Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: liberalismo on November 20, 2008, 03:10:07 PM
-
I wanted to get a concise idea of everyone's worldview here.
Everyone answer few these questions. Please be specific, but limit responses to 10 sentences. Be clear in your rational and justification for beliefs.
Also, BE PREPARED to defend your views to other board members, whatever they are.
How did the world form?
Why do you believe this?
How old is the world?
Why do you believe this?
Did God play any role in the world being formed?
Why do you believe this?
How did humans appear on earth?
Why do you believe this?
Is evolution by common descent reality?
Why do you believe this?
Is the big bang factual?
Why do you believe this?
-
How did the world form? Don't know
How old is the world? Probably a couple billion years, radio carbon dating is far from the only way we can detect the age of our planet and the various stars and galaxies and stuff. It's the one that comes under fire the most from the religious community because it does, like most everything else, have it's drawbacks here and there.
Did God play any role in the world being formed? God is everything and all that is, and maybe even all that isn't, if such a thing is possible. Either vibration or thought came first...one causes the other, I'm not sure which but thought creates reality. Belief, I believe, is the child of thought.
How did humans appear on earth? Humans as we know them? Through a process of evolution and what might be called intelligent design. Souls began incarnating into human 'animals' when they evolved to the point at which souls could derive some kind of life lesson from living their lives in phyiscal bodies.
Is evolution by common descent reality? Maybe, but doesn't seem so important whether it was 1 pair or a couple of pairs strung about the Earth...or many coming on the scene at the same time-at least not to me.
Is the big bang factual? I think so, but more like hundreds of millions of big bangs. Happening right now as well.
I believe all of this because I went and looked for information from the people most likely to have it-those that have died and been resussitated, quantum physicists working with things of this nature...etc. Then I filter it all through my own experiences and the experiences of others and somewhere in there I get a fuzzy picture of the truth.
-
How old is the world? Probably a couple billion years, radio carbon dating is far from the only way we can detect the age of our planet and the various stars and galaxies and stuff. It's the one that comes under fire the most from the religious community because it does, like most everything else, have it's drawbacks here and there.
Yes. Carbon dating isn't used to determine earth's age.
Did God play any role in the world being formed? God is everything and all that is, and maybe even all that isn't, if such a thing is possible. Either vibration or thought came first...one causes the other, I'm not sure which but thought creates reality. Belief, I believe, is the child of thought.
What do you mean by "thought creates reality"? What proof do you have for this?
If God is everything and nothing, doesn't "God" lose all meaning?
How did humans appear on earth? Humans as we know them? Through a process of evolution and what might be called intelligent design. Souls began incarnating into human 'animals' when they evolved to the point at which souls could derive some kind of life lesson from living their lives in phyiscal bodies.
Define "soul".
How did souls incarnate into humans?
Where is your proof?
Is the big bang factual? I think so, but more like hundreds of millions of big bangs. Happening right now as well.
How could millions of big bangs happen right now? Proof?
I believe all of this because I went and looked for information from the people most likely to have it-those that have died and been resussitated, quantum physicists working with things of this nature...etc. Then I filter it all through my own experiences and the experiences of others and somewhere in there I get a fuzzy picture of the truth.
People who die and are brought back have no authority to say how the universe works or if there is an afterlife. When the brain is dead, and is then brought back, it goes through all sorts of biochemical and electrical changes which distort reality beyond anything close to what it is for the person, and their sense of time is also very distorted.
How many quantum physicists say souls exist, that millions of big bangs occur right now, or that "thought creates reality"? I'm assuming that you're misinterpreting various laws or theories in physics, like Quantum entanglement and wave function collapse.
Also some of it sounds like Scientology.
-
Yes. Carbon dating isn't used to determine earth's age.
What do you mean by "thought creates reality"? What proof do you have for this?
If God is everything and nothing, doesn't "God" lose all meaning?
Define "soul".
How did souls incarnate into humans?
Where is your proof?
How could millions of big bangs happen right now? Proof?
People who die and are brought back have no authority to say how the universe works or if there is an afterlife. When the brain is dead, and is then brought back, it goes through all sorts of biochemical and electrical changes which distort reality beyond anything close to what it is for the person, and their sense of time is also very distorted.
How many quantum physicists say souls exist, that millions of big bangs occur right now, or that "thought creates reality"? I'm assuming that you're misinterpreting various laws or theories in physics, like Quantum entanglement and wave function collapse.
Also some of it sounds like Scientology.
People who die have more authority than anyone on Earth when it comes to the afterlife, they're the only ones that have done it-whether we believe them or not prior to hearing their story, they are the first people we should go to to get a better understanding. Many have come back with than just a story about a tunnel and a buzzing sound.
Carbon dating is used to determine the age of things on the Earth, some of which are more than 6000 years old which puts the fundamental understanding of the book of the OT into question-that's why I mentioned it.
Souls are what I think we are. Our bodies are what I think we go into. This is a common concept. People have out of body experiences, many of which occur at their moment of death or near death, but at other times as well. This has been somewhat acknowledged in the mainstream-I just watched a long seminar on it in Rejkyavik. This has also been the subject of many many hypnosis sessions-regression to the moment of death, they're all the same.
God, in my opinion...if God could want, it wouldn't be for meaning or definition, it's just to be and understand 'him'self thus far, which 'he' does through all of us and everything else in existance. Maybe that's a meaning, but I don't think it's what you mean.
I googled 'many big bangs' two seconds ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe I don't think the Big Bang as we know it was as big as we think-I think it was and is a series of big(but smaller) bangs that continues to this day as the universe expands. I don't know a lot about this particular subject, but you asked so I answered.
Not many QPs, but some, Hawking, Wolf, and even if he's not employed as a QP, Langan. I don't know anything about Scientology, but I'm sure it serves a purpose here on Earth and shouldn't be ridiculed. If it shares some of the concepts that I just mentioned, then it's similar to many other things in life today-because lots of them do.
-
If you're makng thousand word posts, perhaps it's time to refocus your energies.
-
no one that has been dead has ever come back. Death is defined by the inability to regain life. Why do you think they are called NEAR death experiences? They were not dead and we do not know much about dying brains as it is unethical to design most studies to examine this phenomenon.
Perhaps quantum coherance via entanglement could explain some hint of consciousness outside the body, but the vast majority of researchers highly doubt it.
-
People who die have more authority than anyone on Earth when it comes to the afterlife, they're the only ones that have done it-whether we believe them or not prior to hearing their story, they are the first people we should go to to get a better understanding. Many have come back with than just a story about a tunnel and a buzzing sound.
Wrong. You're assuming that there is something "after death", but nothing suggests this. People who die and come back, as I've said, can't be trusted on their "experiences" due to the distortions in reality that they would experience right before death and right after death. Also, plenty have died and come back and experienced nothing. It all depends on what the people believe, it's a dream like state experienced right before and right after death.
Carbon dating is used to determine the age of things on the Earth, some of which are more than 6000 years old which puts the fundamental understanding of the book of the OT into question-that's why I mentioned it.
Well, Carbon dating only goes so far. Other forms of dating work with much older rocks.
Souls are what I think we are. Our bodies are what I think we go into. This is a common concept. People have out of body experiences, many of which occur at their moment of death or near death, but at other times as well. This has been somewhat acknowledged in the mainstream-I just watched a long seminar on it in Rejkyavik. This has also been the subject of many many hypnosis sessions-regression to the moment of death, they're all the same.
Where is the proof?
Hypnosis is notoriously unreliable due to suggestion.
God, in my opinion...if God could want, it wouldn't be for meaning or definition, it's just to be and understand 'him'self thus far, which 'he' does through all of us and everything else in existance. Maybe that's a meaning, but I don't think it's what you mean.
This doesn't make sense.
I googled 'many big bangs' two seconds ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe I don't think the Big Bang as we know it was as big as we think-I think it was and is a series of big(but smaller) bangs that continues to this day as the universe expands. I don't know a lot about this particular subject, but you asked so I answered.
There is no proof for this hypothesis, it's just a hypothesis.
Plus, It doesn't say a big bang every few seconds, it says that the big bangs that occured were cyclic in that they occurred every few dozen billion years.
Not many QPs, but some, Hawking, Wolf, and even if he's not employed as a QP, Langan. I don't know anything about Scientology, but I'm sure it serves a purpose here on Earth and shouldn't be ridiculed. If it shares some of the concepts that I just mentioned, then it's similar to many other things in life today-because lots of them do.
When did Hawking say that souls exist?
Wolf is an eccentric.
Chris Langan has zero credibility in any field of science, he's just a bright guy who knows how to take IQ tests and has a lot of crazy theories about the world. He's said "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."
Scientology is a virus.
-
RIP rapper MC Breed
-
I wanted to get a concise idea of everyone's worldview here.
Everyone answer few these questions. Please be specific, but limit responses to 10 sentences. Be clear in your rational and justification for beliefs.
Also, BE PREPARED to defend your views to other board members, whatever they are.
Yes Master! ;D
How did the world form?
Why do you believe this?
I believe God created the world. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that everything on earth and the fact that earth supports all kinds of life happened through chaos or chance. I believe earth has a designer and a sustainer and that is God.
How old is the world?
Why do you believe this?
Don't know.
Did God play any role in the world being formed?
Why do you believe this?
Yes. See above.
How did humans appear on earth?
Why do you believe this?
I believe God created life which of course includes humans. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that humans, with all of our complexities and wonders could have evolved from a non-seeing, non-feeling, unconscious etc. organism.
Is evolution by common descent reality?
Why do you believe this?
If this is what your definition is: The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor then no.
See above.
Is the big bang factual?
Why do you believe this?
Can you post the definition to which you are referring?
-
Yes Master! ;D
I believe God created the world. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that everything on earth and the fact that earth supports all kinds of life happened through chaos or chance. I believe earth has a designer and a sustainer and that is God.
Don't know.
Yes. See above.
I believe God created life which of course includes humans. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that humans, with all of our complexities and wonders could have evolved from a non-seeing, non-feeling, unconscious etc. organism.
If this is what your definition is: The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor then no.
See above.
Can you post the definition to which you are referring?
I guess you have never heard of self-organisation?
Self-organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties.
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 History of the idea
3 Examples
3.1 Self-organization in physics
3.2 Self-organization vs. entropy
3.3 Self-organization in chemistry
3.4 Self-organization in biology
3.5 Self-organization in mathematics and computer science
3.6 Self-organization in cybernetics
3.7 Self-organization in human society
3.7.1 In economics
3.7.2 In collective intelligence
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
[edit] Overview
The most robust and unambiguous examples of self-organizing systems are from physics. Self-organization is also relevant in chemistry, where it has often been taken as being synonymous with self-assembly. The concept of self-organization is central to the description of biological systems, from the subcellular to the ecosystem level. There are also cited examples of "self-organizing" behaviour found in the literature of many other disciplines, both in the natural sciences and the social sciences such as economics or anthropology. Self-organization has also been observed in mathematical systems such as cellular automata.
Sometimes the notion of self-organization is conflated with that of the related concept of emergence. Properly defined, however, there may be instances of self-organization without emergence and emergence without self-organization, and it is clear from the literature that the phenomena are not the same. The link between emergence and self-organization remains an active research question.
Self-organization usually relies on four basic ingredients:
Positive feedback
Negative feedback
Balance of exploitation and exploration
Multiple interactions
[edit] History of the idea
The idea that the dynamics of a system can tend by themselves to increase the inherent order of a system has a long history. One of the earliest statements of this idea was by the philosopher Descartes, in the fifth part of his Discourse on Method, where he presents it hypothetically.[citation needed] Descartes further elaborated on the idea at great length in his unpublished work The World.
The ancient atomists (among others) believed that a designing intelligence was unnecessary, arguing that given enough time and space and matter, organization was ultimately inevitable, although there would be no preferred tendency for this to happen. What Descartes introduced was the idea that the ordinary laws of nature tend to produce organization[citation needed] (For related history, see Aram Vartanian, Diderot and Descartes).
Beginning with the 18th century naturalists a movement arose that sought to understand the "universal laws of form" in order to explain the observed forms of living organisms. Because of its association with Lamarckism, their ideas fell into disrepute until the early 20th century, when pioneers such as D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson revived them. The modern understanding is that there are indeed universal laws (arising from fundamental physics and chemistry) that govern growth and form in biological systems.
The term "self-organizing" seems to have been first introduced in 1947 by the psychiatrist and engineer W. Ross Ashby. It was taken up by the cyberneticians Heinz von Foerster, Gordon Pask, Stafford Beer and Norbert Wiener himself in the second edition of his "Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine" (MIT Press 1961). Self-organization as a word and concept was used by those associated with general systems theory in the 1960s, but did not become commonplace in the scientific literature until its adoption by physicists and researchers in the field of complex systems in the 1970s and 1980s.[1]
[edit] Examples
The following list summarizes and classifies the instances of self-organization found in different disciplines. As the list grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine whether these phenomena are all fundamentally the same process, or the same label applied to several different processes. Self-organization, despite its intuitive simplicity as a concept, has proven notoriously difficult to define and pin down formally or mathematically, and it is entirely possible that any precise definition might not include all the phenomena to which the label has been applied.
It should also be noted that, the farther a phenomenon is removed from physics, the more controversial the idea of self-organization as understood by physicists becomes. Also, even when self-organization is clearly present, attempts at explaining it through physics or statistics are usually criticized as reductionistic.
Similarly, when ideas about self-organization originate in, say, biology or social science, the farther one tries to take the concept into chemistry, physics or mathematics, the more resistance is encountered, usually on the grounds that it implies direction in fundamental physical processes. However the tendency of hot bodies to get cold (see Thermodynamics) and by Le Chatelier's Principle- the statistical mechanics extension of Newton's Third Law- to oppose this tendency should be noted.
[edit] Self-organization in physics
There are several broad classes of physical processes that can be described as self-organization. Such examples from physics include:
structural (order-disorder, first-order) phase transitions, and spontaneous symmetry breaking such as
spontaneous magnetization, crystallization (see crystal growth, and liquid crystal) in the classical domain and
the laser, superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation, in the quantum domain (but with macroscopic manifestations)
second-order phase transitions, associated with "critical points" at which the system exhibits scale-invariant structures. Examples of these include:
critical opalescence of fluids at the critical point
percolation in random media
structure formation in thermodynamic systems away from equilibrium. The theory of dissipative structures of Prigogine and Hermann Haken's Synergetics were developed to unify the understanding of these phenomena, which include lasers, turbulence and convective instabilities (e.g., Bénard cells) in fluid dynamics,
structure formation in astrophysics and cosmology (including star formation, galaxy formation)
self-similar expansion
Diffusion-limited aggregation
percolation
reaction-diffusion systems, such as Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction
self-organizing dynamical systems: complex systems made up of small, simple units connected to each other usually exhibit self-organization
Self-organized criticality (SOC)
In spin foam system and loop quantum gravity that was proposed by Lee Smolin. The main idea is that the evolution of space in time should be robust in general. Any fine-tuning of cosmological parameters weaken the independency of the fundamental theory. Philosophically, it can be assumed that in the early time, there has not been any agent to tune the cosmological parameters. Smolin and his colleagues in a series of works show that, based on the loop quantization of spacetime, in the very early time, a simple evolutionary model (similar to the sand pile model) behaves as a power law distribution on both the size and area of avalanche.
Although, this model, which is restricted only on the frozen spin networks, exhibits a non-stationary expansion of the universe. However, it is the first serious attempt toward the final ambitious goal of determining the cosmic expansion and inflation based on a self-organized criticality theory in which the parameters are not tuned, but instead are determined from within the complex system.[2]
[edit] Self-organization vs. entropy
Statistical mechanics informs us that large scale phenomena can be viewed as a large system of small interacting particles, whose processes are assumed consistent with well established mechanical laws such as entropy, i.e., equilibrium thermodynamics. However, “… following the macroscopic point of view the same physical media can be thought of as continua whose properties of evolution are given by phenomenological laws between directly measurable quantities on our scale, such as, for example, the pressure, the temperature, or the concentrations of the different components of the media. The macroscopic perspective is of interest because of its greater simplicity of formalism and because it is often the only view practicable.” Against this background, Glansdorff and Ilya Prigogine introduced a deeper view at the microscopic level, where “… the principles of thermodynamics explicitly make apparent the concept of irreversibility and along with it the concept of dissipation and temporal orientation which were ignored by classical (or quantum) dynamics, where the time appears as a simple parameter and the trajectories are entirely reversible.”[3]
As a result, processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium.
A LASER (acronym for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation”) can also be characterized as a self organized system to the extent that normal states of thermal equilibrium characterized by electromagnetic energy absorption are stimulated out of equilibrium in a reverse of the absorption process. “If the matter can be forced out of thermal equilibrium to a sufficient degree, so that the upper state has a higher population than the lower state (population inversion), then more stimulated emission than absorption occurs, leading to coherent growth (amplification or gain) of the electromagnetic wave at the transition frequency.”[4]
[edit] Self-organization in chemistry
Self-organization in chemistry includes:
molecular self-assembly
reaction-diffusion systems and oscillating chemical reactions
autocatalytic networks (see: autocatalytic set)
liquid crystals
colloidal crystals
self-assembled monolayers
micelles
microphase separation of block copolymers
Langmuir-Blodgett films
[edit] Self-organization in biology
According to Scott Camazine.. [et al.]:
“ In biological systems self-organization is a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower-level components of the system. Moreover, the rules specifying interactions among the system's components are executed using only local information, without reference to the global pattern.[5] ”
The following is an incomplete list of the diverse phenomena which have been described as self-organizing in biology.
spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules
formation of lipid bilayer membranes
homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from the cell to the whole organism)
pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living organism develops and grows. See also embryology.
the coordination of human movement, e.g. seminal studies of bimanual coordination by Kelso
the creation of structures by social animals, such as social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals
flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by birds, schools of fish, etc.)
the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical systems, in the theories of hypercycles and autocatalytic networks
the organization of Earth's biosphere in a way that is broadly conducive to life (according to the controversial Gaia hypothesis)
[edit] Self-organization in mathematics and computer science
As mentioned above, phenomena from mathematics and computer science such as cellular automata, random graphs, and some instances of evolutionary computation and artificial life exhibit features of self-organization. In swarm robotics, self-organization is used to produce emergent behavior. In particular the theory of random graphs has been used as a justification for self-organization as a general principle of complex systems. In the field of multi-agent systems, understanding how to engineer systems that are capable of presenting self-organized behavior is a very active research area.
[edit] Self-organization in cybernetics
Wiener regarded the automatic serial identification of a black box and its subsequent reproduction as sufficient to meet the condition of self-organization.[6] The importance of phase locking or the "attraction of frequencies", as he called it, is discussed in the 2nd edition of his "Cybernetics".[7] Drexler sees self-replication as a key step in nano and universal assembly.
By contrast, the four concurrently connected galvanometers of W. Ross Ashby's homeostat hunt, when perturbed, to converge on one of many possible stable states.[8] Ashby used his state counting measure of variety[9] to describe stable states and produced the "Good Regulator"[10] theorem which required internal models for self-organized endurance and stability.
Warren McCulloch proposed "Redundancy of Potential Command"[11] as characteristic of the organization of the brain and human nervous system and the necessary condition for self-organization.
Heinz von Foerster proposed Redundancy, R = 1- H/Hmax , where H is entropy.[12] In essence this states that unused potential communication bandwidth is a measure of self-organization.
In the 1970s Stafford Beer considered this condition as necessary for autonomy which identifies self-organization in persisting and living systems. Using Variety analyses he applied his neurophysiologically derived recursive Viable System Model to management. It consists of five parts: the monitoring of performance[13] of the survival processes (1), their management by recursive application of regulation (2), homeostatic operational control (3) and development (4) which produce maintenance of identity (5) under environmental perturbation. Focus is prioritized by an "algedonic loop" feedback:[14] a sensitivity to both pain and pleasure.
In the 1990s Gordon Pask pointed out von Foerster's H and Hmax were not independent and interacted via countably infinite recursive concurrent spin processes[15] (he favoured the Bohm interpretation) which he called concepts (liberally defined in any medium, "productive and, incidentally reproductive"). His strict definition of concept "a procedure to bring about a relation"[16] permitted his theorem "Like concepts repel, unlike concepts attract"[17] to state a general spin based Principle of Self-organization. His edict, an exclusion principle, "There are No Doppelgangers"[18] means no two concepts can be the same (all interactions occur with different perpectives making time incommensurable for actors). This means, after sufficient duration as differences assert, all concepts will attract and coalesce as pink noise and entropy increases (and see Big Crunch, self-organized criticality). The theory is applicable to all organizationally closed or homeostatic processes that produce endurance and coherence (also in the sense of Reshcher Coherence Theory of Truth with the proviso that the sets and their members exert repulsive forces at their boundaries) through interactions: evolving, learning and adapting.
Pask's Interactions of actors "hard carapace" model is reflected in some of the ideas of emergence and coherence. It requires a knot emergence topology that produces radiation during interaction with a unit cell that has a prismatic tensegrity structure. Laughlin's contribution to emergence reflects some of these constraints.
[edit] Self-organization in human society
The self-organizing behaviour of social animals and the self-organization of simple mathematical structures both suggest that self-organization should be expected in human society. Tell-tale signs of self-organization are usually statistical properties shared with self-organizing physical systems (see Zipf's law, power law, Pareto principle). Examples such as Critical Mass, herd behaviour, groupthink and others, abound in sociology, economics, behavioral finance and anthropology.[19]
In social theory the concept of self-referentiality has been introduced as a sociological application of self-organization theory by Niklas Luhmann (1984). For Luhmann the elements of a social system are self-producing communications, i.e. a communication produces further communications and hence a social system can reproduce itself as long as there is dynamic communication. For Luhmann human beings are sensors in the environment of the system. Luhmann put forward a functional theory of society.
Self-organization in human and computer networks can give rise to a decentralized, distributed, self-healing system, protecting the security of the actors in the network by limiting the scope of knowledge of the entire system held by each individual actor. The Underground Railroad is a good example of this sort of network. The networks that arise from drug trafficking exhibit similar self-organizing properties. Parallel examples exist in the world of privacy-preserving computer networks such as Tor. In each case, the network as a whole exhibits distinctive synergistic behavior through the combination of the behaviors of individual actors in the network. Usually the growth of such networks is fueled by an ideology or sociological force that is adhered to or shared by all participants in the network.
[edit] In economics
In economics, a market economy is sometimes said to be self-organizing. Friedrich Hayek coined the term catallaxy to describe a "self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation," in regard to capitalism. Most modern economists hold that imposing central planning usually makes the self-organized economic system less efficient. By contrast, some socialist economists consider that market failures are so significant that self-organization produces bad results and that the state should direct production and pricing. Many economists adopt an intermediate position and recommend a mixture of market economy and command economy characteristics (sometimes called a mixed economy). When applied to economics, the concept of self-organization can quickly become ideologically-imbued (as explained in chapter 5 of A. Marshall, The Unity of Nature, Imperial College Press, 2002).
[edit] In collective intelligence
Non-thermodynamic concepts of entropy and self-organization have been explored by many theorists. Cliff Joslyn and colleagues and their so-called "global brain" projects. Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind" and the no-central editor in charge policy of the open sourced internet encyclopedia, called Wikipedia, are examples of applications of these principles - see collective intelligence.
Donella Meadows, who codified twelve leverage points that a self-organizing system could exploit to organize itself, was one of a school of theorists who saw human creativity as part of a general process of adapting human lifeways to the planet and taking humans out of conflict with natural processes. See Gaia philosophy, deep ecology, ecology movement and Green movement for similar self-organizing ideals. (The connections between self-organisation and Gaia theory and the environmental movement are explored in A. Marshall, 2002, The Unity of Nature, Imperial College Press: London).
None of the reasons you presented are cemented in evidence, they are all faith claims.
-
I guess you have never heard of self-organisation?
None of the reasons you presented are cemented in evidence, they are all faith claims.
thank you, the increase in complexity of simple molecules displaying emergent phenomenon is well documented. It takes no faith and explains the complexity or life, along with evolution we have an explanation.
To think anythign otherwise is ridiculous and to ignore reality.
-
thank you, the increase in complexity of simple molecules displaying emergent phenomenon is well documented. It takes no faith and explains the complexity or life, along with evolution we have an explanation.
To think anythign otherwise is ridiculous and to ignore reality.
Head meet wall.
-
Head meet wall.
hardcore all the way hardcore
-
hardcore all the way hardcore
The fundies definitely are.
-
&feature=related
-
Yes Master! ;D
I believe God created the world. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that everything on earth and the fact that earth supports all kinds of life happened through chaos or chance. I believe earth has a designer and a sustainer and that is God.
What suggests to you that a God exists and that the Bible is true?
The scientific view is not that live evolved through chance. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance. That which can survive best, is more likely to survive, and added up means a lot of diversity.
Don't know.
Does the bible suggest an age for the world?
Can you post the definition to which you are referring?
12-13 billion years ago the universe was a tiny thing and then started expanding very fast.
-
12-13 billion years ago the universe was a tiny thing and then started expanding very fast.
Yip Yip
-
How did the world form?
A huge start once exploded, the fusion reactions that occurred in its core provided all the elements that are so abundant on Earth. Earth formed within a perfect distance away from the new forming star to accumulate matter containing these life friendly elements, plus a nice distance as to be not so hot / cold. Asteroids, and the collision with the huge object that would result in the creation of the moon also helped shape Earth, maybe even pushing it in an more suitable orbit to produce life.
How old is the world?
4.5 Billion
Did God play any role in the world being formed?
None what soever.
How did humans appear on earth?
Evolution via the means of natural selection, best described by Charles Darwin.
Is evolution by common descent reality?
Why do you believe this?
Is the big bang factual?
Probably, there does seem to be an epicenter to the Universe; which leads me to believe their was a sudden expansion of matter from a small point.
-
Carbon dating is used to determine the age of things on the Earth, some of which are more than 6000 years old which puts the fundamental understanding of the book of the OT into question-that's why I mentioned it.
Carbon used as a source in radiometric dating is only capable of going back 60000 years, gotta use different elemental isotopes to stretch back further in time.
-
I guess you have never heard of self-organisation?
Can you summarize your quote to apply it to my post to which you are referring?
None of the reasons you presented are cemented in evidence, they are all faith claims.
Very good.
-
What suggests to you that a God exists and that the Bible is true?
I believe that all that is did not just "happen." I believe we and even a single cell are too complex to have just occurred from nothing. SOme people may believe that matter always existed and if that was the case I still don't see things like vision springing forth from some life form because it would assist in it's survival.
I see no inexplicable contradictions in the Bible which makes me believe it was divinely inspired. I know that some people believe that it is full of contradictions but from what I've seen some are not open to possible explanations.
The salvation message in the Bible and me accepting Christ as Savior has changed my life and others around me (as far as I can tell ;D). I feel peace like never before in my life, happier than I was before... etc.
The scientific view is not that live evolved through chance. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance. That which can survive best, is more likely to survive, and added up means a lot of diversity.
Do you believe that life began as a single organism and evolved from there?
Does the bible suggest an age for the world?
No.
12-13 billion years ago the universe was a tiny thing and then started expanding very fast.
Why do you believe this?
-
I believe that all that is did not just "happen." I believe we and even a single cell are too complex to have just occurred from nothing. SOme people may believe that matter always existed and if that was the case I still don't see things like vision springing forth from some life form because it would assist in it's survival.
I see no inexplicable contradictions in the Bible which makes me believe it was divinely inspired. I know that some people believe that it is full of contradictions but from what I've seen some are not open to possible explanations.
The salvation message in the Bible and me accepting Christ as Savior has changed my life and others around me (as far as I can tell ;D). I feel peace like never before in my life, happier than I was before... etc.
Do you believe that life began as a single organism and evolved from there?
No.
Why do you believe this?
I guess all the leading scientists of the world are wrong and you are right, huh? Why don't you give them your reasons and they might change their minds.
-
I guess all the leading scientists of the world are wrong and you are right, huh? Why don't you give them your reasons and they might change their minds.
Oh brother ;D
Can you summarize your quote to apply it to my post to which you are referring?
bump
-
I believe that all that is did not just "happen." I believe we and even a single cell are too complex to have just occurred from nothing. SOme people may believe that matter always existed and if that was the case I still don't see things like vision springing forth from some life form because it would assist in it's survival.
you do beleive that the universe came from nothing, that god just magically made it. Scientists on the other hand do not beleive this and have evidence that nothing never existed.
-
you do beleive that the universe came from nothing, that god just magically made it. Scientists on the other hand do not beleive this and have evidence that nothing never existed.
Do you believe that life just magically started from nothing to something, just like a coincidence? And, what do you mean by evidence that nothing never existed?
-
Do you believe that life just magically started from nothing to something, just like a coincidence? And, what do you mean by evidence that nothing never existed?
what?
no of course not. Nothing has never existed, something has always existed this is based on logic. However religious people beleive something can come from nothing, that the universe was just created by god, whole. Bang, magic.
-
If by God you, people who read that mistranslated book which was heavily edited by the pope in the 1300s', mean a Supreme Being to our standards I'm with you.
I do believe there is life " out there ".
Could it seem godlike to us - why not?
Could Milkyway be just some fuckup experiment - it could.
-
you do beleive that the universe came from nothing, that god just magically made it. Scientists on the other hand do not beleive this and have evidence that nothing never existed.
What is the evidence?
-
What is the evidence?
energy can neither be created nor destroyed hence energy also existed, you can convert energy into matter but the amt in the universe stays the same. from the big bang which is the leading theory in cosmology we can infer that expansion from an infinitely dense point with the same energy as we have now. No change.
Perhaps the universe osscilates? perhaps their are continual big bangs all i know is that something is eternal and it happens to be energy. No one truly knows what energy is but we can measure and manipulate it, making it not god if that was an argument you were striving for.
stella you beleive the universe came from nothing and yet christians try to pin this argument on scientists.
-
Necrosis, do you feel that a live person has different (less) energy than a dead one?
If so, what do you think happens to the energy of a live person when they die?
-
Necrosis, do you feel that a live person has different (less) energy than a dead one?
If so, what do you think happens to the energy of a live person when they die?
no they dont. There organs fail and the energy required to live is dissipated into the surroundings and the cycle begins.
-
no they dont. There organs fail and the energy required to live is dissipated into the surroundings and the cycle begins.
So a person's energy is merely what it took to keep the organs functioning?
Where in the surroundings does the energy go?
What do you mean "and the cycle begins?"
-
So a person's energy is merely what it took to keep the organs functioning?
Where in the surroundings does the energy go?
What do you mean "and the cycle begins?"
yes, a level of complexity which aids in its own coherence. I have no idea where the energy goes, it doesnt go anywhere mind you, just changes, the amount is the same.
i meant to say the cycle begins anew. :D
-
I believe that all that is did not just "happen." I believe we and even a single cell are too complex to have just occurred from nothing. SOme people may believe that matter always existed and if that was the case I still don't see things like vision springing forth from some life form because it would assist in it's survival.
The single cells didn't occur from nothing. They occurred from complex chains of amino acids and organic matter.
Matter was created at the Big bang.
I see no inexplicable contradictions in the Bible which makes me believe it was divinely inspired. I know that some people believe that it is full of contradictions but from what I've seen some are not open to possible explanations.
At creation, which came first, the humans or the various 'beasts'?
Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a Colt or an Ass?
Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
Has anyone visually seen God?
How did Judas die?
Does God ever change or is he unchanging?
Was God pleased or displeased with his creations?
Who lived the flood beside Noah, his family and the Animals on the Ark? Did the Nephilim die in the flood or did they live the flood?
Does God ever tempt?
Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
Where did Aaron die?
The salvation message in the Bible and me accepting Christ as Savior has changed my life and others around me (as far as I can tell ;D). I feel peace like never before in my life, happier than I was before... etc.
But does this lend credibility to the bible or to Christianity? What about people who's lives are positively changed who convert to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism?
Do you believe that life began as a single organism and evolved from there?
Yes.
No.
What about the Usher Chronology? Was he incorrect in his calculations? How?
Why do you believe this?
That's what the evidence supports. Cosmic background radiation, Hubble diagram, the ages of the stars, dark matter and dark energy, and many other very complicated tests and effects which support this scenario I described.
-
energy can neither be created nor destroyed hence energy also existed, you can convert energy into matter but the amt in the universe stays the same. from the big bang which is the leading theory in cosmology we can infer that expansion from an infinitely dense point with the same energy as we have now. No change.
Perhaps the universe osscilates? perhaps their are continual big bangs all i know is that something is eternal and it happens to be energy. No one truly knows what energy is but we can measure and manipulate it, making it not god if that was an argument you were striving for.
stella you beleive the universe came from nothing and yet christians try to pin this argument on scientists.
Saying that the universe came from something or came from nothing makes no sense in the context of the big bang. Some physicists believe that the universe could have come from nothing, like quantum fluctuations.
-
Necrosis, do you feel that a live person has different (less) energy than a dead one?
If so, what do you think happens to the energy of a live person when they die?
When a person dies, the energy is still there, but it can't be used because the body is not functioning. The caloric energy, or potential caloric energy in fat or food, is all still there but nothing can be done with it for the body since the body isn't functioning. The energy and mass do eventually dissipate into the environment though, when the body rots away.
-
Saying that the universe came from something or came from nothing makes no sense in the context of the big bang. Some physicists believe that the universe could have come from nothing, like quantum fluctuations.
agreed, a actual singularity never existed it is simply a cosmological model represented by elequent mathematics. From a purely philosophical standpoint something has to be eternal. Nothingness would negate existence for eternity.
I am aware that quantum fluctuations occur out of nothingness in a physicist sense.
-
yes, a level of complexity which aids in its own coherence. I have no idea where the energy goes, it doesnt go anywhere mind you, just changes, the amount is the same.
i meant to say the cycle begins anew. :D
anew..OK!
By this do you mean the cycle of life? If so, are you saying that the energy from a dead person goes into an embryo?
-
At creation, which came first, the humans or the various 'beasts'?
Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a Colt or an Ass?
Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
Has anyone visually seen God?
How did Judas die?
Does God ever change or is he unchanging?
Was God pleased or displeased with his creations?
Who lived the flood beside Noah, his family and the Animals on the Ark? Did the Nephilim die in the flood or did they live the flood?
Does God ever tempt?
Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
Where did Aaron die?
Hope it's OK if I make another thread on these!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=251189.0
-
The single cells didn't occur from nothing. They occurred from complex chains of amino acids and organic matter.
Matter was created at the Big bang.
So the complex chains of amino acids were created at the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
But does this lend credibility to the bible or to Christianity? What about people who's lives are positively changed who convert to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism?
Yes. Accuracy of Prophecy is also another reason I believe the bible to be true.
Additionally, the grace/faith approach presented in the bible makes more sense to me than a works-based "religion."
Yes.
What are your thoughts on the fact that now in general 2 people or animals are needed to reproduce?
What about the Usher Chronology? Was he incorrect in his calculations? How?
Ussher doesn't seem to allow for Genesis 1:1-2 not stating how long the earth lay formless and empty and the Spirit of God wa hovering over the waters.
I used to read quickly over that also, and assumed that those verses should be married in time immediately with the rest of chapter one, but it is not stated that way. (I think I learned that from loco :) ).
That's what the evidence supports. Cosmic background radiation, Hubble diagram, the ages of the stars, dark matter and dark energy, and many other very complicated tests and effects which support this scenario I described.
Would you think it fair to say you have "faith" that what you have learned about the above is true?
-
anew..OK!
By this do you mean the cycle of life? If so, are you saying that the energy from a dead person goes into an embryo?
it could theoretically but no one knows,all we know is that the universe is a steady state with regards to energy. Also just from your other response, you cant ask what caused the big bang and time came into existence in a defined epoch.It is the beginning of baryonic matter formation and the universe as we know it.
We dont know anything beyond the big bang if there is anything to know at all.
-
it could theoretically but no one knows,all we know is that the universe is a steady state with regards to energy. Also just from your other response, you cant ask what caused the big bang and time came into existence in a defined epoch.It is the beginning of baryonic matter formation and the universe as we know it.
We dont know anything beyond the big bang if there is anything to know at all.
OK, thanks.
You may have answered this but do you believe that non-baryonic matter existed before the big bang?
Also, regarding energy, how do you think it works out that the energy to bring an embryo to life knows to occupy that embryo?
-
OK, thanks.
You may have answered this but do you believe that non-baryonic matter existed before the big bang?
Also, regarding energy, how do you think it works out that the energy to bring an embryo to life knows to occupy that embryo?
well in that case it is matter. The questions you are asking are resting on assumptions that there is something to know in conception apart from the mechinistic determination of the parts. that is, sperm swim to the fallopian tubes, penetrate the egg, form a zygote,a morula etc etc.. a baby comes out. You are suggesting that energy has to have some inherent sentience to choose to create life, you are suggesting that this is the only avenue, perhaps because you believe in god. I simply dont know and will side with the evidence regardless of the outcome.
I dont know with regards to your first question, i am not equipped with enough knowledge of cosmology nor mathematics to understand the singularity or the big bang fully. It is a complex theory, i know the basics. I use to think an actual singularity exsited, however i was corrected by a cosmologist that it is more of a mathematical representation and not a real event. Our laws, our math breaks down at a point. Quantum gravity may allow us to go back further, but as you can imagine to recite the beginning of the universe is a difficult concept since we are going back in time.
Trust me i wish there was a god, a loving god who would take me into heaven and make all the wrongs right. I wish that the things i do in life matter in the grand scheme of things, that my loved ones will be waiting for me. Sadly it doesnt look like any of that is true and i have no reason to believe it to be so. So i sober up and take in reality and roll with the punches. My life has more meaning when i live it as if it is my only one, as if i can create purpose. If i live for eternity nothing i do matters because there is no end, eternity attenuates purpose and meaning.
-
well in that case it is matter. The questions you are asking are resting on assumptions that there is something to know in conception apart from the mechinistic determination of the parts. that is, sperm swim to the fallopian tubes, penetrate the egg, form a zygote,a morula etc etc.. a baby comes out. You are suggesting that energy has to have some inherent sentience to choose to create life, you are suggesting that this is the only avenue, perhaps because you believe in god. I simply dont know and will side with the evidence regardless of the outcome.
I dont know with regards to your first question, i am not equipped with enough knowledge of cosmology nor mathematics to understand the singularity or the big bang fully. It is a complex theory, i know the basics. I use to think an actual singularity exsited, however i was corrected by a cosmologist that it is more of a mathematical representation and not a real event. Our laws, our math breaks down at a point. Quantum gravity may allow us to go back further, but as you can imagine to recite the beginning of the universe is a difficult concept since we are going back in time.
Necrosis, thank you for your sincere responses. They are very informative and I appreciate the manner in which they are delivered :)
Trust me i wish there was a god, a loving god who would take me into heaven and make all the wrongs right. I wish that the things i do in life matter in the grand scheme of things, that my loved ones will be waiting for me. Sadly it doesnt look like any of that is true and i have no reason to believe it to be so. So i sober up and take in reality and roll with the punches. My life has more meaning when i live it as if it is my only one, as if i can create purpose. If i live for eternity nothing i do matters because there is no end, eternity attenuates purpose and meaning.
Necrosis, have you ever considered asking God to show you He is real? I know you believe He is not there but it's just something I think you may want to try.
Thanks again for the info :)
-
I believe God created the world. I believe the bible is true and I also don't have enough faith to believe that everything on earth and the fact that earth supports all kinds of life happened through chaos or chance. I believe earth has a designer and a sustainer and that is God.
Don't know.
Stella, just curious, are you familiar with the basic conception of probability and random process?
Its just that you are using words "chaos" and "chance" and claim that you don't believe the world evolves by them, but just what exactly is your understanding of these notions?
-
So the complex chains of amino acids were created at the big bang?
No. They formed much later.
What caused the big bang?
I don't know.
Yes.
What about people who's lives are positively changed who convert to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism?
Additionally, the grace/faith approach presented in the bible makes more sense to me than a works-based "religion."
What do you mean?
What are your thoughts on the fact that now in general 2 people or animals are needed to reproduce?
It was evolutionarily beneficial. It added more genetic diversity. There are still some species that reproduce asexually.
Ussher doesn't seem to allow for Genesis 1:1-2 not stating how long the earth lay formless and empty and the Spirit of God wa hovering over the waters.
But do you 'know' that it was left formless for a long period of time, opposed to the basic "day" used in Genesis? Is there any reason to believe that the "day" used would mean anything longer than 24 hours?
Also, Genesis 1 says that Earth and the Heavens were made first. The truth is that the earth was formed a long time after the rest of the universe formed. The universe is about 13 billion years old, compared to the 4 billion year old earth. Why did Genesis get this wrong?
I used to read quickly over that also, and assumed that those verses should be married in time immediately with the rest of chapter one, but it is not stated that way. (I think I learned that from loco :) ).
It's convenient to think that isn't it? But what justification do you have to assume that it is that way? That the "day" means anything longer than 12 or 24 hours?
Would you think it fair to say you have "faith" that what you have learned about the above is true?
No. That's all supported by facts and observations.
Faith is what isn't seen, isn't observed, isn't proven, isn't supported, etc.
-
Stella, just curious, are you familiar with the basic conception of probability and random process?
Its just that you are using words "chaos" and "chance" and claim that you don't believe the world evolves by them, but just what exactly is your understanding of these notions?
If you are saying that things like diff. species, vision, emotions and a sense of right and wrong etc. can be explained by probability and random process then, no I must not be very familiar w/them.
Do you have a link to which you can direct me so I can learn a bit more please?
-
What about people who's lives are positively changed who convert to Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism?
What about them? I don't understand the question? You saw I paired the last time you asked w/the below?
Yes. Accuracy of Prophecy is also another reason I believe the bible to be true.
What do you mean?
I mean it's easier for me to accept a grace/faith approach as in, you believe in Christ as Savior, you're in.
If it is a works-based religion, it is hard for me to accept that there is anything I can DO to be saved. Some people think it's a be more good than bad type thing or perform these certain rituals however many times and do this and that and you're in, but don't do this or your bad outweighs your good etc etc... So do you gain and lose your salvation possibly many times in a single day?
Christianity focuses on Christ and what He did for us, works-based religions are more self-focused. Christianity is about accepting Christ and helping others. If you look at society, if a person is mostly self-focused there can be perpetual negative consequences coming directly from that, little peace etc. A grace/faith...focus on others approach makes more sense to me than a self-focus approach.
It was evolutionarily beneficial. It added more genetic diversity. There are still some species that reproduce asexually.
But how can it be seen as beneficial? If 2 aren't available (in most species) then won't extinction occur?
But do you 'know' that it was left formless for a long period of time, opposed to the basic "day" used in Genesis? Is there any reason to believe that the "day" used would mean anything longer than 24 hours?
Do I "know" no. Are you talking about creating the earth or how long it was hanging around before God created life?
I believe He could have created it in one basic day, sure. But aren't we talking about how long it could have been created before He created life? There is no specific statement there about that.
It's convenient to think that isn't it? But what justification do you have to assume that it is that way? That the "day" means anything longer than 12 or 24 hours?
Could be a day as we know it but also there is also scripture that says a day w/the Lord is as 1000 years.
No. They formed much later.
No. That's all supported by facts and observations.
Faith is what isn't seen, isn't observed, isn't proven, isn't supported, etc.
You said earlier that amino chains were formed after the big bang. Would you say you have faith that what you have learned about this is true?
You see my point that scientists have theorized things that you have learned from them and now you accept those things as true? I'm sure you know that no scientists were there watching the first amino chains being formed right?
We both have faith :)
-
You said earlier that amino chains were formed after the big bang. Would you say you have faith that what you have learned about this is true?
You see my point that scientists have theorized things that you have learned from them and now you accept those things as true? I'm sure you know that no scientists were there watching the first amino chains being formed right?
We both have faith :)
totally different, we know how amino acids replicate, the intimacy with DNA, enzymes etc... theories are collections of facts. These theories are tested and whatever the outcome is accepted. Faith has no evidence, self replicating molecules are fact.
-
What about them? I don't understand the question? You saw I paired the last time you asked w/the below?
If having one's life positively changed due to Christianity is evidence of Christianity, How is having one's live positively changed due to Islam or Buddhism not evidence for those belief systems?
I mean it's easier for me to accept a grace/faith approach as in, you believe in Christ as Savior, you're in.
If it is a works-based religion, it is hard for me to accept that there is anything I can DO to be saved. Some people think it's a be more good than bad type thing or perform these certain rituals however many times and do this and that and you're in, but don't do this or your bad outweighs your good etc etc... So do you gain and lose your salvation possibly many times in a single day?
Christianity focuses on Christ and what He did for us, works-based religions are more self-focused. Christianity is about accepting Christ and helping others. If you look at society, if a person is mostly self-focused there can be perpetual negative consequences coming directly from that, little peace etc. A grace/faith...focus on others approach makes more sense to me than a self-focus approach.
Didn't Jesus say that a man's faith is justified by the works that he does and not his faith alone?
James 2:24; Rom. 3:20, Matt. 5:16, James 2:22
But how can it be seen as beneficial? If 2 aren't available (in most species) then won't extinction occur?
Yes, but obviously the genetic diversity added by sexual reproduction outweighed the disadvantage of the possibility of not finding a mate. Though, in almost all species, there is an abundance of possible mates, but only those most fit or appealing tend to mate, which is natural selection.
Do I "know" no. Are you talking about creating the earth or how long it was hanging around before God created life?
I believe He could have created it in one basic day, sure. But aren't we talking about how long it could have been created before He created life? There is no specific statement there about that.
Why believe that it was sitting around for billions of years before he put life on it or before he put humans on it? What biblical passage supports this idea?
Could be a day as we know it but also there is also scripture that says a day w/the Lord is as 1000 years.
This doesn't mean that it was actually sitting around for that long.
You said earlier that amino chains were formed after the big bang. Would you say you have faith that what you have learned about this is true?
No. Various observations tell us what did exist right after the big bang, which elements, etc. It would not have been possible for amino acids to form until the necessary elements had formed. This means it happened after the big bang. Not faith, reason.
You see my point that scientists have theorized things that you have learned from them and now you accept those things as true? I'm sure you know that no scientists were there watching the first amino chains being formed right?
The problem with your statement: People don't need to directly see something to know that it happened. If this were true then forensic people or CSI would never be able to prove anything.
If I see footprints leading in the mud, do I need to see the person as they make them to assume that a person made these footprints? No. If I see various facts which provide understandings of what happened millions or billions of years ago, do I need to observe these things as they happened to know things about them? No.
Plus, did you know that light travels at a certain speed? It takes a certain amount of time for light across the universe to reach us here on earth. This means that some light traveling to us here on earth is billions of years old, some of it is actually as old as the universe. This means that what we see at the farthest reaches of the universe ARE the lights created during or right after the big bang.
We both have faith :)
I really don't. It would depend on how you define "faith", for instance some definitions have it as simply "belief", but I do NOT believe in things that I can't prove to be true or have no evidence are true, even a little evidence.
-
If you are saying that things like diff. species, vision, emotions and a sense of right and wrong etc. can be explained by probability and random process then, no I must not be very familiar w/them.
Do you have a link to which you can direct me so I can learn a bit more please?
not by random processes in anyway better that by theological ones (which you, as far as I understand, uphold)
-
Did God play any role in the world being formed? God is everything and all that is, and maybe even all that isn't, if such a thing is possible.
That's what I believe.
-
totally different, we know how amino acids replicate, the intimacy with DNA, enzymes etc... theories are collections of facts. These theories are tested and whatever the outcome is accepted. Faith has no evidence, self replicating molecules are fact.
Have you seen them replicate?
-
If having one's life positively changed due to Christianity is evidence of Christianity, How is having one's live positively changed due to Islam or Buddhism not evidence for those belief systems?
You'd probably have to add the other things I said as evidence for me. I suppose someone who joins a cult that worships a comet may feel their lives have positively changed.
Didn't Jesus say that a man's faith is justified by the works that he does and not his faith alone?
James 2:24; Rom. 3:20, Matt. 5:16, James 2:22
No. Of the above, the only scripture in which Jesus is speaking is Matt 5:16 which says:
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
...doesn't say anything about being justified by works.
Why believe that it was sitting around for billions of years before he put life on it or before he put humans on it? What biblical passage supports this idea?
Why not? It is a possibility isn't it? Are you saying it's not a possibility? I don't know a passage that supports the idea other than the one we were talking about in the first place that didn't commit either way.
Yes, but obviously the genetic diversity added by sexual reproduction outweighed the disadvantage of the possibility of not finding a mate. Though, in almost all species, there is an abundance of possible mates, but only those most fit or appealing tend to mate, which is natural selection.
Do you feel genetic diversity couldn't have "happened" w/o 2 beings needed for reproduction? If so, why?
This doesn't mean that it was actually sitting around for that long.
And it doesn't mean it wasn't it either ;D
No. Various observations tell us what did exist right after the big bang, which elements, etc. It would not have been possible for amino acids to form until the necessary elements had formed. This means it happened after the big bang. Not faith, reason.
liberalismo, did you make these various observations yourself or did you learn about them from another party?
Plus, did you know that light travels at a certain speed? It takes a certain amount of time for light across the universe to reach us here on earth. This means that some light traveling to us here on earth is billions of years old, some of it is actually as old as the universe. This means that what we see at the farthest reaches of the universe ARE the lights created during or right after the big bang.
Yes I realize light travels at a certain speed. I don't know much about some light we see being lights created during the big bang but I've heard that stated before. Do you have a good link on that?
I really don't. It would depend on how you define "faith", for instance some definitions have it as simply "belief", but I do NOT believe in things that I can't prove to be true or have no evidence are true, even a little evidence.
Of course I see what you are saying here but my point is that you have faith or belief that what you have learned from third parties as possibly true. Is there a viewable, provable math equation that proves macro evolution is true?
The problem with your statement: People don't need to directly see something to know that it happened. If this were true then forensic people or CSI would never be able to prove anything.
If I see footprints leading in the mud, do I need to see the person as they make them to assume that a person made these footprints?
You can't always be so sure when assuming things ;D
-
So the complex chains of amino acids were created at the big bang?
What caused the big bang?
STella, nothing "caused" big bang...I know its hard to comprehend by our human way of thinking, but life is NOT an multiple chain of causes and effect, despite of the common perception that it is.
David Hume in the 18th century proved that we can actually never infer a causal relationship - it is impossible. What we can infer, from multiple observations, is that one event is usually followed by the other, and that we can, therefore expect the latter to occur in some fashion whenever we observe the former. But that still doesn't mean the latter is causes by the former, and it is possible (although improbable) that some day one will occur by itself, not followed by the other.
This is where all religions make a fundamental mistake, thinking in teleological manner - everything has to have a cause and divine purpose.
-
You'd probably have to add the other things I said as evidence for me. I suppose someone who joins a cult that worships a comet may feel their lives have positively changed.
Sure. This is why having one's life positively changed due to religion isn't evidence for that religion, or belief.
What other evidence did you list? I can't find it. Was revelation one of them, or something? Prophecy perhaps? Please clarify.
No. Of the above, the only scripture in which Jesus is speaking is Matt 5:16 which says:
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
...doesn't say anything about being justified by works.
So it's only legitimate if Jesus is saying it himself? Is this your view of the New Testament? Anything stated in the bible or by the authors of the gospels of other people is invalid?
Why not? It is a possibility isn't it? Are you saying it's not a possibility? I don't know a passage that supports the idea other than the one we were talking about in the first place that didn't commit either way.
Why not? Well, Is there a good reason to? Is it biblical?
Do you feel genetic diversity couldn't have "happened" w/o 2 beings needed for reproduction? If so, why?
Yes. Random mutations occur even in asexual reproduction, and those mutations can produce change in the genetics which results in more genetic diversity.
And it doesn't mean it wasn't it either ;D
Well, Was it or wasn't it? Do you really know? If you don't know, why believe one way or the other? What reason is there? What justification?
liberalismo, did you make these various observations yourself or did you learn about them from another party?
Both. I usually rely on the published and peer reviewed observations of other people for most of my knowledge of science.
Yes I realize light travels at a certain speed. I don't know much about some light we see being lights created during the big bang but I've heard that stated before. Do you have a good link on that?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/11feb_map.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
Of course I see what you are saying here but my point is that you have faith or belief that what you have learned from third parties as possibly true. Is there a viewable, provable math equation that proves macro evolution is true?
Again, it depends on how you define "faith". If "faith" is defined as a belief without evidence, then I have none of that. Even if I learn things from other people who have studied or observed certain things, their published peer reviewed and repeatable observations are evidence enough.
Is there a math equation proving macro evolution? I doubt it. Evolution is a biological phenomena which really can't be "proven" by math. Evolution is proven via biological means though. Humans have parts of their genetic code which originated from retro-viruses. These retro-viruses each have specific genetic features, and when inside of an animal, they add themselves to the genetic code of the offspring. Humans and other primates have the exact same retro-viruses on the exact same genetic locations, which would be totally impossible unless they both shared a common ancestor which was infected by the virus. This is just one single example of how macro-evolution is totally true and proven, there are many others though.
You can't always be so sure when assuming things ;D
Well, replace "assume" with "conclude". Either way, You don't need to see something as it happens to find evidence later on that it happened. You can prove that something happened at some time in the past based purely on the evidence that is left over today.
-
what?
no of course not. Nothing has never existed, something has always existed this is based on logic Why is this based on logic?. However religious people beleive something can come from nothing, that the universe was just created by god, whole. Bang, magic.
You don't get it, do you. It's atheists who are the ones who think that the universe was created out of nothing. First, according to atheists, there was nothing, and on a certain moment, bang, the universe was created and began to expand. Just by sheer accident. What a coincidence, isn't it? Atheists mistake logic for fantasy.
-
You don't get it, do you. It's atheists who are the ones who think that the universe was created out of nothing. First, according to atheists, there was nothing, and on a certain moment, bang, the universe was created and began to expand. Just by sheer accident. What a coincidence, isn't it? Atheists mistake logic for fantasy.
please explain to me (logically) how the explanation that the world was created out of nothing for no reason is in anyway more absurd than an explanation that a divine spirit created the world out of his(its) own Will?