universe needed a commencing influence, which due to the complex nature of the universe and the intelligent and somewhat perceivably 'fair' systems in place we can conclude it was intelligent. We can debate whether it truly IS logical to conclude that.. but I postulate to you the same thing I give any scientist who turns around and says "Well not...*insert rant about imposing patterns and human understanding on things*"... I would just say, isn't that what science is? Don't we have faith in cause and effect and observed patterns all the time to get results we would consider true? Why doesn't a scientist prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster is not feeding them all a grand illusion of what's going on external to earth...

We have to act under the assumption there is only one... of *jumps around* this...a universe (as Everett's multiple universe theory only applies as cut offs from this universe anyway..) so you tell me the odds that all this would arise from a collection of atoms smaller than a pin head....

As for God itself.. my definition would be an intelligent being far beyond any possible understanding by a human. This being's existence does not insure a life after death, it may watch over us, but it does not effect our lives other than a humans belief in it and adhering to a human created cult.

I used to buy those scratch lottery tickets.And before I scratch it to see If I won anythingm,I randomly thought of something else and then I wonder it,If I wouldn't think of it, if that would make a difference for me winning that lottery ticket.Would there be million written there instead of 0?Well I dont know,noone knows it but all we can conclude with some sense and common knowledge as well as experience that something that is printed doesnt changes just because I imagined a nude woman at that particular moment.But there is no way to prove it and Im fine with it.
I always keep an open head with everything BUT if someone invented a "GOD" 2000 years ago then that cant be put in same class as something that has been proven,If off course you put aside all philosophical questions such as my lottery ticket.In the end nothing can be proven 100%.
I dont mind intelligent design but this one you mentioned is defined exactly.It is a hypothesis which will never be accepted.Im against that claim of intelligent design but then again back to my lottery ticket there is always a chance that intelligent design is correct.Also intelligent design was invented just to put bible back in school.It wasnt created for any other purpose than this one.
As for scientist goes I see a pattern amongst many of them that they religiously defend theirs theory.Which is bad and not right.When scientist does that then he is nothing better than orthodox theist.He cant see anything beyond himself.And I dont want to be like one of those people so I leave open for possibility of someone creating this all.GOD if you like.
However,thats why I asked how people define their "GOD",I cant understand why people worship that "GOD".I would understand If he would be loved,respected many things.But why worshipped?
I know why because people who believe in "HIM" werent born with faith but they were thought how to believe.And part of believing it in "HIM" is to worship him.
If you would call "GOD" higher intelligence,alien or anything like that I would go for it.But I see here reasonable,smart people telling me that there is a supremeIdontknowhowintelligentandhowmuchicantcomprehendbeing out there.And all he can master after his great creation is wish to be worshipped?

I ask one more question?

If tomorrow there would be heard a loud voice from the sky,telling you to go kill yourself because he is your "GOD" would you do it?
Or would you then go searching for evidence if that truly is your "GOD" or not?

unseen1 wrote:I used to buy those scratch lottery tickets.And before I scratch it to see If I won anythingm,I randomly thought of something else and then I wonder it,If I wouldn't think of it, if that would make a difference for me winning that lottery ticket.Would there be million written there instead of 0?Well I dont know,noone knows it but all we can conclude with some sense and common knowledge as well as experience that something that is printed doesnt changes just because I imagined a nude woman at that particular moment.But there is no way to prove it and Im fine with it.

Well.. that's merely an issue of each to their own isn't it? I do know some people who believe that it may indeed change. In some cases I would like to think it does.. but then I am split between what I know empirically and what I hope. Of course although I know much of science, theology and philosophy I still like to see some romance left in the meanings of the world. For many it's long since become numbers, graphs and journal articles but I can imagine very few worse existences.

unseen wrote:I always keep an open head with everything BUT if someone invented a "GOD" 2000 years ago then that cant be put in same class as something that has been proven,If off course you put aside all philosophical questions such as my lottery ticket.In the end nothing can be proven 100%.

Someone invented a God 2000 years ago? lol..

If God should exist.. then it is merely human understanding of that being that has changed. As far as we can look back humanity has believed in a higher power.

What I am pointing out to you is that the proof for evolution is found in the bones and their assigned dates. We see the bones change, so we conclude that we've grown and adapted randomly in our environments.

It's the same conclusions with intelligent design. We see humans create sophisticated systems, we see as we learn more and become more intelligent the systems become more sophisticated, fundamental and complex. Now we explore and see the universe and see the same complexity and detail of systems. You see the connection?

It just depends whether you're going to make the age old mistake of making belief in a higher power or intelligent designer an exclusive feature of religion or allow lee way for other interpretations of that belief external to religion, but one that embraces aspects of science and religion.

unseen wrote:I dont mind intelligent design but this one you mentioned is defined exactly.It is a hypothesis which will never be accepted.Im against that claim of intelligent design but then again back to my lottery ticket there is always a chance that intelligent design is correct.Also intelligent design was invented just to put bible back in school.It wasnt created for any other purpose than this one.

It won't be accepted because it requires sacrifices of power on the behalf of science. The theory of what began the big bang is likely to never, ever be finalised so with that in mind as a scientist would you prefer to be the 'highest' intelligence on offer to your species, or would you prefer them to hold out hope in another being? From a selfish perspective i'd definitely say the former. Can't have people ultimately accrediting my work to some other being.. it's mine I tell you! Love ME for it!

Intelligent design was not invented just to put religion back in the schools lol. It's in the same process as any other scientific theory. It's being developed and evolved to accept what we're happy in accepting as truth from empirical sources. It's a logical advancement. We know how a lot of things work and they don't require direct interaction of 'God' which actually answers one of the problems of belief in classical God..(a being of that level directly interacting to change things.. it's impossible to our knowledge) because it now shows that God does not necessarily need to directly interact but our understanding of energy and computer science allows room to postulate the idea that a God - creator may still be responsible and it's a fairly logical conclusion that does not hamper, but support science.

Unseen wrote:As for scientist goes I see a pattern amongst many of them that they religiously defend theirs theory.Which is bad and not right.When scientist does that then he is nothing better than orthodox theist.He cant see anything beyond himself.And I dont want to be like one of those people so I leave open for possibility of someone creating this all.GOD if you like.

Jolly good! Unfortunately though a lot of scientist's are unwise fools. They advance with the heart and soul of humanity in hand but approach any socially or personally fundamental issue with as much care as a bull in a china shop inevitably and blindly working to crush the once blossoming flower of man in the name of truths not everyone wants to, or should know but ones that are dogmatically enforced on people who don't need to know the terrible theories that may prove true, ultimately no better than the catholic church that purgated it all those years ago.

Am I angry that Science is conspiring to rob me of a soul and Free will? Of a greater meaning in my life forcing me into an endless cycle of depression? Definitely so, however that does not make my statement wrong, it merely proves it. I would have to ask them though, in the face of their own conclusions how many have ever pushed aside this burning hatred of all things metaphysical and fully comprehended the theories they advocate? How many have sat down and realised that should they be proven right anything they ever prove or discover will be only given meaning by selfish perceptions but at the conclusion of time their empirical truths will have no more meaning than another man's God, perhaps even less. If I am still around then I will enjoy the day science takes a moment to catch it's breath and comprehend the destruction it's thirst has wraught on humanity's soul, for what to them is the measure of being a man but to simply do and die.

The father of American Psychology William James said in order to disprove the law that all Blackbirds are Black one simply needs to identify a White Blackbird. I deeply enjoy this as it's such a devils advocate thing to say.

Unseen wrote:However,thats why I asked how people define their "GOD",I cant understand why people worship that "GOD".I would understand If he would be loved,respected many things.But why worshipped?

It's the old benefit cost issue. If they worship they gain favour. Favour fits into the system of beliefs because it further insures entrance into heaven and eternal bliss, whilst taking a small amount of time out (for most people anyway, others do a lot more) to thank this great being for creating them.

At the same time, not everyone has studied Philosophy, not everyone has such faith in empirical truths and even then there is still no definitive set or collection of theories to disprove the existence of even that defined God, only the acts humans claim it has performed.

unseen wrote:I know why because people who believe in "HIM" werent born with faith but they were thought how to believe.And part of believing it in "HIM" is to worship him.

Indoctrination is the way of humanity. Last millennia's religion is this ones science. Praying in wooden buildings before a cross or theorised metaphysical being has been replaced with equally fake values and sitting around in labs or the wilderness whispering to a test tube or numbers.

It is the way of our species to want to know and to have hope, even if that path leads to our destruction.

unseen wrote:If you would call "GOD" higher intelligence,alien or anything like that I would go for it.But I see here reasonable,smart people telling me that there is a supremeIdontknowhowintelligentandhowmuchicantcomprehendbeing out there.And all he can master after his great creation is wish to be worshipped?

Again. I point out that it would very likely be impossible to know that or any God. Perhaps the point of all this is as simple as amusing the great being..or maybe the illusion of life and everything is just some nihilistic punch line.

Unseen wrote:I ask one more question?

If tomorrow there would be heard a loud voice from the sky,telling you to go kill yourself because he is your "GOD" would you do it?
Or would you then go searching for evidence if that truly is your "GOD" or not?

I'd ignore it and do what I do now...let everyone else do the exploration whilst I enjoy myself.

Oh lawdy, LAWDY... now you done it semper. More existential circular arguments about god, and sandmans pseudo scientific crap.

I think i made a wrong turn at alberqerquy because i have passed this way a few times already.